War and Military History
War and Military History encompasses the causes and effects, the courses and actions, the good and the bad, of warlike activities - from the earliest of times to present actions.
Asked in War and Military History
Who is the best military special forces unit?
This is a matter of opinion, so there is no single correct answer. Here are som opinions and the reasoning: So far Russian Spetsnaz are famously known for being the best. Actually, I'd go with either the superbly trained Navy Seals or Britain's famed SAS as two of the best trained and deadliest special forces units on Earth, at least when it comes to hostage rescue/terrorist takedown missions where stealth, precision, timing, accuracy, nerve, great balance, quick shooting skills and these razor sharp, finely honed reflexes/instincts come into play. There is the Polish Grom, which where created in the 90s to protect Polish citizens behind the border, This unit was trainer by US Navy Seals, US Delta Force and British SAS, so i would say this is one of the best Special/Black ops units in the world. This is also a "Top Secret" unit, Nobody knows the identity of the soldiers and u can say the have No life. Yes the US Air Force does CCT's[Combat ConTrollers] who call in close air support on the ground for ground personnel. And PJ's ParaJumpers extremely well trained medics who usually go on missions with other Special Forces units in case someone gets shot. Joining the Air Force Special Forces is considered the easy way into the Special Forces community. No, not in any way. It, like the US Army Special Forces and Delta Force, as well as the American CIA's Special Operations Group, is a very well-trained and well-rounded group. There is no such thing as one "best" group. The US Navy SEALs, which any legitimate military expert will agree has the roughest physical training of any spec ops group in the world, are not, on average, nearly as crafty as the previously mentioned groups. On that note, though, many members of the SAS, US Army Special Forces, and etc. would be more than capable of being a SEAL, for example. Today, the most successful teams are made up of mutliple spec ops units, and are known as task forces. The one group experts have often declared to be the best is the CIA's NCS's SAD's SOG (Special Operations Group). It is made up entirely of ex-military men. Most have special operations experience, but some have combat experience only. All have performed excellently throughout their military careers, and many have advanced college degrees. The SAS and SBS are regarded by most military experts and officials from around the world to be the best. This is true for the following reasons: - British Army military doctrine and ethos. - Britain's massive and varied military experience. - The fact that SAS selection is regarded as the toughest selection process on the planet. - The fact that the SAS are the oldest and by far the most experienced Special Forces outfit in the world. - The fact that they pioneered the vast majority of Special Forces training methods, tactics, stratagem and techniques - and as a result have trained or modelled by a very large number of SF from around the world, such as DELTA, JTF2 and KSK. - The SAS have such wide varsity of skills within the regiment, this comes from only taking veteran soldiers from such highly trained regiments such as the Paras, RMC's and Royal engineers
How long does the marine corps ball last?
What are Dan Daly and Smedley Butler known for?
Asked in Gorillas, War and Military History
What is gorrilla war?
"Guerilla" warfare. Tactics designed to maximise the effectiveness and the survivability of a force (which may be paramilitary or military) that is usually at a disadvantage numerically, and often in terms of firepower, support elements, supplies, infrastructure, technology, and command and control. Such tactics have also been adopted by larger forces for various reasons, often in secondary campaign areas where the concern is more to harry the enemy and deny him control of an area while the bulk of ones forces are committed elsewhere (for instance, the British Commonwealth's Chindit forces operating in South Asia during the Second World War at a time when the War in Europe and North Africa prevented Britain despatching greater forces to India/Burma). The Swiss Army's primary strategy for defending the country from any invasion, which would almost certainly be by far greater forces, calls for guerilla tactics. The main elements of guerilla warfare are keeping forces broken into small, largelly independent units, which are highly mobile, and try to avoid observation by, or contact with the enemy, except under favourable conditions, and usually relying on surprise attacks and ambushes. Key to success is ensuring the guerilla force is able to choose both the ground and timing of attacks, ideally against small enemy sub-units, far from timely support. After a successful action, the guerilla unit would not normally attempt to hold ground, but quickly escape and evade any possible reinforcements sent to aid the unit they had attacked. The object of guerilla warfare is not to seize or control ground, but to deny the enemy control of the ground, and to tie his forces up in a war of attrition. It should be noted that this way of fighting has traditionally been relied upon for thousands of years by forces whose numerical disadvantage compelled them to, and where the terrain allowed it. Although such tactics are commonly thought of in connection with heavily forested, or mountainous terrain, they have also been adopted by forces fighting in vast, open terrain, where even a much larger enemy force must spread itself thinly. In such terrain, guerillas are often mounted, allowing themselves to quickly move to attack positions, and to escape and evade a following enemy force as rapidly. Examples include the Scythians in resisting the invasion of Scythia by the Persian Empire, and both Boer and British Commonwealth mounted units during the Second Boer War. non traditional way of fighting, mostly surprise attacks
Asked in War and Military History
Does chain mail work?
Absolutely. 4 way interlinked iron chain links making a shirt easily deflects most edged or pointed weapons with only minor bruising. You usually need to wear good leather armor under the chainmail to reduce the bruising. It is just very tedious and expensive to have a blacksmith make quality small but strong link chainmail for you. But chainmail is less expensive than full plate armor. However chainmail will not deflect crossbow bolts or bullets. (neither will plate) Naomirox123 says: Eccles-Jordan Trigger maybe they meant chain-mail as in email! In this case it does not work! It's like a email virus that tells if you dont do "this or that" you'll die or something bad will happen. So just ignore it, nothing bad can happen!
Was Pennsylvania part of the Union or the Confederacy?
The Union - very much so. Pennsylvania had a strong free-soil tradition, and its border with slave-owning Maryland was the Mason-Dixon line that separated North from South. Lee placed a high priority on invading Pennsylvania, both for strategic and symbolic reasons. When he twice failed in this, at Antietam and then Gettysburg, he would shake his first at the sky. "Even the skies are against me in Pennsylvania!" he wailed.
Was President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation a war strategy?
There is no question that the first and the last versions of President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure. And, it had no impact on the foreign policies of either England or France. Both nations had already recognized the Confederacy as a "de-facto" state under international law. The Confederacy met the standards of that connotation because it had a standing army, a constitution, and a fully operative central government. Additionally the US had "blockaded" the Southern ports. The blockade in itself was a measure that indicated the South was a foreign organization.England continued to build warships and supply weapons to the South throughout the war. The notion that the UK did not want to support a slave nation cannot be true inasmuch as they traded for Southern cotton before the war and during it. If the UK was on a normal relations with the United States in 1860, and it was, then it was recognizing the US as a slave nation. Public opinion did not figure into the Crown's foreign policies. To use an exaggeration to make a point, the UK would have assisted the US in the war to quickly continue the importation of cotton, instead of searching elsewhere such as Egypt for a cotton supply. France gave loans to the South after the war began and, it was no friend of the United States as how could it explain the continuing formation of a puppet state in Mexico? With that said, the Emancipation Proclamation was for the US's internal construction. It helped lessen the Radical wing of the Republican Party criticisms of the Lincoln administration but in no way altered the Radicals' view that President Lincoln was running the war as they believed it should be run. With regards to the Battle of Antietam, there is another flaw in the logic of Lincoln's decision to release the Proclamation after a "victory", or even a "decisive victory". When a small "nation" can invade the Union and fight a major battle in the Union's own territory, and be allowed to "escape", to fight again is not an overwhelming victory at all. On the other hand If, the North had invaded the South and won a decisive battle, destroying a major Confederate army on its own turf, then the required victory measure would have been correct. Instead, the reverse could well have taken place. With all that said, President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation can now be defined as a "war measure". President Lincoln did not expect the South to comply with the measures of the Emancipation Proclamation. It was not an ultimatum at all. Lincoln knew this because he religiously tried to convince the slave holding border states to give up slavery via the most generous terms. Payment to the slave owners and a gradual end to slavery over a long as two generations. If the border states were not going to give up their slaves, then neither were the Southern states. With that in mind, the term of war measure, in reality was a reformulation of war aims that implied a change in Lincoln's strategy. President Lincoln, by July of 1862 had abandoned all hope that a series of quick and impressive victories would demonstrate and demoralize the South into negotiations with the North. At that point, perhaps the ultimatum of a gradual abolishment of slavery and compensation would not only save thousands of lives, but keep the United States strong by not having a huge part of its economy wrecked in a long war. He gave up that hope and now believed that a war of subjugation towards the South was the only method to end the rebellion. Lincoln was not a cruel leader, the reformulation, he hoped would also help end the war quickly. The problem would turn out to be that the military requirements to end the war were not met. This was due to the ineptitude of the Union's war making power, and the unexpected resistance of the Southern armies and leaders.
Who was the first King of England?
The first king of all England was Athelstan (c895-939). He became king in 925. Despite any fleeting allegiances they may have wrought, the seven kings previous to Athelstan are known by historians as the 'Kings of Wessex'. Alfred the Great's grandson. King Aethelstan (924- 39) All prior leaders were only kings of Wessex. House of Wessex: Egbert Athelwulf Athelbald Athelbert Ethelred I Alfred (the Great) Edward (the Elder) Athelstan (the Glorius) *First King of ALL England* Edmund I(the Magnificent) Edred Edwy (All Fair) Edgar (the Peaceable) St Edward (the Matyr) Ethelred II (the Unready) House of Denmark: Swen (Forkbeard) House of Wessex and the House of Denmark Ethelred II (restored) Edmund II (Ironside) and Canute House of Denmark: Canute Harold I (Harefoot) Hardicanute House of Wessex (restored) St Edward (The Confessor) Harold II Edgar II (the Atheling) House of Normandy: William I (William the conquerer) William II (William the Rufus) Henry I Stephen I(of Blois) The Empress Mathilda(Maud) House of Plantaganet: Henry II (Henry the Young King, ruled breifly with his father, Henry II until his death) Richard I(The Lionheart) John (Lackland) Henry III Edward I(Longshanks) Edward II Edward III Richard II House of Lancaster: Henry IV (Bolingbroke) Henry V Henry VI House of York: Edward IV Edward V Richard III House of Tudor: Henry VII Henry VIII(King Hal) Edward VI Jane(Nine Days Queen) Mary I(Bloody Mary) Elizabeth I(The Virgin Queen) House of Stuart: James I Charles I Commonwealth(the protectorate): Oliver Cromwell Richard Cromwell House of Stuart(after the restoration): Charles II James II William III (of Orange) and Mary II (ruled jointly) House of Orange: William III(alone) House of Stuart: Anne House of Hanover: George I George II George III(Farmer George) George IV William IV(Reform Bill) Victoria House of Saxe-Coburg: Edward George V VII House of Windsor: George V Edward VIII George VI Elizabeth II edger was the first king of England and crowned in Bath England
Asked in World War 2, War and Military History
How long did World War 2 last?
Length of World War 2 World War II began on September 1, 1939 when German forces invaded Poland. The war in Europe ended when General Alfred Jodl signed the unconditional surrender for all German units on May 9, 1945. The war aginst Japan ended on September 2, 1945 when Japanese officials signed the unconditional surrender documents aboard the battleship USS Missouri. It lasted six years and one day. The war lated six years From September 1, 1939 to September 2, 1945 Exactly six years plus one day.
Asked in World War 1, War and Military History
Who informs family of killed in action soldiers?
It varies from nation and from case to case. Typically a military chaplain and/or another military officer will inform the family. In some cases the wife of the officer commanding the dead soldier's unit will also visit the family during or after the notification. Telegrams are letters are/were also used to deliver death notifications.
Did they bury Civil War soldiers?
Yes. Most Civil War soldiers were burried in mass graves. These mass graves were simply hastily dug trenches, maybe 4-5 feet deep at the maximum. The dead were then cast into these trenches and covered with soil. Mass graves were typically left unmarked, or if they were marked, very little information was left, basically leaving the dead soldiers as 'anonymous'. Some soldiers had the priveledge of being given a proper burial, but they were in the minority. After a major battle resulting in thousands of deaths, the main objective was not to mark who exactly had died, but to simply dispose of the bodies and move on.
Asked in War and Military History
How do molotov cocktails work?
Asked in War and Military History, East Timor
What were the causes of the East Timor conflict?
East Timor Conflict. Prior to WWII, East Timor was a Portuguese colony in what was then the Dutch East Indies. The Netherlands claimed the western portion of the island and the Portuguese the eastern. Following the war, the Dutch East Indies gained its independence and was renamed Indonesia. East Timor was retained as a colony until the Portuguese left the East Timor. To prevent the communist party, the Fretilin regined, The USA supported anti-communist Indonesia effort to annexed the land to Indonesia. The conflict over east Timor was as a result of its control over oil resources and Indonesias appetite for control over as much teritory as posible. Indonesia is a nation made up of many different islands peoples and cultures. when the deal was done that Java was to become the overlord of the area after the Dutch left, East Timor (a Portuguese was in a position to refuse to become part off this newly formed dictatorship. Eventually however after they became independent they were in invaded by the Indonesians with the tacit approval of the Australians as they both intended to share in the oil wealth that was in the east Timor sea. The Timorese were brave Allies to the Australians during WW 2 and many fair minded Australians felt Australia should have come to the aid of the east Timorese rather then leaving them at the mercy of a murderous Indonesian regime They agitated and eventually shamed the Australian government into coming to the aid of WW2 ally. (This was the first place Australia helped that wasn't an a American or English military action.) Australian weaponry has been used throughout the conflict to kill innocent Timorese and Australian reporters reporting on the conflict.
China's involvement in World War 1?
China declared war on Germany in 1917, and China offered to send as much as 40,000 soldiers to France, but France and the Great Britain deemed this to be impractical, instead China sent labourers to man to docks and take care of construction in Europe whilst most of their labourers were on the front lines. In France alone in 1917/18 there were 54,000 -- 96,000 Chinese labourers. But manpower was not the only way in which China made a difference in WW1. When China entered the war, all German ships in Chinese ports were seized by the Chinese state, as were the assets of German banks, notably the Deutsche Asiatische Bank in Shanghai, dealing a blow to German economic capacity. Despite this, after the war China did not receive the recognition and respect it had expected, China's demands at the Paris peace conference were unfulfilled and so China did not sign the Treaty of Versailles.
What is Crossing the T in Naval Warfare?
"Crossing the T", an obsolete but classic Naval warfare tactic. It refers to the tactic used in the days when a line of ships (then using cannons/guns) would form a line and cross the enemy line of ships. In the case of the crossing line, the ships would be facing the enemy line from the port or starboard side (broadside), while the enemy line would be facing forward (only the forward guns could be brought to bear). As each ship crossed the T, all it guns could fire on the enemy line, while the enemy ships could only use its forward guns. The last time it was used in combat was in 1944 at the Battle of Surigao Strait. Since the tactic requires the ships involved to be in a battle line formation, it fell out of use as the use of aircraft bombs and missiles, as well as ship and submarine launched anti-ship cruise missiles, have essentially rendered naval guns obsolete, at least for surface combatant engagements. The term is also used for navigation, where one vessel is trying to intercept another at a given point - where the T is crossed.
How can war change a person for the good or bad?
war can change a person in many ways but the 2 most important are if you are on the front lines you will be able to see things that a person shouldn't witness and this can lead to depression, drinking and being scarred when you go home. Waking up in the middle of the night having nightmares or having delusions of people trying to kill you....... But the good things that resolve are Collage Degrees for Engineering Medical, Leadership...etc. I Hope This Helped You Answer Your Question.. :)
How did Hitler enlist people into the German army?
Who has the best army in the world?
This is a very subjective question, leaving people bound to claim their own country a having the best army in the world. In reality it comes down to what you define as best. If you define best as "which individual Army is most likely to win a war against a foreign power?", then the answer is undoubtedly the United States. Although they have a smaller Army than the Chinese in terms of manpower, their technology is, at this time, far superior making them more likely to succeed in all out war. That said, war is rarely straight forward and allegiances are often formed to bring down a common enemy who could not be defeated by an individual nation. For example, if the United States entered into war with A member of the European Union, the other members would probably come to it's aid. In this situation, the eventual victor of the conflict would probably be the allied Europeans as together they have similar technology to the United States but a greater number of troops and a stronger economy. If the playing field was level in terms of man power and technology the situation changes again, with the emphasis being on the skill of the Individual soldier and the strategy of the army. Here the British probably excel, having regiments like the SAS, Royal Marines and Parachute regiment with a reputation for stringent discipline and intensive training (the Royal Marines have the longest basic training course of any normal infantry soldiers in the world at 33 weeks). Of course the US is not far behind with Delta Force or the Navy SEALs but the size of their special forces makes it harder to train all of the soldiers to the same level that other nations may do. The Gurkhas should probably receive and honorable mention - they fight as part of the British army but hail from Nepal, so in a way they could be seen as an unofficial Nepalese army - in which case they would be the best trained and most skilled of any Army in the world, although lacking technology and manpower, they have proved themselves time and again in conflict. Historically, Britain and America have always been very strong militarily, although Britain has a richer history. Since the official creation of both the British Army, no foreign power has ever managed to invade Britain (although this could also be down to the fact it i an Island nation). The same can be said for the US; once the British left they have had no need to actually defend their country itself - just allies or overseas territories. Compare these two to places that may have faced similar threats militarily, like Russia, France and Germany and their long standing dominance is very impressive. Going back even further, the title of best Army in the world could be given to the Roman Army, as for several hundreds of years, they were head and shoulders above their nearest rivals. The Greeks might have a claim to having the toughest soldiers in the Spartans, who even today are world renowned as being seriously good fighters (they won one of most one sided battles in History at Thermoplyae in 480BC. Their entire lives were devoted to fighting and training so it's easy to imagine how they were such good fighters. In conclusion: The Top ten "best" Armies at this time in terms of expenditure and man power, training and equipment. 1. United States 2. China 3. United Kingdom 4. France 5. Russia 6. Japan 7. Germany 8. Italy 9. India 10.Saudi Arabia Historically (looking at the most militarily powerful nations of the last few hundred years) the list should probably go; 1. Britain 2. France 3. Germany 4. Russia 5. USA Additional input from WikiAnswers Contributors: This question could be interpreted in different ways. If it is asking about the most powerful conventional army in the world, most would say the US. However, many FAQ Farmers interpreted the question to be asking for a subjective opinion on the "best" military. Many people said the armies of their own nation were the best in order to be patriotic. Here are some of the facts and opinions that were given: United States Army If they all had the same equipment and number, Israel or China might have the best, however they do not. America has a ton of soldiers, and definitely the best equipment anywhere giving US soldiers the edge they need to be the best. (Others say the US Army relies too heavily on technology.) Look at who the world superpower is (Russia as the counter-balance) I served in the U.S. Army for 8 years, as an infantry soldier in the 82nd airborne div. I've been to Iraq three times and Bosnia once and no army in the world can compare to America's land and air forces. I know the British army is good but then why do Americans train them in urban warfare? The British do have a better main battle tank but compared to the M2A1 Abrams they would get smoked in a desert battle. As far as trained soldiers go, some of America's forces are not that well disciplined, e.g. reservists. But when push comes to shove even they get the job done. To those who say we lost Vietnam: look at the statistics. Politically we lost, we also lost around 60,000 soldiers, but we killed over four million. So I'd say we won, South Vietnam lost. Sorry to butt in here but the SAS instructors train the American troops including the Navy Seals who are by the way, way over rated. Also the Abrams i think you'll find would not beat the challenger 2 as it is not good enough. Additionally, the counter-intelligence that the USA Armed Forces possesses is without a doubt, second to none. With spies and 700 military bases in 130 countries around the world, the USA Armed Forces has the ultimate capability to plan and attack an air or ground combat war, or dispatch for rescue and humanitarian relief. The British Army is not the best in the world for the mere fact that they could not defend nor protect their own country during the Second World War as they had to call on the Russians and Americans for help. Between the US Army and the British Army let's take a look at the facts. Facts: British Army active personnel: 101,000; Total British Armed Forces personnel; 195,500 Total Military Bases Around the World: 86; British Nuclear Stockpile: 200+; Special Forces: Special Air Services; British Defense Expenditure (Y 2008): $69 billion USD; US Army active personnel: 1, 055,000,000; Total US Armed Forces personnel: 1, 426,000,000; Total Military Bases Around the World: 700 in 130 countries; American Nuclear Stockpile: 5000+; Special Forces: Navy Seals, Delta Force, Green Berets, Top Gun; US Defense expenditure (Y 2008): $623 billion USD (47% of world's total military expenditure.) Bottom Line: US Armed Forces = 600 pound Gorilla (In response to the above statement- It is not completely correct and a little offensive. The British of course fought the "Battle of Britain" (a predominantly air-based battle) against the Germans and won, thus securing the British Isles. The Americans came to the aid of FRANCE, who they helped liberate along with the British) Always bring the British Army into fight their battles. Then they get Britain attacked as well. British Army The British Army is without a doubt is the best army in the world. It may not always have the best equipment and technology, but the British army has definitely got the best trained, most skilled and professional soldiers in all the world. The British Army are without question the finest soldiers. They are the standard all others aim to and Sandhurst is were the rest of the world comes to train their armies. It hasn't lost a major conflict in its five hundred year history and it was the back bone to the largest Empire on the earth ever. The British are too modest when it comes to its armed forces as it likes to keep a low profile. The best army in the world be a combination of the US, British, Australian and Canadian forces. The UK/Australian SAS and SBS special forces are simply the best. When it comes to the best regular troops, I would have to say it is the Gurkha regiments from Nepal who are part of the British army. I have heard that during the Falklands War that the Gurkhas fought the heavily armed Argentinian invaders with their knives and beat them hands down. If you had a level playing field combat situation (same amount of soldiers) between any army in the world and the British the British would win full stop. The Israeli Army has the most skilled minds and advanced technology in the world, they constantly create patents in the field of military technology and regularly share intelligence and work with the military forces of the US . In addition, the country of Israel is strategically placed in an area of great threats that forces its defense forces to be in tip top shape.Israeli Special Forces (Mossad) or (IDF) Facts: Best training, Best Tactical operations, Israeli Military leaders are sent to train Police and military all over the world. The Indian Army has got the bravest soldiers and skills. Thus they are the best army in the world. Being ruled by different rulers at different times India has never lost its dignity. The British Army is without any shadow of a doubt the world's best trained and combat experienced Army of either the ancient or modern world. It has participated in far more wars than the whole of the rest of the worlds armies put together and that is historical fact. It also raised and trained half of the worlds existing armed forces today. Even the Indian and Pakistan armies have a common heritage being formed by the British. There initial training is the longest in the world for infantry and marines. Their assault courses put the USMC and special forces to shame as few can complete them and those that can in the US forces take twice as long as the British. Britain does not have the high tech equipment of the US Armed Forces due to the fact successive modern governments whose politicians have never served in the Armed Forces, continue to starve them of proper equipment and keep reducing the armed forces size. Individual infantry and Armored Regiments have accumulated more battle honors for their colors and Gideon's than the combined infantry regiments of any other worlds army. Sadly they are only allowed to display a very limited and selected number of battle honours on their colours and Gideon's. They do not display any battle honours for the American War of Independence (American Revolutionary war) because it is the only war they ever lost and is regarded as a civil war fought overseas, kin against kin. Today they are also the best paid armed forces. The minimum initial training for non combat arms is 13 weeks, for artillery and armour it is 18 weeks and for the infantry it is 26 weeks (30 parachute Regiment). The Corps of Royal Marines of the Royal Navy is now 33 weeks. The SAS are without doubt the best special services in the world, not the Navy Seals. The SAS have a brilliant track record of success after success playing huge roles across the world. Other Opinions: Pakistan's army is the best army in the whole world. The Pakistani army is well trained and dedicated to their duties. Pakistani commandos are very brave. North Korea: anyone who challenges them in a nuclear war ... will be toast. (funny, seeming how North Korea hias 1/10000 the amount of nukes America Has) The Chinese have the greatest army on earth. They are well trained. For example, 10,000 soldiers walk together, they are look the same because they step at the same time. There is no doubt that they are the greatest. (Others say that China, Russia and North Korea are just conscripted cannon fodder.) Finnish Army would be one of the best ones. Russian and American armies are the best in the world. The Greeks by far have the bravest soldiers. In World War II, Italy came to take over Greece and could not do it, a country with 10 times the army. They had to call in Germany for help. After 10 months of fighting they finally took control of Greece [FYI: took them 40 days to take over France]. Germans were stuck on Crete for 6 months and could not take control of the island because kids as well as older people were stabbing the parachute troopers as they were coming down. Only island that has never been conquered. Because of this LONG delay [10 months], it forced Germany to enter Russia in the winter ... and you all know what happened. Germany lost the war. So when it comes to courage, passion and having heart I would say Greece, hands down. Australian Army is the greatest and most aggressive in the world, our SASR special forces has surpassed the British and throughout our short history our courage, AGGRESSION and raw ability have prevailed through all our battles. You just ask any US soldier that has been on op with an Aussie and they will tell you how it really is. The Australian Army gets the job done, no nonsense, not relying on technology. Our soldiers grew up outside, in the bush, we were born soldiers and if there was ever a time someone tried to invade our land, it wouldn't just be our military at hand it would be our grandparents, mothers, fathers and children all stepping up to protect our freedom. It's a solid block that our country has been developed on, I respect the other army's especially the British, though based on "even" personnel numbers, our quality of soldier reigns above the rest. After all we have more to live for (beaches, women, and cold beer). Military strength is a term that describes a quantification or reference to a nation's standing military forces or the capacity for fulfillment of that military's role. For example, the military strength of a given country could be interpreted as the number of individuals in its armed forces, the destructive potential of its arsenal, or both. For example, while China and India maintain the largest armed forces in the world, the U.S. Military is considered to be one of the world's strongest, although the certainty of such a claim cannot be ascertained without a detailed analysis of opposing military forces in relation to one another as well as taking into account the field(s) of battle and tactics used in such a conflict. Canada is under the United Kingdom. Although Canada is a young and small country in comparison to many other countries it's true that the Snow Birds (jet fighters) beat out the Americans! The latter statement doesn't really matter in the context of things. American, Canadian, British or our allies, it takes ALL OF US to win a war against our enemies. By fighting amongst ourselves it resolves nothing and only shows up each country as being fools. If we can't get along together then how can we even begin to win a war! I am Italian but if you need an answer in the history, so the old Roman Empire was made with the best army for that time , some of this old way to combat is also today in use , if you need to know the most powerful army is us army but cause us government spend almost ten times what other country spen for own country. I say that the best are sas army from UK and Italian nocs from Carabinieri are also good.
Asked in War and Military History
What does Populate or Perish mean?
Populate or Perish was a post-war slogan in Australia intended to increase immigration to the country. It means, in general terms, 'We've got to bring in more people who can work and pay taxes, or we risk our country and culture slowly dying. Plus, we need able-bodied people for defense and other services.'