Best army...ever!

johnnysmack

With all the armies that ever graced the world, who do you think were greastest military force of their day, given the technology and conditions of the time? perhaps the romans, persians, chinese, the wehrmacht in the ww2, the greeks or spartans, the americans now, the mongols, the huns, the list goes on. who do you think?

piby

In the 15th century the Chinese had an army of approx. 1 million men armed with guns! Contrast this with the best army in Europe at the time which was the English with I think about 10,000 men armed with longbows, swords etc. then it's no contest.

However as this Chinese never came into contact with any other major army that I'm aware of (although I may be wrong) then I would have to say the Romans. Well equipped, well trained, well led (for the most part!), excellent tactics, they were just miles ahead of their time and fought with devastating effect time after time.

djtechnics1210

+1, the auld spartans were a great bunch of lads too, well apart from that fella with the dodgy lump on his back selling them out to the bloke that that he was god.

iceage

Jacks Army...:D those were the days....












I'll get my coat!

Nerin

Hmmm...tough.... Spartans were excellent,and well equipt. Just don't start quoting scenes from 300

neilled

I would say probably the mongols or the macedonians under alexander. Both were forces that were more mobile, better equipped and better controlled that anything of their day. They both conquered vast swathes of territory, far in advance of anything that had been known before.

Nerin

neilled wrote: »

I would say probably the mongols or the macedonians under alexander. Both were forces that were more mobile, better equipped and better controlled that anything of their day. They both conquered vast swathes of territory, far in advance of anything that had been known before.

True,the mongols first encounter with the japanese was a bloodbath,tradition left the japanese unprepared for the mongols tactics. Although,the samurai got their own back in the end

bunny shooter

The "Old IRA", 1919-1921, they took on the British Army here and forced them into a truce

neilled

Nerin wrote: »

True,the mongols first encounter with the japanese was a bloodbath,tradition left the japanese unprepared for the mongols tactics. Although,the samurai got their own back in the end

Their encounters with european and arab forces were also bloodbaths - they destroyed much of the islamic caliphate, killing the caliph and also wiped out most of the armies collected by the hungarian and polish kingdoms to oppose them.

Nerin

its hard to compare them though.
the japansese would introduce themselves and "pick their guy" for the battle then go back to their lines before battle.
the mongols just stood by their lines and fired volleys of arrows at the japanese, total shock to them.

it was the japanese saw the mongols were not "polite/traditional in combat" the slaughtered the mongols on their ships.

me_right_one

bunny shooter wrote: »

The "Old IRA", 1919-1921, they took on the British Army here and forced them into a truce

I fully agree.

twinytwo

It depends what time period you look at

I mean you have alexander, Kahn,Romans, Brits they all had their empires each rose and fell, kicking ass and taking names as they went.

Personally today even though i dont like to admit it id have to say the brits. They have always had the most professional soldiers

concussion

bunny shooter wrote: »

The "Old IRA", 1919-1921, they took on the British Army here and forced them into a truce

Yet they couldn't take and hold ground - the basic requirement for an army. If we were discussing insurgent armies they I wouldn't argue against you

IRISH RAIL

Israel defense forces
Sinai Campaign
Six day war
And the counter attack in 73

when you look at the odds stacked against them it is remakable
also the forgotten fact that in 73 the sinai was the biggest tank battle since ww2 also the first ship to ship missile battle. some benchmarking there that was forgotton ( benchmarking for him testing lockheed against Ussr for others )

truly amazing military failuries in 73 from Elazar and a rogue Sharon to save the day which could start another thread about disobaying order to save the nation.

trentf

bruce campbells army of darkness no stoppen em..

me_right_one

concussion wrote: »

Yet they couldn't take and hold ground - the basic requirement for an army. If we were discussing insurgent armies they I wouldn't argue against you

What are you on about? They took and held 3/4 of our country until the treaty was signed. No small task when you consider it was the "British Empire" they took on, many of whose soldiers were battle-hardened from years in the trenches! And remember aswell, a lot of the old IRA would have grew up in the aftermath of the famine, when there was no such thing as school or army training. The organisational and tactical skills they had were outstanding. Its just a pity they didnt get the whole country:(

concussion

me_right_one wrote: »

What are you on about? They took and held 3/4 of our country until the treaty was signed. No small task when you consider it was the "British Empire" they took on, many of whose soldiers were battle-hardened from years in the trenches! And remember aswell, a lot of the old IRA would have grew up in the aftermath of the famine, when there was no such thing as school or army training. The organisational and tactical skills they had were outstanding. Its just a pity they didnt get the whole country:(

If politics were cast aside the British could have sent in all their forces and completely overwhelmed the IRA, IMO. Therefore I don't believe they were the best army ever.

Duffers

Can't believe no one's mentioned the yanks??

I do agree that defeating the British was a pretty incredible feat. But weren't there plenty of lads fighting against the Brits who had seen the horrors of the trenches in WW1? 35,000 Irish casualties in WW1 I think it was?
Very interesting period in history, you have to wonder what the Irish lads who came home on 'furlough' around then thought of the pamphlets 'our gallant allies in europe'(ie the germans) etc
Or what they thought when they heard of the executions in Dublin while they were in the trenches.

HOWEVER back on topic, what about the Turkish armed forces? It's fooking massive, has some of the best Artic Warfare troops in the world. Only the USA has a bigger force.

LD 50

Duffers wrote: »

Can't believe no one's mentioned the yanks??

I do agree that defeating the British was a pretty incredible feat. But weren't there plenty of lads fighting against the Brits who had seen the horrors of the trenches in WW1? 35,000 Irish casualties in WW1 I think it was?
Very interesting period in history, you have to wonder what the Irish lads who came home on 'furlough' around then thought of the pamphlets 'our gallant allies in europe'(ie the germans) etc
Or what they thought when they heard of the executions in Dublin while they were in the trenches.

HOWEVER back on topic, what about the Turkish armed forces? It's fooking massive, has some of the best Artic Warfare troops in the world. Only the USA has a bigger force.

The IRA didn't defeat the British. They put them in a standoff. Big difference. If the British had decided "Feck this, lets just take over that small little neighbour across the pond, civilian casualties be damned", I believe they could have.

I wouldn't have thought that turkey of all countries would have a big Arctic Force, considering their location and sunny warm climate.

Duffers

Yes you are right, should have read cold weather/mountain warfare:rolleyes:. For 'Artic' read 'ARCtic', ffs!
Also yes, defeat would be the wrong term! It is unfortunate that so many men were killed in the process, when you take in to consideration how many men had been killed in the years preceding, all over the world.

bunny shooter

concussion wrote: »

Yet they couldn't take and hold ground - the basic requirement for an army. If we were discussing insurgent armies they I wouldn't argue against you

I disagree, there were vast rural parts of the country where the British couldn't operate/go, so therefore, in reality, the "Old IRA" did and could "hold ground". And more importantly, they had the backing of the majority of the population which is vital for any "army"

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

twinytwo

LD 50 wrote: »

The IRA didn't defeat the British. They put them in a standoff. Big difference. If the British had decided "Feck this, lets just take over that small little neighbour across the pond, civilian casualties be damned", I believe they could have.

I wouldn't have thought that turkey of all countries would have a big Arctic Force, considering their location and sunny warm climate.

That is what seprerates us from them*

* them being the people that place no price on human lives and cut off the heads of captured soldiers

JohnButler

The Mongols. In almost every regard. Generals, strategy, objectives, consequences, number of battles won vs battles lost, organisation, efficiency and communication. They have very few rivals.

diverdriver

They used to say the Irish know their history all too well. It seems things have changed. In reality, good though they were the old IRA were on the brink of defeat, thanks to Dev hence the need for a treaty. The British dictated terms in the treaty. Read it if you don't believe me.

In any case they were not a conventional army, so can be excluded. In any case the Irish army were better because they defeated them in the civil war. Hard to escape that reality.

As for the best army ever, that can be argued forever. I would agree with the suggestion of the Mongols in ancient times and the Israelis in modern times. By whatever standard of measurement an army drawn from a country of 3 million (as was) should not have been able to defeat four armies on two fronts but they did. Not only that they repelled an invasion from Egypt and were well on their way to Cairo at the end of the Yom Kippur war.

The Germans in WW2 have to be high on the list. They lost but they didn't make it easy.

twinytwo

diverdriver wrote: »

They used to say the Irish know their history all too well. It seems things have changed. In reality, good though they were the old IRA were on the brink of defeat, thanks to Dev hence the need for a treaty. The British dictated terms in the treaty. Read it if you don't believe me.

In any case they were not a conventional army, so can be excluded. In any case the Irish army were better because they defeated them in the civil war. Hard to escape that reality.

As for the best army ever, that can be argued forever. I would agree with the suggestion of the Mongols in ancient times and the Israelis in modern times. By whatever standard of measurement an army drawn from a country of 3 million (as was) should not have been able to defeat four armies on two fronts but they did. Not only that they repelled an invasion from Egypt and were well on their way to Cairo at the end of the Yom Kippur war.

The Germans in WW2 have to be high on the list. They lost but they didn't make it easy.

The germans always have been and will continue to be tough fighters.... As for the israelis the massive aid they recieve military aid they recieve from america helps but israel is in a unique situation that if they ever loss they will be wiped out... that said repelling an invasion from egypt back then would not have been a hard thing considering the state of their armed forces

diverdriver

Ah Twiny man, you really need to read up on your military history. The Israelis were not massively aided by the US in 1949 or 1956 or even 1967. They weren't even that heavily aided in 1973. A lot of their equipment was French with British Centurion tanks. Not only that, Egypt and Syria were heavily aided and trained by the Soviets and frankly were no pushovers as a fighting force. Initially they made great progress. In the early days of the 1973 war the Israeli tanks were hard hit by the Sagger missiles supplied by the Soviets, knocking out a lot of tanks. Plus the SAM system they deployed took a huge toll on the IAF.

No the Israelis won their wars on the sheer bloody fighting ability of their men. There was I recall a story of one single tank commander on the Golan Heights who knocked out a couple of dozen Syrian tanks despite being knocked out himself and injured several times. There are any number of stories like that.

The fact that the modern IDF is supported by the Americans doesn't take anything away from the fighting abilities. The current perception of the Israelis in many circles as some kind of American puppet oppressing the Palestinians is a long way from the Israel that was essentially isolated and in danger of annihilation on any given day. Come to think of it. That's still true.

There are a lot of good books dealing with Israel's wars. Read one or two. It will give you a whole new respect for them as fighters.

As a teenager, I remember a series of periodicals sold in newsagents called 'Born in Battle'. They were Israeli publications dealing with their military and their battles. Even as a young gung ho teenager. I realised they were hopelessly biased and propagandistic. Nevertheless they were fascinating and sobering sometimes. I wonder how we in Ireland would have survived an assault the Israelis had to repel every few years.

bunny shooter

diverdriver wrote: »

They used to say the Irish know their history all too well. It seems things have changed. In reality, good though they were the old IRA were on the brink of defeat, thanks to Dev hence the need for a treaty. The British dictated terms in the treaty. Read it if you don't believe me.

In any case they were not a conventional army, so can be excluded. In any case the Irish army were better because they defeated them in the civil war. Hard to escape that reality...........

Take my word for it that I know my Irish history especially this period of it.

The British looked for a Truce. I sugggest you check this. TBH what was achieved in the Treaty, although not full independence was more than would have been hoped for just a few years previously.

Your knowledge of the period is obviously lacking as the Irregulars never surrendered. They "put away" their arms until a more oportune time in the future as per Dev's instructions. It must be noted that time still has not arrived

It is very hard to "beat" an unconventional army e.g French & Americans in Vietnam, Russians in Afganistan, Americans & British in Afganistan and Iraq

An unconventional army is still an army, The Old IRA was organised along the same lines as a conventional army comprising Companies, Battalions, Brigades roughly based on geographical boundaries much the same as the Irish Army is today.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

concussion wrote: »

If politics were cast aside the British could have sent in all their forces and completely overwhelmed the IRA, IMO. Therefore I don't believe they were the best army ever.

No they weren't, not close. They did, however, achieve a lot with very limited equipment. The birth of Guerrilla warfare if I am right?

There are a lot of great armies, but what do you base your answer on? Size of the army? What they conquered? Their skills in combat? Their training? How dependant they are on equipment and technology? Their reign?

Personally I love the structure of the Roman empire, their tactics and overall obedience.

I think the spartans used simplistic tactics but relied on skill in combat. Fighting close range.

I loved the technological advances of the samurai, their skill in combat and the honor they had.

I think the romans are probably ranked one of the best armies of all times?

beertons

From the film Delta Force with Chuck Norris, pure class

Duffers

Lydia Delightful Unit wrote: »

No they weren't, not close. They did, however, achieve a lot with very limited equipment. The birth of Guerrilla warfare if I am right?

Pre-dated by the Boer Commandos(the first men to be called Commandos), who were, no doubt, pre-dated by someone else.

You could argue that indigs opposing a convential force any time in history were waging a Guerilla campaign. But the Boers did it to such effect that the British utilised some of their methods later on.

twinytwo

Lydia Delightful Unit wrote: »

No they weren't, not close. They did, however, achieve a lot with very limited equipment. The birth of Guerrilla warfare if I am right?

There are a lot of great armies, but what do you base your answer on? Size of the army? What they conquered? Their skills in combat? Their training? How dependant they are on equipment and technology? Their reign?

Personally I love the structure of the Roman empire, their tactics and overall obedience.

I think the spartans used simplistic tactics but relied on skill in combat. Fighting close range.

I loved the technological advances of the samurai, their skill in combat and the honor they had.

I think the romans are probably ranked one of the best armies of all times?

Dude guerrilla warfare has been going on for a lot longer than the ira has been around ... i mean your going back to the time of Alexander the great

Thirdfox

Another vote for the Mongol Horde - largest land empire in the world (managed to defeat the Russians... something that both Napolean and Hitler failed to do - perhaps the winters back then weren't as cold? )

Though the US army, being the sole militarial superpower remaining in the world is an impressive achievement and of course nowadays one cannot create too many bloodbaths before getting in trouble with the higher ups.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Yea I made a mistake about the guerilla warfare statement. I don't know where I got that from really. Did the IRA actually invent any kind of warfare?

@ Thirdfox. Are the chinese not considered a military super power? Excuse my ignorance people.

Thirdfox

The Chinese are upgrading their military from a human based to tech based military... but are nowhere near the military power of the Americans. The airforce is being upgraded, navy is not "blue water" capable (projecting power beyond its local territorial waters), army is mainly soldiers without the latest IT support (though it is an area of asymmetrical warfare the Chinese are looking at).

Compare this - the US have 11 super aircraft carriers - and can deploy their military power within a few days.

The Chinese have 0 aircraft carriers, they may be building one soon but the Americans are criticising that action and probably can't even retake Taiwan in the event of a military conflict (though the balance of power is changing).

So the Chinese are quite confined to their domestic area and lack offensive power (that's against Chinese governmental policies anyway). Though they did send 3 ships to patrol the pirate bay off Somalia recently.

I'm Chinese by the way


Oh and did you know Mao Ze Dong (Chairman Mao to non-commies ) learnt guerrilla warfare techniques from the RA...

BlaasForRafa

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

Israel defense forces
Sinai Campaign
Six day war
And the counter attack in 73

when you look at the odds stacked against them it is remakable
also the forgotten fact that in 73 the sinai was the biggest tank battle since ww2 also the first ship to ship missile battle. some benchmarking there that was forgotton ( benchmarking for him testing lockheed against Ussr for others )

truly amazing military failuries in 73 from Elazar and a rogue Sharon to save the day which could start another thread about disobaying order to save the nation.

Don't forget the 7th armored brigade that halted the syrian attack on the Golan front despite being outnumbered by more than 5 to 1.

Fishtits

After long and considerate thought on this subject.

My vote would be with the Brits.

Not the most popular vote, but, IMHO the only organisation to consistantley get the job done.

Hookey

Fishtits wrote: »

After long and considerate thought on this subject.

My vote would be with the Brits.

Not the most popular vote, but, IMHO the only organisation to consistantley get the job done.

I don't even think the Brits, on honest assessment, would say they've ever had the best army, at any time. Special Forces, maybe. If you're talking about navies, then yes no contest, the Brits had the best navy over the longest period of history. No one else comes close until the Americans after 1943.

As for armies, if you divided it up by period, in the classical period it was probably the Macedonians, who did more with less than the Romans, but you could certainly make an argument for the Romans as well.

In the medieval period, the Mongols, by a long way.

In the post-renaissance/pre-modern era, its quite tricky, but you'd have to give it to Napoleon's Grand Armee.

In WWII, the Wermacht. All the figures show they were man for man the best troops both offensively and defensively.

Post-war, the Israelis between 67 and 73.

Now? Bizarrely, one of the most successful armies of the modern era is Eritrea; pop 3.5M v Ethiopia, pop 60M, using the same weapons, and they won. They're like the African Prussia.

TerrorFirmer

What are you on about? They took and held 3/4 of our country until the treaty was signed. No small task when you consider it was the "British Empire" they took on, many of whose soldiers were battle-hardened from years in the trenches! And remember aswell, a lot of the old IRA would have grew up in the aftermath of the famine, when there was no such thing as school or army training. The organisational and tactical skills they had were outstanding. Its just a pity they didnt get the whole country

They took them on in non conventional warfare, and were an extreme annoyance to British occupation. The British government didn't even have the support of its own people. Yes the IRA acheived some incredible feats and the treaty required a lot of sacrifice, but it was not acheived solely because the IRA were a great army. In fact at the time of the truce munitions and arms were dangerously low - if the British had decided to continue for a few more years it probably would have seen a major decline in activity. It was an unpopular conflict and they knew it. And what are YOU on about regarding they took and held three quarters of the country? No, they didn't. At any one time the IRA certainly held areas in which they were in strong positions but they never remotely held anything like 75% of the country prior to the treaty. At the end of the day, Politics were the more determining factor in the treaty, not military action. It was a war of attrition and the British got tired for various reasons. At no time was the British Army as a force in even a 1% danger of being militarily dominated by the IRA to any capacity. Military action was a part of a bigger picture for Irish freedom. The IRA served its purpose and sacrificed an awful lot for a good cause but this myth that the IRA fought the British Army in some sort of open battle and won is laughable. Also, in proportion to active personal on both sides, the Irish also had a lot of experience of the Trenches.

A mate of mine reckons the waffen ss were the best army of world war 2

Assuming he means fighting force, then what's wrong with that?

Israels military history and performance in nothing less then astonishing and victory is often actually attributable largely to an incredible fighting ethic (ironically the very thinking that led to a great deal of the bloodbaths of the late 19th/early 20th century). The War of 1949 is....incredible to say the least.

JOM34

No one has mentioned The Carthaginians under Hannibal. My Roman history is very hazy but did he not cross the Alps(with elephants) & defeat the Romans on their own soil several times. Had an opportunity to lay siege to Rome but chose not too.

elpresdentde

Hookey wrote: »

probably the Macedonians, who did more with less than the Romans

10000 men if i remember right

elpresdentde

JOM34 wrote: »

No one has mentioned The Carthaginians under Hannibal. My Roman history is very hazy but did he not cross the Alps(with elephants) & defeat the Romans on their own soil several times. Had an opportunity to lay siege to Rome but chose not too.

only 1 elephant made it over the alps
classic case of winning the battles and losing the war

Leadership

Fishtits wrote: »

After long and considerate thought on this subject.

My vote would be with the Brits.

Not the most popular vote, but, IMHO the only organisation to consistantley get the job done.

The Brits have long a long and glorious history of military failure and have been bailed out in the neck of time by other Armies throughout history. The empire was a remarkable achievement considering the resources and the supply lines but in terms of man for man they were weak and relied on superior fire power against arguably savages.

The first world war and the early second world war sum up the army for me. Outdated equipment and tactics and incompetence on the General Staff level killed millions.

The modern army is again let down by the high level leadership who are more politicians than leaders of men.

Up to Battlegroup level the BA is a solid force and with a 50/50 mixed armour/infantry force with full air and fire support would take some stopping. I would say only the Israelis could stop them up to Brigade level.

The American army obviously has the fire power and numbers and without a doubt a solid army. My problem with the US military is the lack of on the ground creativity at section level and the fact that everyone is specialist and not very good outside the box. Where I can speak from experience is for example the engineer battalions there are separate roles for Bridge builders, Mine clearance etc where the British has engineer units doing all those tasks.

My opinion is that Israelis have best blend of experience, equipment and soldiers.

Sean Templar

johnnysmack wrote: »

With all the armies that ever graced the world, who do you think were greastest military force of their day, given the technology and conditions of the time? perhaps the romans, persians, chinese, the wehrmacht in the ww2, the greeks or spartans, the americans now, the mongols, the huns, the list goes on. who do you think?

Apart from the usual suspects the Romans,mongols,wermacht ,normans,etc.
I know that although not technally an army the swiss mercenary pikemen had a huge impact during the renaissance,they fought all over europe in many armies,were highly sort after by all sides due to their numerous victories over 150 years.That says something for the training ,tactics and courage of these men.

You also have to admire the welsh/english longbowmen which brought fantastic victories against the french at crecy,poitiers and agincourt.

Also the later victories of british military machine, where their armies and navies conquered one fifth of the world.Given the extended time period they held their territories ,the size of their conquests along with their continuing military technological advances over the same period, i would have to rate them as one of the greatest military forces in history. (although i'am gagging as i say it)

LostinBlanch

the IRA/IRB didn't invent guerilla warfare but under Collins were the first example of "modern" guerilla warfare IMO.

Thirdfox wrote: »

Oh and did you know Mao Ze Dong (Chairman Mao to non-commies ) learnt guerrilla warfare techniques from the RA...

Didn't know that, but did know that Ho Chi Min learned a lot from Irish experience of beating* the Brits.






*I know not an actual victory but a hitherto unimaginable score draw.

Duck's hoop

Sean Templar wrote: »

You also have to admire the welsh/english longbowmen which brought fantastic victories against the french at crecy,poitiers and agincourt.

Absolutely. I'm getting into this era at the mo and these guys were the sh!t. Fascinating history over a few hundred years. Pick yourself a copy of 'The Great Warbow' if you're even slightly interested. Magnificent history of archery and crossbows and the attendant technology, politics and intrigue.

Fratton Fred

Duck's hoop wrote: »

Sean Templar wrote: »

You also have to admire the welsh/english longbowmen which brought fantastic victories against the french at crecy,poitiers and agincourt.

Absolutely. I'm getting into this era at the mo and these guys were the sh!t. Fascinating history over a few hundred years. Pick yourself a copy of 'The Great Warbow' if you're even slightly interested. Magnificent history of archery and crossbows and the attendant technology, politics and intrigue.

Have you got to the bit about the two fingered salute yet?:D

Hookey

LostinBlanch wrote: »

the IRA/IRB didn't invent guerilla warfare but under Collins were the first example of "modern" guerilla warfare IMO.

Nah, the Spanish coined the phrase "Guerilla" in the Peninsular War, and the Boer War is widely recognised as the first modern guerilla war.

Duck's hoop

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Have you got to the bit about the two fingered salute yet?:D

Not even sure they mention it but I was aware of it alright, bit of an archery legend. 'We've still got our fingers and you French dogs are going to die'. Good psyche out.

LostinBlanch

Hookey wrote: »

Nah, the Spanish coined the phrase "Guerilla" in the Peninsular War.

Well seeing as Guerilla is a spanish word I'll give you that one.

Hookey wrote: »

and the Boer War is widely recognised as the first modern guerilla war.

So the Boers used commandos, did they win? There was an Irish Brigade fighting with them. Is it any surprise that they learned from the Boers losing experiences? My point about Ho Chi Minh learning from the Irish experience still stands.

twinytwo

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

They took them on in non conventional warfare, and were an extreme annoyance to British occupation. The British government didn't even have the support of its own people. Yes the IRA acheived some incredible feats and the treaty required a lot of sacrifice, but it was not acheived solely because the IRA were a great army. In fact at the time of the truce munitions and arms were dangerously low - if the British had decided to continue for a few more years it probably would have seen a major decline in activity. It was an unpopular conflict and they knew it. And what are YOU on about regarding they took and held three quarters of the country? No, they didn't. At any one time the IRA certainly held areas in which they were in strong positions but they never remotely held anything like 75% of the country prior to the treaty. At the end of the day, Politics were the more determining factor in the treaty, not military action. It was a war of attrition and the British got tired for various reasons. At no time was the British Army as a force in even a 1% danger of being militarily dominated by the IRA to any capacity. Military action was a part of a bigger picture for Irish freedom. The IRA served its purpose and sacrificed an awful lot for a good cause but this myth that the IRA fought the British Army in some sort of open battle and won is laughable. Also, in proportion to active personal on both sides, the Irish also had a lot of experience of the Trenches.



Assuming he means fighting force, then what's wrong with that?

Israels military history and performance in nothing less then astonishing and victory is often actually attributable largely to an incredible fighting ethic (ironically the very thinking that led to a great deal of the bloodbaths of the late 19th/early 20th century). The War of 1949 is....incredible to say the least.

It might have something to do with the fact that if they ever lose their country would be wiped off the map