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     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6   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
1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.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