Look it says most feared army, not infantry. Just because the Commanders rather wipe out enemies with airpower and use ground units to mop up (which by the way is an excellent idea) doesnt make MY COUNTRY cowards. If you learned ANYTHING from World War II, It is not only needed to have aircover at all times, it is stupid not to have it. And your example is not one where the forces are at all balanced and one is little more than a well armed street gang. You are totaly wrong about the American Infantry not making any head way. In Sadar City and others, Infantry Divisions, are wiping out enemies WITHOUT AIRCOVER. American units are not allowed to at times clear house is because of politics. Also no other army has had the pair to go up against America that is on its level. What the hell you expect? We attack the PLA for kicks? The only other armies who have equal forces are all our allies (Brits, Israelis ect). Russia/Soviet Union couldnt stand up to us, let alone NATO, their army was made up with little more than concrips. I agree that India has a feared army. One more point. Where in the name of uncle sam hell do you get your news information? Al Jezzera?

Well said, Taxman... About India and PRC being fractured, what I meant is cohesive ethnically, etc. USA has nothing like strife with Muslims and Sikhs, etc. that you have in India. Also in PRC, so many ethnic groups to deal with even if Americans are unaware of this, it exists. If there arises a true Hispanic irredentist movement in SW of USA I would think differently. America is capable of true national unity, at least for a few years more. And if Al Qaeda wastes some US city with a suitcase tomorrow, there won't be some 15% bloc of USA that secretly wrings its hand in glee. You can't seriously say that US infantry are cowardly. Does nobody read the accounts of the citations that guys are getting in Iraq? Unless you think it is all fabricated. And, due credit to Indians for their courage, I'm not saying otherwise. But, if India had a wing of A-10s, wouldn't they use them? After all, Patton, no shrinking violet, eh?, said the idea was to get the other poor b****** to die for HIS country. Quiberon Bay

Thank you quiberon and a hell ya out to you too. Also have you ever heard of a thunder run? About 80 soldiers would go storm in to an enemy position, over run it, and head back home. That took balls 'cause they were going through enemy turf. Also why dont you read all the Measure of Respect articles. Those only capture about 10% at the most of the heroism in battle.

>> I give alot of credit to the Jewish freedom fighters during the uprisings against the Nazis in the Polish gettoes of WW2. With molotov tails, Pistols and what little heavier weaponary they could get their hands on, they fought with unprecidented furiosity and mannaged to hold out until the final year of WW2. >> Yes, they survived, many of them, even after they escaped the shattered rubble of the ghettos and some from the concentrations camps. Their success as fighters and survivors is even more impressive as they did not share the support of the countryside as the non-jewish partisans did, and even were sometimes fought by and/or betrayed by other partisan groups. It is not an accident that few Polish or Ukrainian jews survived WW2.

In so many posts you have said that the Soviet Union couldn't stand up to the US/NATO. I have to disagree. We are talking about a country (with a HUGE industrial complex and HUGE resources) that was devoted entirely to conflict. Russia did have numbers on its side and quantaty is a quality in itself - a T-72 or T-80 might be inferior to an M1 BUT when there are 20,000 of the former it gets a bit hard you know, seeing that the T-80 wasn't THAT inferior, and also huge numbers of tanks CAN overwhelm the enemy. Massive artillery was also on the side of the USSR. May be the quantaty factor doesn't work in the air, but Russia had exceptional SAMs. I know you may disagree, but the SA-11 and the family were good enough to deny NATO total air surpremacy, and also MiG-29s and SU-27s would give NATO airforces some headaches. I am sorry for the rant, but I cannot comprehend how you can discount the Red Army which had the world scared for about 40 years.

Indeed the Reds had good equipment and massive numbers, but their average soldier (and leadership in my opinion) was lacking. Also you mention the industrial complex. A conventional war between the superpowers would end up a war between the economies, which the United States and NATO would win. Also our navy could wipe out anything that the Reds could feild. I agree actually on the airpower, the soviets built up (which would have proven a smart move) one heck of an air defense grid with the various aircraft and SAMs. Yes, the Red Army was feared. But when the Iron Curtan fell, the Russians released documents of the weaknesses of their units. A war with the USSR would probably end up in France in the first years, with them wining. Eventually the probable German resistance would damage their supply along. Plus the technological and economic superiority would allow the west, mostly the Anglo-American forces, to dominate in Western Euorpe which the US/UK/French forces live at and train most of the year, which the Russians do not. The war would probably end up at the Rhine or the original territory that each started with.

Not well motivated in some recent conflicts- yes, but not cowardly- Give Yanks a reason enough ie no beer or no football-and boy would I run out of the way. Plus we have options like presicion missiles and bombs so frankly why sweat it.

Lol Herc. Nice way of putting things in a witty way. Indeed the US military is not cowardly. We use smart ideas and tryed and tested tactics that work.

The US Army In 2006: UEx 1st Arm Div-Germany or US based 1st Bde 2nd Bde 3rd Bde-Ft Riley, KS UEx 1st Cav Div-Ft Hood, TX 1st UA BCT 2nd UA BCT 3rd UA BCT 4th UA BCT-Ft Bliss, TX UEx 1st Inf Div(M)-Germany or US Based 1st Bde-Ft Riley, KS 2nd Bde 3rd Bde UEx 2nd Inf Div-Korea or US Based 1st Bde 2nd Bde 3rd Stryker CBT-Ft Lewis, WA UEx 3rd Inf Div(M)-Ft Stewart, GA 1st UA BCT 2nd UA BCT 3rd UA BCT-Ft Benning, GA 4th UA BCT UEx 4th Inf Div(M)-Ft Hood, TX 1st UA BCT 2nd UA BCT 3rd UA BCT-Ft Carson, CO 4th UA BCT UEx 10th Mt Div(L)-Ft Drum, NY 1st UA BCT 2nd UA BCT 3rd UA BCT 4th UA BCT-Ft Polk, LA UEx 25th Inf Div(L)-Hawaii 1st Stryker BCT-Ft Lewis, WA 2nd Stryker BCT 1st UA BCT 2nd UA BCT(Abn)-Ft Richardson, AK 3rd UA BCT-Ft Benning, GA 4th UA BCT-Ft Riley, KS UEx 82nd Abn Div-Ft Bragg, NC 1st UA BCT 2nd UA BCT 3rd UA BCT 4th UA BCT UEx 101st Abn Div(AA)-Ft Campbell, KY 1st UA BCT 2nd UA BCT 3rd UA BCT 4th UA BCT 172nd Stryker BCT=Ft Wainwright, AK 173rd UA Abn Bde-Italy 2nd Cav Stryker Bde-Ft Lewis, WA 3rd Arm Cav Regt-Ft Carson, CO

the most feared modern army? The American army has the ability to bring to bear the greatest amount of firepower in the shortest time and with the highest degree of accuracy. Does that mean it is the most feared? Hardly...the most feared might be the military that fails to show restraint in the application of their firepower. They would be the military that; when applying that firepower; produces the greatest number of causalties. That would include non combatants. If that is a consideration then perhaps the IDF is the "most feared" of modern armies.