Best trained infantries (Top 5-10)

[Liberator]

Show your opinions about the world's best top 5-10 trained infantries.

This is how (Below).

1-?
2-?
3-?
4-?
5-?

-OR-

6-?
7-?
8-?
9-?
10-?

[FriedRiceNSpice]

1-Israel
2-Germany
3-China- Category A only
4-India
5-Canada
6- North Korea
7- UK
8- US
9- Pakistan
10- South Korea/Taiwan

[T-U-P]

canada is better than india.

[Liberator]

I think North Korea got better training for infantries than India.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

canada is better than india.

I think North Korea got better training for infantries than India.

All right, its settled then. Move North Korea and Canada each up a notch, and bring Canada down 2 notches.

[rommel]

Ah, infantry !!!! That's my branch of service !

1-Germany
2-Canada
3-Israel
4-Royal Marines (UK)
5-PLAN Marines Corps
6-French Legion Etrangere
7-US Marines Corps
8-PLA Category A
9-Poland
10-Sweden

I think you guys have to check not only the superpower and the coming superpower, but also the small country sometime. For exemple,the Polish are very surprising and the Swedish are not bad !

[Vanguard1688]

1. Israel
2. Germany
3. Canada
4. UK Marines
5. Japan
6. PLA 15th Airborne corp/1st&2nd marine brigade
7. US Marines
8. Russian 76th Airborne
9. French Foreign Legions
10. Poland
11. Sweden
12. N. Korea
13. S. Korea
14. Jordan
15. Pakistan

[FriedRiceNSpice]

6-French Legion Etrangere

Is that the same as the French Foreign Legion?

[ger_mark]

1. Israel
.
.
.
6. PLA 15th Airborne corp/1st&2nd marine brigade
7. US Marines
8. Russian 76th Airborne
9. French Foreign Legions
.
.
.

this threat is about regular infantry




Is that the same as the French Foreign Legion?

yes
Fremdenlegion in german btw :rolleyes:

[Vanguard1688]

oh alright then it'll be totally different.

[rommel]

Is that the same as the French Foreign Legion?

yes, I'm french-canadian, so i always give the french army unit's with the their french name. BTW mark, Marines units and French Legion Etrangere are consider regular infantry

[utelore]

1. Israel
2. U.K
3. U.S
4. *Russia*
4. Croatia

I base russia only on its vol contract forces for some of its Inf Bats. I also do the same for units within croatia mainly the 1st Gaurds "tiger Brig"

[BrotherofSnake]

1. USA
2. UK
3. Israel
4. Germany
5. France

[Liberator]

1-Germany
2-Canada
3-Israel
4-Royal Marines (UK)
5-PLAN Marines Corps
6-French Legion Etrangere
7-US Marines Corps
8-PLA Category A
9-Poland
10-Sweden

rommel, on ur list no matter what. Canada is always on the list regardless of situation... Im gonna say the PLA infantries trained a lot better than Canadians.

[Liberator]

Here is my opinions...

1-Germany or PLA.
2-Israel.
3-North Korean.
4-Russian.
5-India.
6-UK.
7-France.
8-Pakistan.
9-USA.
10-Canada.

In my personal opinions. US had high fundings on training for soldiers, but their soldiers just does not work hard enough, like. There is a coffee break shop in US training camps. When a soldier get tired. He will just go and get a drink. :cool:

[BrotherofSnake]

LOL How come N Korea and Russia is ahead of the U.S.?

[swimmerXC]

LOL How come N Korea and Russia is ahead of the U.S.?

from what i seen on discovery and other shows the NORMAL US army doesn't train as hard... they might jsut run around for like 1 mile then shoot a couple of guns and thats about it (compare that to PRC and NK which safety is NOT number 1 :eek: ), if you are comparing normal army, not SFs or anything
however if put Spetsnazs, Alfa Brigade, Seals, Delta, PLA Airborne, PLA Marine, PLA Recon, SAS, Paras, NK SOFs, Pakistan SSG and SSGN, French GIGN and EPIGN and RAID, Germany Grenzschutzgruppe 9 and Kommando Spezialkraefte, Swedens Special Protection Group, Finland Utti Jaeger Regiment, India Para-Commandos and Marine Commando Force and Special Frontier Force, Italy Comando Raggruppamento Subacquei e Incursori and Gruppo Intervento Speciale, Irans Pazdaran and Takavaran, Israel LOTAR Eilat and PALSAR T'zanhanim, Belgium Para-Commandos and Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols, Austria Gendarmerie Einsatz Kommando and Jagdkommando, Australia Commando Regiment and Special Air Service Regiment SASR, Canada Joint Task Force Two... and much more.. then the list would be way different

[chinawhite]

north korean for sure...............

if anyone hasn't seen the bodyguard video go watch it.

if their soldiers a half as good. the its a done deal

[rommel]

rommel, on ur list no matter what. Canada is always on the list regardless of situation... Im gonna say the PLA infantries trained a lot better than Canadians.

Okay, Canada is an pacific country, we don't have a lot of men and some of our equipment are old. That's why we had a bad reputation. But canadian force are very well trainened instead, for exemple, we got 19500 regular 16000 reserves in the land force, that's very big... But instead, the Land got a budget of 5,2 billions dollars for 35500 men, we can only spend it in training because we never do R&D and the last equipment we bought was in 2003 with the Stryker MGS and the INFANTRY is our main land force, it has to be very well trained to compensate the lack of armored vehicule,tanks and heavy equipment. We are talking about training here, not army overall in general. Unlike other army were there's some job like AT which is given to some other branches,for exemple we had to destryed them (ennemy tanks) ourself with LAW or M82 Carl Gustav, that's need a lot a cold blood to stay there calmy aiming a tank, the last time we deployed some tank, was 5 Leopard C1 in 1995. Why we are well trained ?? Because we are took the place of the tank (we never use them) and we still got the job of the infantry. We are the backbone and the workhorse of the Canadian Land Force
We are the Canada's main offensive weapon and defensive force.

BTW, to everyone, Marines Units, Airbones Units and French Foreign Legions are considered like regular infantry.

[Liberator]

LOL How come N Korea and Russia is ahead of the U.S.?

Told you, US spend lots of funds on training, but their troops are just too lazy and does not train as hard. And that is same with some Canadian soldiers from what I have learned from Canadian army shows.

And by the way. North Korean infantries are just way flexible, smarter and stronger than US infantries on battlefields.

[Liberator]

Okay, Canada is an pacific country, we don't have a lot of men and some of our equipment are old. That's why we had a bad reputation. But canadian force are very well trainened instead, for exemple, we got 19500 regular 16000 reserves in the land force, that's very big... But instead, the Land got a budget of 5,2 billions dollars for 35500 men, we can only spend it in training because we never do R&D and the last equipment we bought was in 2003 with the Stryker MGS and the INFANTRY is our main land force, it has to be very well trained to compensate the lack of armored vehicule,tanks and heavy equipment. We are talking about training here, not army overall in general. Unlike other army were there's some job like AT which is given to some other branches,for exemple we had to destryed them (ennemy tanks) ourself with LAW or M82 Carl Gustav, that's need a lot a cold blood to stay there calmy aiming a tank, the last time we deployed some tank, was 5 Leopard C1 in 1995. Why we are well trained ?? Because we are took the place of the tank (we never use them) and we still got the job of the infantry. We are the backbone and the workhorse of the Canadian Land Force

And China has more training funds than Canada. China's infantries' training you can say that it does not always match Germans. But you can call em #1 on the battlefield.

[swimmerXC]

Told you, US spend lots of funds on training, but their troops are just too lazy and does not train as hard. And that is same with some Canadian soldiers from what I have learned from Canadian army shows.

And by the way. North Korean infantries are just way flexible, smarter and stronger than US infantries on battlefields.

yea... US just got the better equipment, if you arm NK with that kind of equipment i wouldn't want to think what would happen to Seoul :eek:

[Liberator]

Ahh. Captured by NK till today?

[ger_mark]

maybe their soldiers are the only in the country that get enough food :rolleyes:

[rommel]

And China has more training funds than Canada. China's infantries' training you can say that it does not always match Germans. But you can call em #1 on the battlefield.

well, China don't have as much training fund for their soldiers per capita, their army is much bigger and they got to pay R&D and new equipment. The other difference between USA and Canada is that Canadians soldiers are all very motivated personnel, we don't have recruiter with quotas to met like in the USA, we are all volunteers.

[BrotherofSnake]

America has a professional military too. Everyone is a volunteer.

[Liberator]

well, China don't have as much training fund for their soldiers per capita, their army is much bigger and they got to pay R&D and new equipment. The other difference between USA and Canada is that Canadians soldiers are all very motivated personnel, we don't have recruiter with quotas to met like in the USA, we are all volunteers.

But Chinese soldiers train way much harder, makes them more experienced.

[BrotherofSnake]

China hasn't fought a war for atleast 40 years, so how can they be experienced?

[MIGleader]

1979? 1980's sea conflicts with vietnam?not 40 years ago. this is training. just because U.s has fought pushover enemies for the last 15 years(iraq, somalia, cosovo, afgan) dosn't mean they are experienced. they werent even wars. more like peace missions. they had all of that experience from gulf war one and somalia, and they are still taking casualties and other losses in iraq. just cause some Us soldiers went to iraq and fought dosn't mean all soldiers all of a sudden become more experienced and trained. china has been studying the U.s's tactics and mistakes and learning from them. the us makes its trainig sound tough, but its nothing compared to china.

[ger_mark]

did you or anyone of ur relatives serve chinese military service in last decades?
i guess ur family lives in usa or canada
so i cant understand how you can be so convinced about chinese training

[MIGleader]

not relatives, but friends.

[BrotherofSnake]

Do the Chinese still arm their soldiers with AK-47s?

[Liberator]

China hasn't fought a war for atleast 40 years, so how can they be experienced?

Then how would USA infantries get even 1 bit of experience by fighting easy polkies like Somolian militias? They are basically citizens who are untrained and all they have is a gun, there. A totally US papared soldier with lots of equipments versus a Somolian rabble with a ak-47 and about 7 round of bullets.

Basically, USA is just picking on Somolia. Why not stop China from making nukes?

From What i now know is that all the countries that got invaded by America has no sucky weapons and poor people.

did you or anyone of ur relatives serve chinese military service in last decades?
i guess ur family lives in usa or canada
so i cant understand how you can be so convinced about chinese training


Ok. Say that if you wish. I read news on Chinese military webpages.

[BrotherofSnake]

Those Somalis were battle hardened fighting eachother for years.

[Liberator]

Do the Chinese still arm their soldiers with AK-47s?

Ak-47 yup. Atleast its more reliable than M4 :)

[BrotherofSnake]

I rather use an M4.

[Liberator]

Yeah. Will you explain why?

[BrotherofSnake]

It has less recoil, lighter, and it can be modified with scopes, grenade launchers and suppressors.

[Liberator]

I perfer a AK-47, simply its more reliable and it as a long range of fire, other than that. The best rifle with a bayonet. It even got a 100 round mag.

[Liberator]

It has less recoil and it can be modified with scopes, grenade launchers and suppressors.

Yup, M4 got those advantages. So does Type-95...

[swimmerXC]

well, China don't have as much training fund for their soldiers per capita, their army is much bigger and they got to pay R&D and new equipment. The other difference between USA and Canada is that Canadians soldiers are all very motivated personnel, we don't have recruiter with quotas to met like in the USA, we are all volunteers.

recruiters are a headache! :mad:

[rommel]

But Chinese soldiers train way much harder, makes them more experienced.

well, I disagree with you. They train way much harder physicallyi admit, i know that we (Canada) don't have 20km style run or something like of that kind, but running and push-ups don't give experience, experience will only come when you encounter a real ennemy, the only thing that training is giving you is discipline trying to make you hold your fear, that's all. US troops that were in Somalia even got experience because their made up a contact with a ennemy, their felt that their live could be in danger,they known what's death and the stress of a real battlefield ! Experience come from there, my friend, not training, exercise can only help self-control on the battlefield, but none training programs up to now is capable to recreate a real combat to make the soldiers feel confortable with war. About, training, China is giving a lot of energy of physical training, but spend less in shooting and combat exercise than Canada, the Chinese don't gave the same amount of money... Canada have participated since the Korean War to up to 50 peacekeeping mission including Kosvo and Bosnia and we were part of the UN's force that attacked Afganistan,in every mission, soldiers gain experience because they acquired it from the proximity to the danger. Exercises don't give experience, only self-control ability because the soldier don't feel in danger and are not afraid.

America has a professional military too. Everyone is a volunteer.

Well, I disagree, because the US soldiers are recruit by recruiters, so the recruters have way to convince the people to join the Army, i don't know if you know, but the third of the US Army's enlisted personnel have very poor education. Sometimes, recruiters have some "special" way of recruiting people, so the US are really volunteers. Here, it's really people want to join by themselves, there is not recruiters and a few recruitment center, most of the "center" are military bases

[BrotherofSnake]

To join the U.S. military you need to have atleast a high school diploma.

[rommel]

To join the U.S. military you need to have atleast a high school diploma.

i'm sorry to live in a french-speaking zone but can you tell me what the US school system starting by the elementary please.

[Liberator]

well, I disagree with you. They train way much harder physicallyi admit, i know that we (Canada) don't have 20km style run or something like of that kind, but running and push-ups don't give experience, experience will only come when you encounter a real ennemy, the only thing that training is giving you is discipline trying to make you hold your fear, that's all. US troops that were in Somalia even got experience because their made up a contact with a ennemy, their felt that their live could be in danger,they known what's death and the stress of a real battlefield ! Experience come from there, my friend, not training, exercise can only help self-control on the battlefield, but none training programs up to now is capable to recreate a real combat to make the soldiers feel confortable with war. About, training, China is giving a lot of energy of physical training, but spend less in shooting and combat exercise than Canada, the Chinese don't gave the same amount of money... Canada have participated since the Korean War to up to 50 peacekeeping mission including Kosvo and Bosnia and we were part of the UN's force that attacked Afganistan,in every mission, soldiers gain experience because they acquired it from the proximity to the danger. Exercises don't give experience, only self-control ability because the soldier don't feel in danger and are not afraid.

Then, how Canadian soldiers get more experience than Chinese soldiers? Peace missions? China has peace operations too, likes on Haiti. They get experience too like what you said above. And by the way, some trainings exercises in China involve using real bullets. And they need to climb about 10 feet tall wires above ground from a building to another, WIthout any safety equiptments, that gives em teh spirit. In Canada, Canadians climb wires with safety equiptments and the wires are only 1 feet above ground...
-- If a war comes, every soldier FEARS regardless of experience, once they've won a battle or see a mate got killed, they became fearless.

[BrotherofSnake]

Can you rephrase that?

i'm sorry to live in a french-speaking zone but can you tell me what the US school system starting by the elementary please.

[Liberator]

Nope. Lets go back to topic. Okie? ;)

[rommel]

Then, how Canadian soldiers get more experience than Chinese soldiers? Peace missions? China has peace operations too, likes on Haiti. They get experience too like what you said above. And by the way, some trainings exercises in China involve using real bullets. And they need to climb about 10 feet tall wires above ground from a building to another, WIthout any safety equiptments, that gives em teh spirit. In Canada, Canadians climb wires with safety equiptments and the wires are only 1 feet above ground...

China in Haiti is the 1st Peace mission that China were in I heard about since I was born !! (1984) BTW, in Haiti, I read that is PAP that's deployed there, not PLA. I know in some exercise China use real bullets, but not as much as Canada. For wire climbing for exemple, well, as part of the canadian reserve infantry, i don't remember doing thoses exercises. Training that's not secure is not good for soldiers, their morale will get down, believe me,only make them feel that their only number and not human being that's giving their lifefor their country !!! I'm been in the reserve since 3 years,i know what's rough condition and every factor that can get on a soldier's nerve.

If a war comes, every soldier FEARS regardless of experience, once they've won a battle or see a mate got killed, they became fearless.

I never their don't fear, but the experience come this fears ! But China haven't seen much death in militray operation since the early 70-

[Liberator]

China in Haiti is the 1st Peace mission that China were in I heard about since I was born !! (1984) BTW

1984 u say? But how can the Chinese be using Type-95???

[MIGleader]

chinese soldiers have been to iraq, and afvghanistan on peace missions and humanitarian aid aswell. and definitly troops stationed near the tajik border have had run ins with terrorists.

[BrotherofSnake]

I thought the Chinese in Iraq were just body guards.

[MIGleader]

Us soldiers in iraq are bodyguards for oil too.

[BrotherofSnake]

Body guards are for people, not oil.

[rommel]

1984 u say? But how can the Chinese be using Type-95???

i'm mean that I was born in 1984

[Vytautas]

9-Poland
Care to enlight me why?

[PiSigma]

the chinese troops stationed in xinjing gets a lot of action. there are a lot of bombing and kidnapping and attacks for urghur terrorists, so the troops there gets really hardened up. also along with border with south east asia, there's a lot of drug smuggling, which all have ex-soldiers or even ex-SoF.

[FreeAsia2000]

:)

this topic is way too funny.

when we say 'which country has the best infantry ?' does that mean in terms of weapons, training, or guts ?

we need to be more specific

...also i remember the infantry of a certain country during korea 'defecting' because of 'brain-washing' ...curious how the brain-washing didn't work on the turks...and how certain countries troops ran away when the chinese blew a few bugles...

[Issa]

I'm surprised Iran hasn't been mentioned. During the war, when our training was at its absolute WORST, our RPG men held their own against vastly superior Iraqi Armour. Khorramshahr held out for over a month (facing 2 Iraqi IDs and one Iraqi AD), and it was defended by two under-strength "battalions," equipped with nothing but G3s and Molotov Cocktails.

[BrotherofSnake]

Iran's military is nowhere near the top ten. :)

[Issa]

Well, I tend to disagree, but, in any case, this is not a rank of the best militaries per se but of the most skilled infantrymen.

[BrotherofSnake]

How are they skilled? Iranian infantry is no match for American ones.

[Issa]

Ahem...

I'm surprised Iran hasn't been mentioned. During the war, when our training was at its absolute WORST, our RPG men held their own against vastly superior Iraqi Armour. Khorramshahr held out for over a month (facing 2 Iraqi IDs and one Iraqi AD), and it was defended by two under-strength "battalions," equipped with nothing but G3s and Molotov Cocktails.

[BrotherofSnake]

We destroyed most of their military in a month, therefore we are better.

[FreeAsia2000]

We destroyed most of their military in a month, therefore we are better.

The topic is the best INFANTRY..

Suggest you look it up....and btw I think the Iraqi infantry are still fighting

[ger_mark]

we must compare their equipment too, offcourse a young man who fought since his childhood in afghan mountains will be better on 1 on 1 against almost every soldier if they get the same weapons

[Issa]

We destroyed most of their military in a month, therefore we are better.

List one example similar to the one I posted, only replacing Iran with the United States. I severely doubt you will find one.

[BrotherofSnake]

Iraqi infantry are still fighting

You mean the Iraqi insurgents?

[MIGleader]

i'm willing to bet iranien infantry are just as or more trained than us, although that is not the only indicater of performance.

[BrotherofSnake]

U.S. infantry train very hard and they are skilled at what they do. :)

[MIGleader]

i bet you watch the history/military channel dont you? so naive...
perhaps you should do some international study befor replying.
american media tends to paint an image of a perfect american military...
ive seen it happen. they're just so narrow minded.

[BrotherofSnake]

So are you saying American soldiers are under trained?

[MIGleader]

of course not, they are very well trained. its not like i havn't seen how they train. but to judge soldiers trainings simply by the quality of the countries military is naive. nk has a relatively out of date inferior military, but their troops train like hell. every citizen is supposed to be able to serve a miltary porpise.

U.s soldiers are exellent combatants, but their fights with insurgents are a very inaccurate picture of their abilities.

[Issa]

They are well trained, but if you sent them onto a battlefield without their gear, without their 24/7 "shock and awe" air cover, and without technologically superior hardware, they wouldn't be as famous as they are.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

1984 u say? But how can the Chinese be using Type-95???

He is saying he was born in that year. He isn't saying they use the Type-95 in that year.

[BrotherofSnake]

So I am correct about U.S. infantry being skilled.

[Issa]

So I am correct about U.S. infantry being skilled.

I never doubted their skill and training. I am merely saying that if the Iranian and American armed forces were comparably equipped, America wouldn't stand a chance.

[BrotherofSnake]

I don't think the Iranians are that well trained.

[Issa]

First of all, they are. And second, what did I just say about the defence of Khorramshahr? Those soldiers had little training if any at all. Iranians are natural-born fighters.

[BrotherofSnake]

I believe Americans are born to fight. :D

[Liberator]

I don't think the Iranians are that well trained.

They are mate, better performance on the battlefield.

AND you Bro of snake thinks US people are born to fight... Not all man, Americans do like violence :). Do you? They like to fight/

[BrotherofSnake]

Americans do like violence

I believe violence solves everything. Just look at Iraq. :)

I am merely saying that if the Iranian and American armed forces were comparably equipped, America wouldn't stand a chance.
LOL!!!!!!!!!

[Issa]

Well, you have not presented me with any evidence to believe otherwise (if you recall, I stated Khorramshahr as my example).

[BrotherofSnake]

So just because you guys beat some Iraqis that means you can beat us?

I am merely saying that if the Iranian and American armed forces were comparably equipped, America wouldn't stand a chance.

How can you get expert qualification on equipment that you don't have? :confused:

[Issa]

"Beat" you? In what sense? We can thwart an invasion, but (obviously), we can't beat you Yanks on paper.

Give me an example of American troops being as resourceful as Iranians were during the war. That is all I ask of you.

[BrotherofSnake]

we can't beat you Yanks on paper
You can't beat us in real life either. :)

We did more damage to Iraq in ten hours than you guys did in ten years. :)

[Issa]

The Iraq we fought was very different from the one you guys fought. We fought an internationally supported, Franco-Russian armed Ba'thist Iraq, facing an arms embargo, sanctions, U.S. treachery, and MKO roaches infesting Iran. And if not for us weakening them, you would have suffered more severe casualties.

[BrotherofSnake]

That still doesn't mean that Iranians are better than Americans. I don't think Iran has fought a major war since the Iraq conflict. Iraq had a better air force after the Iraq-Iran war.

[Issa]

Better? Hardly! Their air force had been completely depleted after a few months of war (The raid on H-3 bomber base in Walid was our most successful raid; 40 aircraft were destroyed with none lost on our side).

[BrotherofSnake]

They recieved MiG-29s after the war with Iran.

[Issa]

They received 4.

[BrotherofSnake]

More like 15 MiG-29s. Four planes flew into Iran and five were shot down by the USAF. :)

[Issa]

The rest were dug into the soil. Foolish Iraqis think they are capable of anything without foreign support.

[Liberator]

Issa and Brother of Snake are argueing, well. I gotta add to this.

We destroyed most of their military in a month, therefore we are better.

Source? I personally think Iranian are better trained than Iraqi, so... Iranian infantries could some how give the American INVADERS a hard time. (Yea invader, your shame bullying small countries) <--- Thats true mates.

[Issa]

Well said, Liberator.

Iranians are always well-received on Indian, Chinese, and Russian military forums. I like that.

[Liberator]

Iranians are always well-received on Indian, Chinese, and Russian military forums. I like that.

Exactly.

Now, in Iraq, whose Iraqi and still fighting Americans? Soldiers? Militias?

[Issa]

I don't think they qualify as militias. Most of them are no larger than 50 men. There are hundreds of such groups. Combined, they are FAR from a cohesive force. And the United States can't contain them! And They think they can defeat the most powerful Army in the Middle East?

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Iraq had a better air force after the Iraq-Iran war.

That is pure BS. And no they did not recieve ANY new Mig-29s after the war. The had 33 Mig-29s at the time of the first Gulf War, and 4 flew to Iran, while 5 was shot down.

[BrotherofSnake]

If I said that, my bad.

[Liberator]

Any 1 got info on Vietnamese infantries? :D haha

[MIGleader]

most people dont know much about the modern vietnam military. all we know is they fought like hell and killed american ass in vietnam. they are insanly brave, some tryed taking on an f-4 with an ak.

[Issa]

North Vietnamese pilots were damn good, too. They flew their MiG-17s within close range of American F-4s (thus keeping the Phantom pilot from using his missiles) and took them out with guns! This was why the Yanks would later equip the Phantom with a 30mm cannon.

[BrotherofSnake]

It was a 20mm gun pod. :)

[Issa]

The calibre of the bloody thing doesn't matter. The fact that the change was made shows how truly nifty the North Vietnamese pilots were. Not to mention, North Vietnamese SAM kill ratio during that war was the highest of any other nation during any other conflict.

[rommel]

what SAM and aircraft have in common with infantry training... we are sliding off-topic I think...

[Liberator]

most people dont know much about the modern vietnam military. all we know is they fought like hell and killed american ass in vietnam. they are insanly brave, some tryed taking on an f-4 with an ak.

And on a American made war movie, 1 US private can take out 12 VC or NVA and then stab a few with dagger and die with honor by nading himself with 5 NVAs.

[sumdud]

Dude, if you equip DPRK soldier w/ US equipment, you have just helped Seoul! Sure the KPA is witty, but they are malnutritioned! I would not expect too much of them to be able to carry such a pack.

This one is for Rommel:
i'm sorry to live in a french-speaking zone but can you tell me what the US school system starting by the elementary please.
In the US, we have 5 years of elementary school, 3 years of middle school, and 4 years of high school, giving 12 years of basic education. You cannot receive a high school diploma, however, if you do not pass the exit exam, at least for California.

My list(No specific order):
RC infantry.
UK infantry
PLA, Cat A
Aussieland
(Well, all commonwealth infantries I guess.)
KPA
French infantry
German infantry
Indian infantry

[rommel]

In the US, we have 5 years of elementary school, 3 years of middle school, and 4 years of high school, giving 12 years of basic education. You cannot receive a high school diploma, however, if you do not pass the exit exam, at least for California.

Thank Sumdum, okay, it's because, in the Province of Quebec, our educational system is little bit different, depending on the school for the elementary, we have 6 or 7 years, for the high school it's the same for everyone, 5 years, after we got a 2 or 3 year that we called it CEGEP (it's a kind of preparation course for university), and after CEGEP it's the university.

[BrotherofSnake]

Ey Sumdud, you forgot to add the U.S. Army and Marines on your list. :)

[MIGleader]

u.s army and marines!??? whaen asked for a comparison of the training of soldiers, most people would say the u.s due to their better equipment and more active role. but when you break it down to training, even nk is stricter than the U.s

[BrotherofSnake]

Nevertheless, we do have superb combat training for our troops. :)

[MIGleader]

i very much agree with you, but a five mile run is cakewalk for a nk soldier. the only difference is the u.s likes more realistic training, oppposed to hard exercise.

[Issa]

I have spoken to a former Marine who stated that training is not as good as many Americans would like to think.

[sumdud]

I'd say the US Marines are good, yes, but the US army training sucks.........
Ask popeye himself. Ask him about the course where da recruiters were thinking about leaving are put.

[BrotherofSnake]

U.S. Army training does not suck. Our mechanized infantry divisions are unmatched.

[Issa]

Mechanized infantry won't do any good in Abadan. A single RPG would wipe out two full infantry squads (not to mention the vehicle itself).

[MIGleader]

brother of snake, you watch too much t.v about ranger school and all that dont you? tell you what, the u.s mil training is not so advanced. its their tech and the inability of their opponents. many chechnians and repub guards in falujah easily ambushed and killed u.s soldiers.

[Liberator]

brother of snake, you watch too much t.v about ranger school and all that dont you? tell you what, the u.s mil training is not so advanced. its their tech and the inability of their opponents. many chechnians and repub guards in falujah easily ambushed and killed u.s soldiers.

Brother of snake, i say you watch too many US action movies as a child, who do you think you are or who do you think every US soldier are? Rambo? John Wayne? Marshal Dillon?

US training spends high amount of funds, but their soldiers did not train good. Chinese soldiers can get to a higher experience with much smaller training funds dan US.

[BrotherofSnake]

lol, I never said every American soldier is the best in the world. I only said that they do not suck.

[Spartan00006]

i think the US GI training isn't harsh and demanding enough...just my uninformed opinion

however their specops are among the best in the world

anyone have any info on different (china, us, nk, britain, german, switzerland, israel, iran, russia etc.) militaries' training programmes?

[crazyinsane105]

Here is a useful article:

SEAL detachment (the U.S.A.), COMSUBIN team (Italy), SBS special squadron (the U.K.), the K unit (Germany) and the SSGN group (Pakistan) are just a few units of foreign armies formed to carry out special naval operations. They are commonly known as combat swimmers (frogmen), or naval special operations forces.

In 1969, the U.S. command noted that combat swimmer teams made a proportionally greater contribution to the outcome of war than representatives of any other service. According to experts of the London Institute of Strategic Studies, the most battleworthy units of combat swimmers are those in the U.K., Germany, Israel, Iran, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Russia, the U.S.A., and France.

The main feature of naval special operations forces today is their multifunctional capabilities because they are able to accomplish any mission: underwater saboteur actions in enemy ports, protection of friendly water areas from enemy divers, and land actions as ordinary scouts and saboteurs.

To accomplish such a wide range of missions, combat swimmers must be provided with an arsenal of technical assets and reliable weapons, above all, a special multipurpose assault rifle which must be equally effective in underwater and land operations.


Fig.3 5.45mm ASM-DT special multipurpose (universal two-medium) assault rifle: for firing under water (above) and for firing in air (below)
An analysis indicates that, to meet the challenges of special missions assigned to combat swimmers and the situations they have to deal with during land and underwater operations, a universal (intended for use in both media) assault rifle should be as effective as the 5.45mm AK-74 assault rifle when firing in air and the 5.66mm APS assault rifle when firing under water.

In these circumstances, the simplest solution is to equip the combat swimmer with two types of arms: a special arm for underwater firing and a conventional arm for firing in air. However, the increased weight of the swimmer’s armament considerably hampers his maneuverability and agility. Furthermore, the swimmer becomes practically defenseless at the moment of surfacing. Nonetheless, until quite recently, we have had to reconcile with this situation.

Effective use of the same weapon in the two media has been considered problematic, above all, due to the lack of universal ammunition. Water is 800 times denser than air; it means that the flow around the nose of a bullet moving in water is accompanied by changes in the shape of the incoming flow and also by formation of a cavitation recess (cavern). Furthermore, if use is made of conventional cartridges (intended for firing in air), the relatively short length of the bullet and the oval shape of its nose cause a considerable angle of turn of the bullet in the cavern, an indefinite position of points of water separation from the bullet surface and, finally, departure of the bullet from its trajectory. In other words, due to the gyroscopic effect, a bullet loses stability in water and its trajectory obeys no rules.


Fig.4 5.45mm ASM-DT special multipurpose (universal two-medium) assault rifle: for firing under water (above) and for firing in air (below)
Since the cavern’s lateral dimensions greatly depend on the bullet velocity, the maximum disturbance factors affects the bullet at the initial phase of its trajectory and considerably reduces its flight range. For example, the effective range of the bullet of a 5.45mm AK-74 Kalashnikov assault rifle fired in water does not exceed one meter.

As a rule, the bullets of special underwater cartridges have an increased relative length (up to 20 calibers) and a nose made in the form of a truncated cone. When this bullet moves in water in a developed cavitation mode, the water flows around the flat cut of its nose (cavitator) only, which reduces the hydraulic resistance and decreases lateral dimensions of the cavern. In this case the bullet’s movement is stabilized owing to the oscillating motions in the cavern cavity relative to the flat cut of the nose. This results in the interaction between the bullet tail and the side boundaries of the cavitation cavity.


Fig.5 Underwater flight of 5.66mm MPS cartridge bullet fired from APS assault rifle

Fig.6 Professor Yuri Danilov with ASM-DT assault rifle
However, a long bullet is absolutely unstable in air. For example, the consistency of fire of the APS assault rifle is so low that it is practically impossible to engage a 1x1m target at a range of 50 m when firing from an unsteady position (when surfacing or staying afloat without ground support). Even shifting the bullet’s center of gravity far forward or using specially designed fins cannot stabilize its movement.

One should not ignore the fact that the speed of motion of a rifle’s moving parts (bolt carrier with the bolt) in the rearmost position differs greatly with firing one and the same cartridge in different media. The difference is so striking that the specifications for the APS assault rifle guarantee only 2,000 shots for firing in water and 180 shots for firing in air.

Another problem of using one and the same weapon model in two media is its “hydrophobia.” This drawback is typical of many small-caliber weapons. The presence of water in the bore (which cannot be avoided during submersion and cannot be removed during the swimmer’s noiseless and unnoticed surfacing) makes the weapon operation unsafe due to possible barrel bulge, blowout of the cartridge case primer or deformation of the locking assembly.

So, the actual efficiency of combat employment of the existing assault weapons by special task units of Russia’s Armed Forces and other law enforcement bodies do not fully meet the present-day requirements. The AK-74 assault rifle can be effectively used for engaging targets on land and is absolutely unfit for firing under water. On the contrary, the 5.66mm APS assault rifle is sufficiently effective for underwater firing and is of little use for firing in air. So, the problem of developing a unified two-medium weapon, an assault rifle in particular, persists.


Fig.7 Underwater flight of 5.45mm 7N6 cartridge bullet fired from AK-74 assault rifle
Underwater small arms are fairly new types weapons, nevertheless such weapons are already available in Russia and abroad. For example, the 4.5mm SPP-1 underwater pistol, developed by the outstanding arms designers Yelena and Vladimir Simonovs, has been adopted for service with the Russian Navy. It is a four-barreled pistol weighing 0.86 kg. The barrel cluster is hinged to the frame (as in a hunting shotgun) and is secured in the firing position by the latch. Each pull of the trigger fires one cartridge while cocking the firing pin and rotating it by 90o.

Active type SPS cartridges are held in a special clip for loading. When firing the pistol at a depth of 5 m, the killing range reaches 17 m. However, this characteristic should not be confused with the accurate firing range: the SPP-1 pistol has proven effective in firing under water at a range of 5 to 7 m, and only with experienced sharpshooters the range can reach 10 m.

Basically, this pistol allows firing in air (with the use of the same standard cartridge). However, the engagement of targets at a range of over 15 m becomes problematic. The reason behind it, above all, is the excessive power of the cartridge and the resulting considerable displacement of both the arm and the shooter.

Underwater armament currently in service with Russian combat swimmers also includes the 5.66mm APS special underwater assault rifle. This is a gas-operated automatic weapon. The trigger mechanism allows single-shot and automatic fire. The assault rifle is fed with cartridges from the 26-round box magazine.

The assault rifle fires special MPS cartridges. The muzzle velocity of their bullets is 250 m/s in water at a depth of 5 m and 365 m/s in air. The killing range of the bullet in water is about 25 m, while the effective range is 12 to 15 m. The range characteristics deteriorate with depth.

As for creating universal arms capable of effectively accomplishing fire missions both on land and under water, the first successful attempt was made in Russia in early 1990. The work involved researchers from specialized research institutes and higher military schools. Today, Russia has only one laboratory which can develop, research into and test underwater small arms. This laboratory developed and tested the first models of the SPP-1 pistol and the APS assault rifle. It is located in Tula, at the Artillery Engineering Institute. The institute management made great efforts to organize the R&D work and support researchers.

The unique experimental facilities of the institute made it possible to study the processes taking place during firing under water and find solutions to increase combat effectiveness of existing underwater weapons and develop new-generation models. In 1991, the institute developed the first universal two-medium assault rifle which outperforms the APS assault rifle in firing under water and the AKS-74U assault rifle in firing in air.

The institute updated the APS assault rifle and actually created a new multipurpose assault rifle, ASM-DT. In 2000, it passed comprehensive tests run at a Defense Ministry proving ground. The test program included trials for firing in air and under water. Some test results are shown in the Table 1 and 2 above.

An analysis of the data indicates that, in terms of consistency of fire, the new assault rifle outperforms the AK-74M, AK-105 and M-16A1 assault rifles and actually equals Nikonov’s AN-94 Abakan assault rifle designed for firing in air, and the APS assault rifle designed for firing under water. Therewith, the new assault rifle’s life was increased to 15,000 shots (10,000 shots in air + 5,000 shots under water), as compared to the APS assault rifle with a fire life of 180 + 2,000 shots, respectively.

One of the main design features of the ASM-DT assault rifle is that it is fed from removable magazines loaded with cartridges of different types. This innovation allows firing standard 5.45mm assault rifle cartridges (7N6, 7N6M, 7N10, 7N22, 7T3) in air and special 5.45mm PSP cartridges (of the MGTS type) under water.

The barrel of the new assault rifle, unlike the APS rifle, is rifled. Its muzzle can mount a flash-suppressing recoil compensator, a blank firing attachment, an UPMS low-report device and a PBS silencer.

It is completed with a GP-25M underbarrel grenade launcher, a bayonet knife, a laser target designator and an illuminating light.

To increase the effectiveness of fire, the receiver and its cover are provided with points for attaching all types of domestic and foreign optical, collimator and night sights. Provision is also made for installation of a quick-release bipod.

The unique feature of the assault rifle is that it lacks “hydrophobia”, which is essential when transferring from the water to air medium.

At present, in terms of its capabilities, the ASM-DT assault rifle is the only weapon in the world which can equal the AK-74 assault rifle in firing in air and the APS assault rifle in firing under water.

[The_Zergling]

I'm curious... how do you guys even decide which infantry of which country is better trained than another anyway? It's not like you can really compare how well someone's trained. Discipline under fire, or morals, is one thing, what kind of equipment, their support, how much time they spend learning and practicing tactics and weapons usage... the list goes on and on...

If the definition of "Best trained" means that this country's infantry does more pushups or runs more miles than another, fine, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will perform better in combat. Besides, a soldier well trained for a task won't necessarily be adept at performing another. For instance even though the US Army has been taking heavy casualties in Iraq, a simple thing to note is that the US Army was never designed to be an occupation army, it wasn't designed to fight guerilla or urban warfare. Delta Force, or SEALs are, and I have no doubt they are very well trained regardless of your definition of training. What I'm saying is that when youdecide how well a unit actually performs, you should also try to take into account the situation, and what the unit's original role was designed to do.

So I can't really make my own list, considering the only militaries I know the most about are the Taiwan and US militaries. Everything else on the rest of the world is kind of brief, and stereotypical, like, "The Chinese are very well disciplined, or the North Koreans train as if there were no tomorrow..." stuff like that but I really have no idea what "Best Trained infantries" in this thread means... it's just too broad...

Does it mean tactics? Or physical training? What units count as infantry? Those that march along with tanks or those that drop with helicopters or those that hide in a city waiting to ambush others or special forces or whatever? To me, infantry means those "walking on foot" but I dunno...

Please clarify?

[ger_mark]

in the last 5 years germany formed two new special units
ksk (2000 men, SAS level)
and DSO (over 10.000 men, comparable to 101th airborne for airlanding)
http://www.bundeswehr.de/C1256EF40036B05B/vwASX/6GWDAG202INFODE.asx

[Spartan00006]

hey ger_mark, do you know what the bundeswehr's infantry training is like?

[Obcession]

China hasn't fought a war for atleast 40 years, so how can they be experienced?

Brother of Snake, you are so ignorant...

Ok, where should I begin...

In '84-'89, the 1979 war with Vietnam just ended, the Vietnamese constantly raided Chinese soil, and artillery strikes Chinese soil, with Mt. LaoShan as their base of operations. In 1984, China got pissed and sent in some troops to capture it. Every since 1984, China held the mountain, and constantly rotated troops in and out of the battle, for its troops to gain combat experience. note, when I said "TO GAIN COMBAT EXPERIENCE". Mt. Laoshan was ceded to China after 5 years.

And the war in 1979, that's 26 years ago, maybe you should go back to using your fingers to count...:rofl: