The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - February 9, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Terrain Warfare: Who Fights Best Where?
F22    3/1/2005 11:06:23 PM
What military force is the most capable in the following terrains: desert, mountain, jungle, arctic, and urban?

Here are my thoughts:

Desert - U.S. Army
Heavy armor at its best. The IDF is a very close second.

Mountain - Gurkhas
Gurkhas fight superbly in all environments, but I believe the mountains are their home.

Jungle - Australian Army
Taught jungle warfare to both US and ARVN troops in Vietnam.

Arctic - British Royal Marines
Specialists in arctic warfare.

Urban - U.S. Marines
Fallujah demonstrated Marine expertise in this area.

What are your thoughts?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
Aussiegunner1    RE:Terrain Warfare: Who Fights Best Where?   3/2/2005 12:19:00 AM
Agree with all of the above, except I reckon the Brits and Israelis are better in urban warfare and in the desert than the US are, at least if the amount of experience, less "blue on blue" engagements and less dead civilians are anything to go by.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner1    RE:Terrain Warfare: Who Fights Best Where? - PS   3/2/2005 12:22:04 AM
I should add to my last post that I personally think that when it comes to well-trained armies there are the Brits(including the Gurkas), the Israelis, the Aussies then the rest, so my comments are not aimed at the US in particular.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    RE:Terrain Warfare: Who Fights Best Where? - PS   3/2/2005 1:06:26 AM
Desert - If you are talking about massed armour then USA. Although, Oz is pretty good at small-unit SASR long-range desert patrols. I'm not familiar with American specops desert expertise, however to comment on them. Artic - Norwegians train with Poms and are just as good (remember they skiid into the heavy-water plants in WW2 to blow them up!).
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    DropBear   3/2/2005 4:49:07 AM
You are raising a very interesting issue: The USA rules supreme - yes if the going allows it. Fottunately the Nato did not have to enter Yugoslavia. I recall a Dansih Colonel, that had made a staff study of such an invasion: The movement was so slow, that they thought the computer had broken down. That is one question, the other one has even greater implications: the USA has to have forces for fighting "over-there" without being able to specify the condition (terrain being one of them), this means the USA will have to have forces that are jacks-of-all-trades. The USA is more or less the strategic/operational reserve of the western world (including Australia). This by implication means an alliance system, because the more specialised forces (forces in a wide sense: I've heard of the great work the Australian ENGINEERS did on Timor, to mention something not too removed) need to be there first. Up to now, we have thrown in the RESERVE before the MAIN forces, which from a theoretical standpoint is an abuse of the reserve.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:DropBear   3/2/2005 4:52:54 AM
Dont forget that the Brits spearheaded american forces during both gulf attacks
 
Quote    Reply

HedLessHelmet    RE:Terrain Warfare: Who Fights Best Where?   3/2/2005 10:09:14 AM
Gurkhas: Away from home i.e. Nepal ;-) Seeing how they are struggling to put down a Moist insurgency for more than 10 years now, it seems that they can fight best away from home-ground. For that matter, most mercenary units fight best as far away from their homes as possible.... thats the only way I see a unit escaping Machevelli's "mercenary-paradox", when they are far removed from any political base. Gurkhas and Swiss are the best mercenaries simply because they are politically insignificant otherwise.
 
Quote    Reply

S.C.P    RE:Terrain Warfare: Who Fights Best Where?   3/2/2005 12:57:32 PM
Wrong! Desert....I seriously wouldn't put the US Army as best for any terrain,OK they have the Tanks, but for the Desert it would have to be the British Desert Rats. Jungle - would be the Gurkhas Mountain/arctic - Royal Marines;mountain and arctic warfare cadre Urban...well could be any,I don't think falujjha demonstrated anything other than brute force, quite a few US died in that,Loads of forces train for urban warfare so I'm undecided on that one.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:Terrain Warfare: Who Fights Best Where?   3/2/2005 1:49:46 PM
in nepal wouldn't it be ghurka vs ghurka to some extent which could explain the length of the fighting.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:Terrain Warfare: Who Fights Best Where?   3/2/2005 1:52:29 PM
it would probably be good to specify the unit size when you post a question like this. if it's platoons there are lots of contenders if it's corps strength you are pretty much limited to the US, russians and prc because no one else plays at those levels any more.
 
Quote    Reply

HedLessHelmet    RE:Terrain Warfare: Who Fights Best Where? - Ehran   3/2/2005 3:22:26 PM
"in nepal wouldn't it be ghurka vs ghurka to some extent which could explain the length of the fighting." Nope. The Gurkha tribes are staunchly royalists; its more the peasants, school-teachers and semi-urban young men who form the basis of Maoist rebellion -- the kinds of people who wouldnt be allowed near a British or an Indian recruitment camp ;-) Plus the Maoists are against foreign Gurkha recruitments, and hate the Gurkhas for their relative prosperity.
 
Quote    Reply

S.C.P    RE:Terrain Warfare: Who Fights Best Where?   3/2/2005 3:39:52 PM
Russias forces, despite their size would crumble at the hands of the British and a few other European countries simply becuase Russia's troops are poorly trained and poorly equiped with old weapons. Its well known that AK's are useless unless used at close quaters,what main Tank are the using these days? the T80 ? no match for Challenger2's,M1's or even a german Lepord. The state of the russian Navy:poor the Airforce:poor but its still not possible to underestimate their MIG's. The problem with Russia is they try to make everything big and not size effective;e.g; compare those giant Russian submarines to the small British Subs both equal in firepower, Britains having the edge, but which is the biggest and easiest target? same with their surface fleet too..
 
Quote    Reply

USN-MID    RE:Terrain Warfare: Who Fights Best Where?   3/2/2005 5:08:34 PM
High Seas-USN...sorry couldn't resist. Desert-I'm sorry but I've never heard any complaints about US armor before, so i don't think there's any doubts that they're definitely tops. I've heard lots of other nations pick apart and criticize US INFANTRY, NEVER heard criticism of US armor before. Not to mention the US Marine armor in piss-old M60A3s still tore through the Iraqis in DSI. In fact, i don't think ANYBODY except maybe the Israelis, have the same real-simulation desert training facilities the US Army does.
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Terrain Warfare: Who Fights Best Where?   3/2/2005 5:38:13 PM
Just as in any type of battle it's not just tank on tank, or man on man. It's the folks that can destroy the enemy first. When the US fights in the desert there are aircraft overhead ready to join the fray. look at Afghanistan. A veritable handful of SOFs were able to direct deadly air power against the enemy. Just last night I saw a show on PBS which reported an incident in GWII where a column of 30 Iraqi tanks were moving up against a small number of Abrahms. Wisely the US commander called up the B-52 loitering overhead and within seconds a CBU-97(by description not name) hit the front half of the column destroy about 15 tanks, the rest of the tanks turned tail and headed home. It's who can bring the best combined arms in a given environment that matters. Fallujah was another excellent example of airpower, airtillary, armor and men. Granted the enemy behaved stupidly, but precision airpower and artillary made them even more stupid.
 
Quote    Reply

HedLessHelmet    Nature vs. Nurture   3/2/2005 6:31:34 PM
Except in the most extreme and artificial environments, nature vs. nurture can play a big role in fighting capabilities.... in the human angle that is: Desert - U.S. Army --- How about certain Turks, Bedouins and Rajputs who spend all their lives in deserts and some devote lives for war? Mountain - Gurkhas --- OTOH Royal Marine Commandos have been trained by Sherpas themselves, so training comes into play. Jungle - Australian Army --- Again pitted aginst Dominican Republic Army or Dyaks? ---------- Of course in extreme and artificial environments te debate disappears Arctic - British Royal Marines Urban - U.S. Marines (Falluja was a big town by most standards ;-)) Desert Seiges, High-Altitude, Off-Track Jungles and real metropolises are much better for analyzing non-native, but specialized soldiers.
 
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc    RE:Terrain Warfare: Who Fights Best Where?   3/2/2005 6:34:24 PM
Me in the Bar
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy