World Armed Forces and Militaries Ranked... not!

Todjaeger said:

As for the NZLAV... In the grand scheme of things, it's not really all that great a vehicle. It doesn't have the armour to function as an IFV, and it is questionable if it could really be used as an APC. Keep in mind the vehicle is vulnerable to everything from 0.50 cal. AP rounds and up.

Click to expand...

Well, that's pretty much the same as the Australian mech battalions will have AFTER they finish receiving the upgraded M113s - they are only proof up to .50 cal ball. And they don't even have a 25mm Bushmaster OR thermal imager - just a .50 cal MG. And they don't even have the upgrades yet!

Considering that they also have Javelin, I'd rate the NZ infantry battalion (I think it's 1st battalion that has the LAVs?) as more capable in terms of equipment than any of the Australian infantry battalions. Certainly handy to have around in a fight and capable of mixing in with an armoured coalition force. Of course it's not a Warrior or even a Bradley battalion but the NZ battalion is not something I'd like to be up against unless I was well dug in with the world's supply of ATGMs.

Simon9 said:

Well, that's pretty much the same as the Australian mech battalions will have AFTER they finish receiving the upgraded M113s - they are only proof up to .50 cal ball. And they don't even have a 25mm Bushmaster OR thermal imager - just a .50 cal MG. And they don't even have the upgrades yet!

Considering that they also have Javelin, I'd rate the NZ infantry battalion (I think it's 1st battalion that has the LAVs?) as more capable in terms of equipment than any of the Australian infantry battalions. Certainly handy to have around in a fight and capable of mixing in with an armoured coalition force. Of course it's not a Warrior or even a Bradley battalion but the NZ battalion is not something I'd like to be up against unless I was well dug in with the world's supply of ATGMs.

Click to expand...

True, but for NZ infantry, the LAV is their armoured support. The ADF has LAVs and tanks. Not to mention I think ADF squads will be equipped with Carl Gustav where NZ is phasing them out. And there are only going to be something like 24 Javelins across the NZDF. Again, not that the soldiers are bad, just the kit is somewhat on the light side. The 40mm auto-grenade launcher will help though.

-Cheers

fylr71 said:

Ranking countries based on training, motivation, and equipment.

1. US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, as well as Western European countries, and Israel have proven themselves in combat recently.

2. On paper Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea appear to be formidable however the former two hav not seen combat since WW 2 and the latter two haven't seen serious combat since Vietnam.

3. India performed very well in the Kargali war but I don't believe their training standards are as high as western armies, also some of their equipment is outdated.

4. China and Pakistan also look good on paper but the Chinese army hasn't seen combat since the Sino-Vietnamese war in 1979 in which their performance was not impressive. Pakistan didn't perform especially well in the Kargali war, but does have a suprising modern tank force.

Click to expand...

indian have also proven themselves in combat ,i believe their training is amongst the most realistic in the world ,particularly in terms of guerilla warfare .indians have also gatheres vital operational experience from ther daily war against terrorism,fighting against the hardcore terrorists in guerrila warfare in terrain ranging from the snow capped mountains of jammu and kashmir to the leech and cobra infested rain forests of nagaland is a pretty enlightening experience.also the indian army guerrila and counter insurgency warfare school in mizoram is considered to be one of the best in world.

the indian army's record in unpkf operations also are a testimony to the quality of their training and their adaptability.

i would not rate most of their equipment as outdated ,even though they may not be modern,where saddled with outdated equipments the indian soldiers have been known to use ingenuity.

i personally believe that the indian training standards are as high if not higher than the western nations,the good thing about the indian army training regimen is that it encourages open mindedness,inovation and the amalgamations of other nations operational doctrines.

Todjaeger said:

True, but for NZ infantry, the LAV is their armoured support. The ADF has LAVs and tanks. Not to mention I think ADF squads will be equipped with Carl Gustav where NZ is phasing them out. And there are only going to be something like 24 Javelins across the NZDF. Again, not that the soldiers are bad, just the kit is somewhat on the light side. The 40mm auto-grenade launcher will help though.

-Cheers

Click to expand...

Didn't realise the NZDF was phasing out the Carl Gustav. That is a seriously dumb thing to do, unless you like using your precious 24 Javelin units for bunker-busting! You're right, Australian infantry is keeping the CG, not at squad level but in support companies at battalion level.

The problem with the ADF is that its LAVs and tanks are brigade-level units (and 7 and 3 Bde don't have tanks, and 3 Bde doesn't even have LAVs!) whereas the NZDF's LAVs are organic and provide both the fire support and troop carrier units within the battalion. I think the Kiwis have a good arrangement.

I totally agree that their kit is on the light side, but the only Australian unit I'd want to risk in a hypothetical mobile battle with the Kiwis is 1 Bde with tank, LAV and gunship support. Our light units could only survive by being heavily dug in, and even then the Kiwis would just use their LAVs as fire support for a dismounted infantry assault.

Not disagreeing with you by any stretch, or implying you're disagreeing with me. Just raising some points to consider it from a different side. You're right, they are too light to be survivable in a modern high-intensity armoured war, or in counter-insurgency ops like Iraq facing RPGs and IEDs. They'd certainly go better with upgraded Bradleys or ideally, Warriors. But if you compare them to other light mech or motorised inf forces, I think the Kiwis have a damn good set up, extremely high in mobility and individual troop quality, decent in firepower and only really poor in protection.

To put it simply, go Kiwis! Once the ADF gets its extra two battalions an ANZAC coalition force would actually be able to field a full conventional division of regular troops (9 battalions) - something we haven't been able to field since Vietnam I suppose. And this would have modern tanks, two types of MANPADS, ATGWs, gunships, excellent SF and plenty of light armour as well as well-trained light infantry capable of acting without support. As long as they had decent air cover I'd back them against any light infantry division in the world.

Simon9 said:

I totally agree that their kit is on the light side, but the only Australian unit I'd want to risk in a hypothetical mobile battle with the Kiwis is 1 Bde with tank, LAV and gunship support. Our light units could only survive by being heavily dug in, and even then the Kiwis would just use their LAVs as fire support for a dismounted infantry assault.

Click to expand...

What about CAS and Arty??? If i'm not mistaken the NZDF doesn't have rapier, do they even have MANPAD SAM's??? And they've only got 105's. I think NZLAV's would be cut to pieces by tiger's and bug's. Any fire support they had would last about 5 minets with 155 counter battery fire. And with that kind of fire support i wouldn't want to be in a dismounted infantry assault. To be honnest i'd risc any battalion RAR against the Kiwi's.

Ozzy Blizzard said:

What about CAS and Arty??? If i'm not mistaken the NZDF doesn't have rapier, do they even have MANPAD SAM's??? And they've only got 105's. I think NZLAV's would be cut to pieces by tiger's and bug's. Any fire support they had would last about 5 minets with 155 counter battery fire. And with that kind of fire support i wouldn't want to be in a dismounted infantry assault. To be honnest i'd risc any battalion RAR against the Kiwi's.

Click to expand...

NZ has Mistral MANPADs I believe. But I was talking unsupported battalions, purely for comparative purposes. But if you want to talk supported battalions, I'd only trust 1 Bde, as I said. 3 Bde and 7 Bde have no tanks, no Tigers, no 155s (well 7 Bde is supposed to get one battery of 155s but I don't know if they're fully operational yet). And 3 Bde doesn't even have LAVs, they would get absolutely mangled as their only organic armoured vehicles are a handful of Bushmasters!

So basically if you're talking unsupported battalions, I'd not risk any RAR against the Kiwis. Every single one of them would get cut to pieces, even our so-called mechanised battalion. If you're talking supported in terms of their Brigade structure, I'd only risk 5/7RAR because they are the only ones with good support. Possibly 6RAR if they had 2/14 LHR in support, but we need two types of vehicles for that. Bushmasters AND ASLAVs. The Kiwis combine both tasks with one vehicle, so it doesn't matter if a company of infantry gets separated or whatever - they still have integral 25mm fire.

If you're talking army-wide support, well... yeah of course the Aussies would win because they have a bigger, more expensive military. That's like saying a platoon of American National Guard would win because they'd have a carrier battle group positioned off Auckland. But on the one-for-one basis the Kiwis are world class, that's all I'm trying to say.

I thought this ranking is on training, motivation and EQUIPMENT.
I really think that NZ troops are well trained and motivated.
But if equipment is 33% of the rating than they are just not in the same league as western european armed forces.
For example look at Switzerland. Also a small country. But they are much better equipped than NZ.
And at least nearly the whole of Switzerland is a militia.
So this is not against NZ but they are just not first league.
I would not even rate them on the second place just because their equipment is so light and they are just not able to counter any opposing force with an armored part worth the name or an opposing air force.

really how are we going to rate armed forcees??? On abililty to win a war??? Or the performance of an individual unit??? I agree with waylander, In many respects the Kiwi's are first rate, but the only way their ARRMED FORCES could survive against any opponant who had their sh*t together would be as part of a coalition with us or another western power. Idividual units may be verry capable but there not first tier.

Ozzy Blizzard said:

really how are we going to rate armed forcees??? On abililty to win a war??? Or the performance of an individual unit??? I agree with waylander, In many respects the Kiwi's are first rate, but the only way their ARRMED FORCES could survive against any opponant who had their sh*t together would be as part of a coalition with us or another western power. Idividual units may be verry capable but there not first tier.

Click to expand...

As a Kiwi, I may be a little bit biased, but there are so many variables.

If a Kiwi unit has to operate against a 'heavy' force such as US or Western European then yes it is in trouble.

If a Kiwi battalion group is operating under US air cover and against light to medium force then it will more than hold its own.

For instance will Kiwi infantry be at a disadvantage operating in Afghanistan? Under allied air cover, which btw many nations with far more capable air forces than NZ are relying on another countries airforce, a Kiwi force will more than hold its own.

Another way to look at it is this, how well would an army do if in a war if it was supplied with heavy equipment, e.g. the US sends surplus M1s,M2s M109s etc to equip a task force.

That's how Kiwi and Aussie forces have fought two world wars, does anyone argue with their performance?

Whiskyjack said:

As a Kiwi, I may be a little bit biased, but there are so many variables.

If a Kiwi unit has to operate against a 'heavy' force such as US or Western European then yes it is in trouble.

If a Kiwi battalion group is operating under US air cover and against light to medium force then it will more than hold its own.

For instance will Kiwi infantry be at a disadvantage operating in Afghanistan? Under allied air cover, which btw many nations with far more capable air forces than NZ are relying on another countries airforce, a Kiwi force will more than hold its own.

Another way to look at it is this, how well would an army do if in a war if it was supplied with heavy equipment, e.g. the US sends surplus M1s,M2s M109s etc to equip a task force.

That's how Kiwi and Aussie forces have fought two world wars, does anyone argue with their performance?

Click to expand...

Mate i'm not disputing the quality of kiwi personell, now or in the past. The New Zealand division probably monty's best, and maybe the best of all commonwealth/brittish units, and thats tough for an aussie to say especially with the likes of the 9th Aus div, the rats of Tobruk to compare to. And if this thread was on the ranking of world infanrty then arguably the kiwi's would have the no 1 spot (next to the Aussies ofcorce but its armed forces as a whole, and that needs to include the ability to operate indipendantly. Thats a capability New Zealand doesnt have against anyone who has any sort of an air force, any armour, decent arty or any sort of a blue water navy. As a comprehensive war fighting machine, New Zealand really isn't first tier.

Why don't we just say, an ANZAC force is equal in stature, as deployment together has always worked better then seperately, therefore...i hesitate this, the kiwis are as good as the Aussies...except in sport of course!
And excluding for Iraq, we've deployed together recently to continue a strong bond built in Turkey 90 years ago. Diggers Together Forever, KIWIS AND AUSSIES!

NZ Aus performance.

Please quantify your last comment about the NZ and Aussies being the best infantry in world. For example, based on recent combat experience (last 25 years).

I would be interested to hear examples based on engagements comparable to the UK Para’s successes in the Falklands, Sierra Leone or, more recently, 3-Paras performance in Afghanistan.

Ozzy Blizzard said:

really how are we going to rate armed forcees??? On abililty to win a war??? Or the performance of an individual unit??? I agree with waylander, In many respects the Kiwi's are first rate, but the only way their ARRMED FORCES could survive against any opponant who had their sh*t together would be as part of a coalition with us or another western power. Idividual units may be verry capable but there not first tier.

Click to expand...

To be honest, I thought of this thread as more of a joke thread, hence my nomination of Vatican City and Costa Rica. Only a handful of the most powerful nations could really be "ranked" as being able to defeat most opponents. The rest of the world kind of falls into national p*ss*ng contests as to whom is best... And I feel that is exactly the sort of exchange DT is better off not engaging in.

What would be better would be a discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of different defence forces, as well as ways to improve them. Not who's King of the Hill...

-Cheers

Todjaeger said:

To be honest, I thought of this thread as more of a joke thread, hence my nomination of Vatican City and Costa Rica. Only a handful of the most powerful nations could really be "ranked" as being able to defeat most opponents. The rest of the world kind of falls into national p*ss*ng contests as to whom is best... And I feel that is exactly the sort of exchange DT is better off not engaging in.

What would be better would be a discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of different defence forces, as well as ways to improve them. Not who's King of the Hill...

-Cheers

Click to expand...

I was also sorta deliberately sabotaging the thread for similar reasons.

But now we are at it. Danish infantry put up a pretty decent show in Musa Qala, Afghanistan this summer.

Todjaeger said:

To be honest, I thought of this thread as more of a joke thread, hence my nomination of Vatican City and Costa Rica. Only a handful of the most powerful nations could really be "ranked" as being able to defeat most opponents. The rest of the world kind of falls into national p*ss*ng contests as to whom is best... And I feel that is exactly the sort of exchange DT is better off not engaging in.

What would be better would be a discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of different defence forces, as well as ways to improve them. Not who's King of the Hill...

-Cheers

Click to expand...

Your right Tod this is a bit of a bullsh*t thread. I mean how do you rate armed forces??? on quality of personell? Quallity of equipment? How good they are at different types of campaigns? Whether they could win a war, which has more to do with economics than the armed forces themselves? And how do you compare the armed forces of a nation like Switzerland with china?? I think this is going to deterierate into a flame war if this keeps up.

P.S. about Aus & NZ being the best inf in the world. i was just talking sh*t. Theyre both exellent but how do you say that one is better than the other or better than somene else who has a similar level of training, equipment and a similar operational doctorine. The're good, but it would be a fair streatch to say they were the best.

And what about nukes?
If the Vatican would have nukes they would be rated much higher.

And I really tend to Iceland.

Waylander said:

And what about nukes?
If the Vatican would have nukes they would be rated much higher.

And I really tend to Iceland.

Click to expand...

I think you are all forgetting that great infantry force of Antarctica. Yes Ladies and Gentlemen that's right I'm obviously talking about the Penguins, they march with precision and are capable of amphibious landings!

We in New Zealand keep a wary eye on the southern flank….:shudder

Pfff, penguins.
These southern terror birds are no match for our northern polar bear commandos. :nutkick

The usual emphasis on light forces on the Southern hemispehere.

Whiskyjack said:

I think you are all forgetting that great infantry force of Antarctica. Yes Ladies and Gentlemen that's right I'm obviously talking about the Penguins, they march with precision and are capable of amphibious landings!

We in New Zealand keep a wary eye on the southern flank….:shudder

Click to expand...

And there's about a billion of them