A few thoughts on the conversation below: US, PLA, Israel, Germany, UK, France, Australia. I think all of these nations have outstanding armies (or in the case of the PLA frontline units) for the jobs they are required to do. I wouldn't want to face the first three (plus maybe Germans) in a stand-up all arms fight. In less conventional or lighter infantry fighting the French, Brits & Aussies do very well. The reason for all the firepower with the yanks is a) because they can; b) because the US public doesn't like high casualties, so better to kill the other guy before he can even get off a shot. Seems like a good idea to me. Some historical notes. To the list provided earlier I would add Zulus & Maori (New Zealand natives). The former dominated their corner of Africa and fought with amazing bravery (if not always cleverly) against europeans. The Maori out thought & outfought the Brits & NZ colonists for decades, until sheer weight of numbers told against them. Like the Zulu, in close quarters combat they were a match for any infantry in history. Vietnam: I would rate the PAVN (aka NVA) quite highly for sheer bravery and doggedness. Some of these guys fought for a decade against massively superior firepower and just didn't give up. The yanks probably inflicted death at 20:1, can't say about casualties. I disagree with the "America never lost a battle" line. Putting aside the possibility that they did 'lose' a battle or tweo in conventional terms, this ignores the realities of the Vietnam War. The US dcided to fight a war of attrition, the idea being that they could kill or wound so many of the enemy that they would sue for peace. Unfortunately this ignored the possibility that the enemy would inflict enough casualties to make the war unsustainable for America. I would argue that every battle where America lost a man was a loss. Given that 80%-90% of combat was initiated by the other side, I would suggest that the US lost a LOT of battles, just not in the old fashioned way.

good post, jaystayme3. I agree, with some reservations. American infantry in World War Two tended to hold back from immediate, agressive attacks; tending to wait for artillery (or other supporting arms) to soften up the enemy first. The 82nd and 101st were exceptions to that generalization. The Marines were also exceptions. I think this means that training and military culture made the difference between "average" and "exceptional". I think the same pattern prevailed in Korea and Viet Nam. I think that the revolution in training methods after Viet Nam (and the move to volunteer, professional soldiers) has raised the level of all American combat specialties. BTW, a book by Colonel Daniel P. Bolger, "Death Ground," gives a nice overview of American infantry

I think it depends on how the war starts to see how the USA supports it & the same goes for 90% of the other nations. Some ways (jokes) Lets say the french get mad & lauch a attack on the US Navy and cause 10000 kia/wounded sailers. The US after that will not stop fighting untill france surrenders or is defeated. Now say if we lauch a attack on canada for no reasons & without the people knowing or under false claimes once we start losing troops the people are gonna get mad & want to end it. If you attack us you will die if we do something like iraq agine ie iran/n.k the people arent gonna support to too long..

Firstly,I have to say that the weakest armies would have to be the arab armnies. they absolutely stand no chance against a well trained western army. none of them have proved yet that they can stand and fight. instead they seem very to be very disorganized,poorly equipped and lacking morale. they seem to make the most noise (mother of all battles comments etc..) and then they run all the middle east breeds is cowardly terrorists that murder innocent civilians with their hands tied behind their backs. anyway,i would have to agree that the most feared army was the german army of ww2. they routed the whole of europe, country after country. butlets not forget that ideology will create a highly movitated soldier. if someones is attacking your home or if you blindly believe in your cause,you will fight at your best. american soldiers have to fight thousand of miles away from home, fighting for political causes that they might not agree with. lets face it they have a daunting task. yet they come through militarly all the time. for that i have to say the the u.s. army is currently the most feared and capable army in the world. but i also think most professional european armies are a potent force to be reckoned with.

Nah not the Americans, they may be the largest and the most advanced army but it holds very little actual fear around the world. However I have to admit its hard to find one that IS feared, Al Queada or this 'network' of terrorist groups Bush seems to be hinting at would definitly get first prize if you include it, got people shaking in their boots throughout the west. Red army definitly the winners of WW2-era, German soldiers did go west to surrender to the allies instead of waiting for the russians after all, Hitler did a very good job covering up what he did to the Jews, sot he average civilian, or even the average soldier didnt even know about it, If he hadn't done that he woulda been the most feared.

Remember the title Modern not "ancient" the United States Marine Corp through its modern history has proven itself to be feared. Just look at the kill to dead ratio in Iraq its running a conservative 10 - 1 ( rag heads to jar heads ), take out the road side bombs and it's even higher. ( aka direct action ) Not to mention what caused all of those feared Ellite Republican Guard to run , Why else do the foreign fighters come to Iraq to Martyrdom. They know they cannot fight but only die. This buds for you , Simper fi do or die.

Don't forget the Finn's. On their territory, they have been top notch before. I do not know the effectiveness of the Finnish army during the cold war, but the Finnish army inflicted ~10^6 casualties upon the Soviets before the Soviets had even engaged the Germans in combat. The Finn's are deserving of this accolade because the forrested/swampy(summer)-forrested/frozen lakes(winter) terrain of their homeland dictated an infantry confrontation, which in my opinion is the only type of modern confrontation where a hypothetical situation discarding equipment and numbers could seriously be considered. Although World War II armies are probably not considered modern for this forum, I question whether a modern confrontation in Finland would be much different.

As a former British serviceman I,d have to go with the U.S. Forces in the 1st Gulf War as most feared armed force-two words-FRIENDLY FIRE!

Smurf, The crazies in Al Quaeda may not fear the US (they have those virgins waiting for them, after all), but ther is a reason the Iraqi standing army melted not once, but twice before US firepower. Keep in mind some of these guys (esp. in 1991) had up to a decade experience fighting a brutal war against fanatics of a different stripe in Iran. Despite the fact that the US Army was mostly inexperienced, it rolled them up in an matter of days. If those Republican Guard divisions running like rabbits from the yanks weren't scared, they were doing a mighty fine impression. I agree with you on the Red Army. Big, exceptionally well armed & trained front line units, exceptionally tough & brutal 2nd or 3rd wave troops, heaps of aisr support, and VERY motivated. The Germans wer surrendering to the allies for a reason. They DID know abpout what happened to millions of Jews & russians because they had been up to their armpits in it. After the war a lot of Germans tried to pretend that they knew nothing (a bit like Sgt. Schultze in 'Hogan's heroes'). Some civilians may have been ignorant, but the military knew what was happening. To quote the bible "there are none so blind as those who refuse to see".

In the Kosovo war, After NATO had done pounding the Serbs for more than a month, it was left to forces from a few European nations to send in troops to take over the transfer of power. The Brits went in, in style! Inspite of the fact that the Serbs in Kosovo had been devastated, had all but surrendered and were pulling out very rapidly, The British Army moved in crouching and cringing behind their cannon fodder Gurkha units. The gurkhas were sent in for risky building securing raids, the Gurkhas were told to go in when some local armed resistance was detected, and whenever the situation appeared to be anything worse than a sunday afternoon stroll, the British units would flee, and the Gurkha units would move in. Any other candidates?