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
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What constitutes the ideal modern army?
Cybernuke    12/26/2009 9:51:19 PM
I want to discuss what is the ideal Modern Army? Though each country faces different threats and priorities, the discussion centers around constant conditions such as no immediate threats. I will begin this discussion with an incomplete idea what this modern army should be in rather general and vague terms. A modern army in my mind should be a flexible and mobile army. It should be light and must be able to react to a threat in a speedy timetable. A modern army should be professional and should exhibit quality over quantity. A modern army should, though light and flexible, be able to exert an incredible amount of firepower but should not be bogged down with machinery that is too heavy to move quickly. A modern army should be able to communicate securely and effectively throughout its ranks. A modern army should be able to work with intelligence to effectively figure out who they are fighting, what they are fighting, and how many they are fighting. Please expand with fresh ideas and don't be afraid to argue about my points :D.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3
french stratege       12/31/2009 9:27:34 PM
But, why does Sweden and Finland need it? Russia isn't the Soviet threat anymore. I feel the conscript army is for those nations that face a larger and immediate threat. Switzerland isn't threatened at all why do they need the conscript army? 
Russia is still powerfull with a more than one million men army.
If Sweden (9 millions people) or Finland (5 millions people) field a pure professional army, they would have a 34 000 or a 21 000 professional army instead of being able to field a 15 time bigger army in war time.
When you suppress draft, it is very difficult to reinstall it.
Same for Switzerland .
Its army is a deterrent.
After all, Switzerland has been blackmailed for preserving secret in bank accounts.
A free country needs to deter.
And Switzerland can field a 350 000 men army for the same price of a 25 000 professional.
 
Moreover I think for myself that defending a country is a duty for everybody.
Why should only volonteers should defend the country while it is a duty for everyone?
Draft armies are a powerfull deterrent when you dont have nukes or been preserved by sea or ocean.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JTR~~    sound very much like what the British army is going for   3/15/2010 3:18:38 PM

I want to discuss what is the ideal Modern Army? Though each country faces different threats and priorities, the discussion centers around constant conditions such as no immediate threats. I will begin this discussion with an incomplete idea what this modern army should be in rather general and vague terms.
A modern army in my mind should be a flexible and mobile army. It should be light and must be able to react to a threat in a speedy timetable.
A modern army should be professional and should exhibit quality over quantity.
A modern army should, though light and flexible, be able to exert an incredible amount of firepower but should not be bogged down with machinery that is too heavy to move quickly.
A modern army should be able to communicate securely and effectively throughout its ranks.
A modern army should be able to work with intelligence to effectively figure out who they are fighting, what they are fighting, and how many they are fighting.
Please expand with fresh ideas and don't be afraid to argue about my points :D.

i will say other armys do things differently and it works for them, look at the US they are doing fine :)
but this does sound much like the British army, either that or the Canadian army or israeli army
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics