What are the top 3 armed forces based solely on quality?

USA USA USA

>Russian raped concripts being at any tier

Volunteer forces will always be better

U.S Army
U.S Navy
U.S Air Force

this thread is going to go great

Attached: 1494988890944.png (500x281, 239K)

>America
>UK
>Australia

What is that i hear? OH MY! It's a fucking wehraboo
du bist nicht intelligent user, tschuess!

As an Americanon trying to look at this from an unbiased perspective, I would say
In general by average soldiers/personnel
1. JSDF
2. USAF
3. Royal Navy

In general by special forces
1. US
2. SAS
3. Spetsnaz

Best armed services in general by capabilities in the world.
1. Hands down USA
2. Russia >inb4 their shit doesn't work/shit quality etc
3. China (by GDP spending as growing force projection and spending)

Anglosphere union when? (I know we're the odd one out but we're rich and have retard strength can we still join?)

Attached: SOON.jpg (1033x805, 146K)

>this nigga didnt include the fuckin falklands
argie detected

>1. JSDF

Are you for real?

Yes, specifically JMSDF

There are far better trained average troops than the JSDF. Just saying.

Also, their retarded procurement scheme will be the death of them.

>USA
>rigorous (by comparison with most militaries) training standards
Are you trolling?

I'm not considering their equipment or procurement, I am considering that they have one of the highest quality control retard-proof training systems that leads to an excellent well trained and integrated force that operates more efficiently than other armed services of similar roles. The Japanese ground forces are dogshit for overall capability for the most part, but their air force and navy have higher standards than even their US counterparts, or at the very least equal standards with better efficiency.

So you are ignoring ground component because why?

Also, again, there are other military with much better trained/quality average troops than the JSDF. Gate is fiction.

>homogenous, high IQ warrior people > low IQ mutts, niggers and spics
Wow, what a shocking revelation.

Vatican City
French Foreign Legion
Serbia

They are an island nation that only needs to be able to defend their islands not invade others, ground forces aren't as important. The JMSDF and JASDF constantly train with the USN and USAF and have similar training programs, except the Japanese ones are more efficient at training and retaining quality control. And I'm not even shilling, I'd put some of the JSDF up there as equals to the RAF and RN and US armed forces, despite their equipment (most of it is US based anyway, specifically their fighters and Aegis based destroyers).

I could see the US and Canada form some pact but what is in it for britain and the US?

The standards of training for some branches in the US has fallen in order to take some shortcuts in the training programs to save time and money. But the US armed forces are still one of the most highly trained forces in the world, your view of it depends on if you are looking at a USMC 0311 or a USN submarine crew member.

Ground force
>Russian
>United state
>China

Russian have a fairly good doctrine when it come to ground combat. Their force is mobile, compact with layers of fire power.

Airforce
>US airfoce
>US navy
>China

This one is hard because China and Russia have a extra branch, the air defend force.

Navy
>US navy
>China navy
>Japan MSDF

They have good ship design and have the capacity to built more.

Just because you are an island nation doesn't mean you can let your army go to shit. Now, admittedly their navy^H^H^H^Hmaritime self-defence force is pretty good. But that's more on the equipment side (lol helicopter "destroyer"). Also because their not-so-friendly neighbour is just looking for an excuse to fuck them up.

But again, troop-wise, there are military with much better trained average troops.

Because whiskey tango trailer trash makes it much better, eh?

I won't argue about their ground forces, it is their weakest link militarily, there are better. All I'm saying is that in my opinion and experience the average JMSDF and JASDF personnel are better trained in what they do than most other militaries out there and are on par with the best. Japan used to intercept Soviet fighters during the cold war and was a part of the US pacific cold war strategy, now it intercepts Chinese planes.

>What are the top 3 armed forces based solely on quality?
American Armed forces
Russian armed forces
Chinese armed forces (if they somehow improve quality)
Fixed it for ya, nice pic thought

If youre going by the quality of the individual soldier, has to be:
- UK
- France or Australia
- USA

In terms of proven ability to project power around the world:
- USA by a long way
- UK (most capable in Europe)
- Russia/China

In terms of the amount of high tech or high quality equipment 'per capita':
- USA or Israel
- Qatar or Saudi purely by quantity of fancy jets
- toss up between UK or France

Individual men is probably the UK. There are things that get taught at ITC Catterick that plenty of countries entrust to special forces. Also, Junior Brecon is a much harder course than all variants of the Ranger school and I'd know because I've done both.

This does not mean, however, that the Army hasn't been treat terribly by pretty much every politician of the last 30 years. It doesn't mean that HM Forces has no capability gaps. To be honest the individual quality and training might have done us harm over the years, because the attitude prevails that you can achieve something with a British platoon that would take another country's battalion. Which is false.

> done CIC, junior Brecon and Ranger school
How?

>Russian soldiers in WW2
Most of them were just pulled out of Russian concentration camps/gulag/prisons and used as bullet sponges.

They send a group over ever year to do a few courses and we do the same. AFAIK there's some rough equivalence, but it's pitched mainly at guys with a few years in and aspirations to promote. We did, however, have a WO2 from the Welsh Guards come with us who was one of the fittest men I've ever met.

Anyway, Ranger school is not easy. It's a challenging course, but it does not make the soldier think on his feet as much as Brecon nor is it as physically demanding. It's sort of like running P-Company with the odd nav exercise in for an extended period of time. I liked it, and they're good blokes, but Junior Brecon was probably the most arduous thing I've done. You're given far much more responsibility, far less time to plan and it's done at a higher intensity.

If you're still in, ask after it. Even if you aren't Infantry you could probably get some time in with an American unit and since they're infinitely better equipped/looked after than we are it's just a holiday with some warry bits thrown in. My Reserve unit do an exchange with the USMC. There's stuff out there it's just most blokes aren't bothered for it, which is mad.

Fair one, that sounds pretty nails mate. Ive been considering asking to go on all arms commando course because my unit is linked with 3 Cdo Bde, but sadly ive got some pretty horrendous calf tears at the minute so I need to sort myself and then beast myself to get back up to a good level of phys.

bump

>Welsh

Ahh that makes sense then

American soldiers are cletus quality.
If you're talking about infantry soldiers you'd be looking at parts of Western Europe and Canada.

>cletus quality
Lets be honest here. US troops arent bad, theyre just overwhelmingly average.

I would place Japan's navy higher than china as Japan has more carriers, even if they are technically helicopter carriers they can launch f35s off them

Quality?

I mean, pic unrelated then, the PLA is pretty shit.

A top 3 would probably have the US, then two European militaries, the ROK and JSDF are pretty great in terms of quality too.

Ehh, they're not bad when it comes to infantry at all. Not close to cletus quality.

Russia and china are pretty shit when it comes to quality.

Russian logistics have never been pretty good, what the fuck user. They lack decent air mobility, they can't sustain forces overseas or even in deployments near their borders. In Syria it cost them too much to operate a decent force so they began a withdraw, not that they were even combat effective in Syria to begin with.

Fucking Weeb.

The JSDF are just a militia for disaster relief.

Hopelessly inexperienced in combat.

The US Army has only the material available to them to work with.
That material is Cletus.

In order to willingly subject yourself to the chaos of war WITHIN the chaos of the United States military you need to be either really stupid or really illusioned.

The perception that the US military is the worst in terms of horrible chaos of a military is kinda bullshit aswell.

>willingness to subject yourself to war makes you cletus

suuurrreeeeee

>Quantity has a quality all its own
Based on all the qualities you fucking fruit.

>inhumane slavelabor is logistics and quality
>British logicist teams are Russian
>U.S logistics and supplies are Russian

Congrats to the British engineer teams sent over to Russia to teach them how to fix, drive and fly their fucking trucks and planes most of the non-junk shit produced and sponsored by America TM

Most of the American military is rural conservative Southern whites.
Everyone outside that demographic is either exceptional by military standards, a nutjob, or a fucking retard.

*Or poor/from a fucked up background.

Conservative Southern Whites aren't the majority of the USN, USAF, or USMC so idk where you got that stat. Unless you've expanded the definition of the south, rural, conservative, southern, and white.

I was talking about the US Army. And everything I said holds true about the USMC.

And whites isn't a proper noun you sister fucker.

>thinking coming from a fucked up background makes you cletus.
Eh, desu that usually makes them better because they have shit to prove.

Which part of the Army? Active, Reserve, Guard?

US, Japan, Isreal.

Yeah.

>Syria it cost them too much to operate a decent force so they began a withdraw, not that they were even combat effective in Syria to begin with.

Guess that's why they turned the entire conflict around from a Syrian loss into a victory.

>Royal Navy
would never have thought this, but an interesting point - certainly don't disagree

/thread

>why do I bite?
They didn't tho, they were massively combat ineffective and if it wasn't for western PGMs and aircraft there wouldn't be a Syria.

The Russians manged to fuck with US FP, but failed every chance they had militarily. Their bombing raids missed over and over, they didnt destroy assets or HVTs, they lost mercs to ISIS all the time say nothing of the Kurds or US forces. They accidentally hit friendlies on more than on occasion because of a lack of any kind of PGMs, because their JDAM copy kept missing (lol GLONASS).

Then there was the kuz losing 2 planes and missing targets because lol what is pilot training.

When you kick the lefties out of your education systems and governments. We don't want them to ruin America

I am American you dipdong

Why russia is number one
1. Everything's shit
2. They train to fight in environment where everythings shit and broken
3. Everyone is fucking each other communication shit up
4. Meanwhile russia is going to play ww1 with communication systems

i the US developed some kind of battlefield EMP then there is little doubt (at least in my dumb dumb brian) that the Russians would do quite well given that they basically already operate as if this is partially the case. since this is unlikely however he Russians have to rely on basically being classy sandnigers when compared to most western army's.

Why are people larping that russia has good soldiers, go read about conscript abuse and anal gay rape, as well as corruption in Russian military.
It has gotten better, but that is not something you can recover from
Not to mention its mostly conscripts and they can't keep professionals around and in the numbers they want

My answer would be
1. Usa, because they can afford to specialize to an insane degree, as well as afford to do basically whatever the hell they want
2. Uk because of power projection focus combined with institutional memory and esprit de corps
3. Pick a wealthy European country you can pretend is relevant because their tiny military has good SUT and wears multicam

Assets Russia always had in terms of human capital is great ear colleges and operational thinkers, never quality of soldiering or good NCO core

Kek. Love it, user.

russkies, chinks and yanks

>thinking there's quality in the chink or ruskie armed forces
topfuckingkek

As someone who has actually servied with most western nations in combat training, id say the list should be expanded. Also, all armed forces are specialized in one or a few things.

>offensive operations open terrain
US, hands down. The experience they have really shows

>For fighting defencivly against a massive invasion in dense forrests?
Finns. Fucking finns. Their conscripts beat the shit out of professionals from the US, UK and Norway several times, to the point that shit was halted as the bongs and norewgians accused them of cheating.

>Arctic combat
Swedes and Norway did really well, that said I have never seen the canadians.

>Airborne assaults
This one goes to Russia, they do it in a way no other nation does.

>Inna-city combat
Hard to say, both the krauts, USMC and Swedes do well

You must not have studied it well if you think the VDV is good. Russian airborne operations can't operate in contested areas.

Logistics is basically a quantity-based measure as opposed to a quality-based measure. It's impossible to quantify and it just depends on how much money you're willing to spend on supplies and bases.

Generally they land in uncontested areas, but all airborne units really try to do that today, as they are all too vunerable to land directly on an enemy. Roughly one hour after landing a battalion sized Russian unit are combat redy. Or should be at least.

Attached: brainlet6.png (207x243, 6K)

They land in uncontested countries at the time though, that's kinda the problem with looking at their combat effectiveness. In Crimea they were heading to areas that were already secured in a vastly friendly area of the country. When sending in forces to the contested areas they had VDV troops get captured or killed.

That wasnt a landing that followed their doctrine tho, so ofc it all went shit. Their air assault doctrine really depends on massive short term airstrikes in the area to confuse and temporarly disable the enemy, and if done right it can be devastating.

If they don't adhere or train for that doctrine then the quality of their forces isn't that good.

As I stated above, each unit is good at some things, and less good at others. Russia has allways had a focus on high-intensity war against a foe with similar capabilities.

Merika

Attached: 6396832B-55B5-469A-9486-45C353BFC299.jpg (500x299, 18K)

That doesn't mean they are quality though, nor were they anything more than a paper tiger during the cold war.

I have never stated that Russia overall, or the USSR wasnt anything else then a paper tiger all things considered. Just that their air assault capabilities in high intensity conflitcs are unmatched. The only ones getting anywhere close are Germany.

I disagree, they have horrible air assault capabilities since the fall of the USSR. And they have not been able to entertain a high intensity conflict, say nothing of actually being in one.

Lets agree to disagree then I guess.

Top 4 in no particular order is US Army, USAF, US Navy, and US Marines. Then there's the rest who would compete with the rest of the slots.

All depends on what task is at hand. Given the compleatly autistic financing the US Armed forces get tho, any other result would be quite embarrasing.

No, there's an objective right and wrong here. You're assuming they had high quality air assault forces when that was never the case.

Yea, but their field rations looks tasty, so there.

Yes I assume that, thats correct. And yes there is an objeticve right and wrong here. Perhaps not high quality on individual soldier level, but on an organizational, doctrinal unit level. They could (to some extent can) achive things no other nations air assault units could.

Their organizational structure was top heavy with little ability for forces to pursue secondary or tertiary objectives without unit repercussions. Their doctrine was to overwhelm, take territory, and hope for armored forces to get to them before a counterattack. Soviet doctrine had very few areas where it was effective, and that was largely with their nuclear forces.

The US consistently can do more than the Russians or USSR could have, especially with its air assault capability and has a way more effective command and doctrine structure.

If Jow Forums watched G.A.T.E then Jow Forumsomandos would unanimously agree that the jsdf are obviously the best.

Attached: gate.jpg (711x400, 80K)

>Again opinions

Yes, they had little abilities to resuply their airmobile IFVs, but this was all part of the plan (as you explain). US air assault units (wich was/is light infantry) really lacked the heavy weapons tho to do the kind of operations at all.
They could however do other operations over a longer period of time.

1. USA
2. Russia
3. U.K.

Heavy weapons in an air assualt unit without the ability to support them is a waste of resources, not a strength.

No, because gate is nationalistic bullshit with a mary sue main char, whose writer is clearly anti-american and full of japstronk faggotry

Not considering the speed the armored forces of the USSR needed to advance at anyway. If they had managed that, it wouldnt matter, if thay had not, they would have lost anyway, air assault units or not.

Once reaced by the regular forces the VDV was to resupply and continue the fight as a regular army unit.