1. No excuses but target acquisition and ID with thermals is VERY difficult, whether in a tank, Apache or Warthog. 2. Slovenly soldiers? I have seen my share of a lot of NATO soldiers and other countries as well....I am sorry, but the average British soldier does not carry himself in any way special as compared to US troops. 3. And, so? You only have to man a force of 3 divisions and 1 corps...we have to man 10 divisions, 6 separate brigades and 4 sets of corps troops. Everyone can't join for 20. Oh, and BTW, those veterans who join the uS Army for only 3 years go on and get college degrees...and get good jobs and become tax payers. 5. Big question mark here.....this is a crock of $hit. US Infantrymen do know land navigation...anyoine who has been to Yankee Road knows it ain't easy to pass...but every infantryman has to. And how well do you know US soldiers? You show me a squad or section that does not have one country boy or girl or farmer who has tons of experience in field craft and surviving....and has hunted something other than foxes....and can fish. Once agian in a three year enlistment, it is not seen to be that big of a thing, but soldiers learn from each other...and they learn more than sufficient filedcraft/ If you have examples, I would love to hear them. 6. More bull.... 7. Okay, got us there. And the Brits are much better at the hearts and mind game. But that is a reflection of the British Army's experience. We don't do that well.....but you know, the image is of a GI handing out the chewing gum and chocolate to kids, not a Tommie. And I am sure I can find just as many squaddies who will give just as stupid an answer. Oh, and BTW, was it a BBC program? That would be an objective view of the US Army I am sure. 8. Um, er, well we seem to have done pretty well for over 220 years starting with Saratoga and Yorktown through to today. We are fighting in Iraq with a quarter of our military because we have not mobilized and everyone (to include the UK) expects us to keep things straight in a lot of the world. That said, I have a ton of respect for the British Army...I number among my friends several officers of that great fighting force. 2 are in MOD Bristol and 2 are in the RLC...but we all met as infantry officers years ago. If we choose to fight and win using firepower, protection and maneuver....what of it? How does that make us lesser soldiers? That said, I will be gone for 2 weeks so I look forward to your response then. And as I said, the British are the best army in the world...whcich is made up of one corps. But that is one hell of a corps.

You Brits always comparing yourselves to the little brother who grew up to be bigger then you.How about the Isreali's.Pound for pound thats where I would bet my money.

You would bet your money for best trained army on a conscript force?

You bet.Religion is big motivator to put your life on the line.Its conscript because of the small size of the country,and they are surrounded by their enemy.Minutes away by fighter jet.They consider it a duty and honor to serve because of this threat and the beleif that the holy lands will never be surrendered.the Isreali army can mobilize faster then any others out of sheer necessity.Look at history they have kicked some serious butt against larger armys on multiple fronts.There defence industry is self efficent,can produce its own parts and weapons if need be.The military has set itself up to operate indepently of other nations.America mobilization to conduct large combat operations leaves a lot to be desired.America and Britan depend on common NATO assets.So pound for pound Soilder for Soilder Isreal is my call as the best trained and overall combat ready Army.

heck of a difference tween guys with 8, 10 or 12 years experience and guys with 18 months experience no matter the motivation levels.

8 to 12 years is a only a carrer solider not the norm or the average in any Army.An Isreali soider on average is more combat proven.And demograpically on carrer soilders per capita the numbers would be the same.In the U.S most soilders due one enlistment.{right now many are being held beyond there original ETS because of the current middle east sitiuation.]The Isreali have been dealing with these pests since the inception of their nation.It is fact of everyday life for them.America Have Great militarys.I think Iserals is better trained and combat ready.Look at there battle history.

Old infantryman theres a great article at Janes.com on NTC being converted for warfare in Iraq. Six Iraqi villages have been constructed,and Iraqi americans have vollunteered to staff them to train Soiders and Marines on patrolling and interacting with Iraqi civilians.Also engageing insurgents.

"An Isreali soider on average is more combat proven." no offence, but where have the Israelis done anything outside of FIBUA that even remotely resembles GW1, GW2 and the like? They haven't been exposed to a force majeur conflict for over 25 years. That means that there is a shortage of historical knowledge, and in a conscripted army that ebbs and flows with the economy - then it's not a retentive process. A lack of exposure for a physical generation will impact on any nations absolute capability. You cannot compare FIBUA/hi-tempo counter insurgency with committed, combined arms events. It's chalk and cheese. comparing a conscript army with no major battle experience for at least a generation, an army that is formed around FIBUA, is nowhere near the same as standing armies that have been committed to a full theatre engagement 3-4 times in the last 25 years. The Israelis deserve respect - but there is no contest in comparative and real terms.

The mobiliziation and Train up of most forces involved for gw1 and gw2 took months.Why a Train up?Seems to me a soldier should be trained/combat ready.I think the US has improved,and we are the most logitically capable military.The real war has become the insurgency.Who has more experience then Isreal in this area.What are we calling it?The war on terror!Who has dealt with terrorist more effectivly.

The mobiliziation and Train up of most forces involved for gw1 and gw2 took months. They were transnational and transcontinental wars - how can you even begin to compare intercontinental preparation with bordered engagement? There is a huge difference, to try and use it as an example is specious. Why a Train up?Seems to me a soldier should be trained/combat ready.I think the US has improved,and we are the most logitically capable military. No, Israeli is the most logistically prepared for a bordered conflict - she can't project power with persistence in the classical sense. You are conveniently ignoring the issue of warfare which requires projection and persistence across any environment to rate as a fully effective fighting force. If Mexico decides to invade the US, do you think that the US is unable to bring it's logistics together in a timely fashion? Of course it can. It's a no brainer removing gear from warehouses to a battlefield less than 50-200km away. Make it 5000km away and you'll start to sort the theatre players from the local players The real war has become the insurgency.Who has more experience then Isreal in this area.What are we calling it?The war on terror!Who has dealt with terrorist more effectivly. Thats a copout, the war on terror doesn't negate the necessity for traditional force projection. How would you deal with another Kosovo, Albania, Taiwan, Afghanistan, or a Falklands even? Thinking that the Israeli construct of terrorism engagement negates the use combined arms per se is incredibly short sighted and ignores the history and reality of conflict. Israels war is not a transcontinental engagement, it is therefore not representative of the other myriad of conflicts and contacts currently underway. Israel doesn't have the resources or capacity to fight prolonged wars, she does not field an attrition resistant force, is unable to do so, and as such that restricts her capacity to fight at certain levels. The whole idea of nukes is to add a variance to the projection component. She fails dramatically at a conventional level at the persistence measurement. Her own senior officers and planners recognise that. ipso facto, you immediately define a limitation that an enemy will try and lever to their advantage (again why Israel developed nukes to act as a counterbalance). You are not comparing apples with apples. Is Israel the most experienced FIBUA force available? yes, and she's probably persistently in the top 3, is she the best equiped and trained for continental and transnational conflict? no - not by a long shot. At a cohort level, one would have to argue quite clearly that in mass terms, the UK Forces are better trained and equiped for theatre war than the Israeli forces. Don't forget that the UK spent just as much time and blood learning urban conflict and contact in Nthrn Ireland. FIBUA is not exclusively an Israeli learning experience. You'll note that US Forces are adopting both UK and Israeli models for dealing with an urban threat.