Most Disciplined Modern Armed Force

There is no such theory: The more army is bigger, the less it is disciplined. It is nothing but intuition, if read Sun Tsu. But I agree, that freedom in US influances army negatively. Also, corruption and idea are very big points. Azerbaijan army is very corrupted today, I must be proud with my army, but the reality is very different. It is getting better since new president, but still, there is a corruption which "harasses" the army.

Your guess, would be wrong.

Simultaneously Switzerland is going to take down the following:

1. Netherlands
The Netherlands actually possesses quite a formidable military force for its size.

2. Germany
One of the world's most powerful industrial powers, designer of the Leopard II's that Switzerland uses.

3. Belgium

4. Italy

5. Austria

6. Czech Republic

7. Poland

8. Denmark

I fail to see how they're going to pull that off.

Originally posted by Zaitsev Simultaneously Switzerland is going to take down the following: 1. Netherlands The Netherlands actually possesses quite a formidable military force for its size. 2. Germany One of the world's most powerful industrial powers, designer of the Leopard II's that Switzerland uses. 3. Belgium 4. Italy 5. Austria 6. Czech Republic 7. Poland 8. Denmark I fail to see how they're going to pull that off.

I'm verry suprised and dissapointed that nobody has mentioned the maroon berets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bordo_Bereliler


Btw who voted for Japanese and topic starter(hahahaha)

Japan doesn't have an army


Edited by xi_tujue - 31-Jan-2007 at 14:55

I don't think so really. The US special forces certainly are good, however they are not quite up to the standards of the SAS, GSG9 or GIGN.

I'm not going to bother arguing which is better. However, needless to say there are more efficient and disciplined special forces units than the Delta Force.

In this case, all the US dudes would win the game

Originally posted by Dampier Just a question but who is voting for Israel- this being the same Israel who in the recent Lebanon war was stricken by conscientius objectors, refusal to obey orders to advance, who ignored missile raid warnings adn had such trouble?   While their SF and regulars did fine the Reservists were a disaster.   Similarly voting for Japan makes no sense, Japan has not been engaged in a "proper" war since '45 (when they were again actually one of the more undisciplined armies).

Here is my criteria for what can effect the discipline of an armed force:

- Size: The larger the force becomes the harder it is to control and manage in a 100% effective fashion. There will always be the odd rebel or muck-up, and disruption is inevitable regardless of how elite the force is. For example, the German Army may be very good, efficient and powerful, and rather disciplined overall, but this does not account for the entirety of its composition. Similarly, any national armed force is bound to encounter the same effect due to size, and management restrictions within the armed force.

- Loyalty: This is a very important factor -in my opinion- in not only determining but also assuring discipline within an entity. Complimentary to the 'size' factor, 100% loyalty and willingness to fulfill every role is not guaranteed as the size of an armed force increases. In addition to this, loyalty also infers ability, efficiency and discipline, generally.

- Selection: This is a key aspect that defines the discipline of an armed force. Selection process for some of the most elite units in the world is sometimes more physically and mentally arduous than reality. For example, the selection process of British SAS and Australian SASR Special Forces. The selection process roots out those who are unfit to fulfill their role to full extent, of which discipline plays a part. A regular defence force may only require O-Level or the respective merit in each country, an average degree of fitness and possibly some mental/psychological tests for a first-grade soldier position. Some national armies may require more than this, but nevertheless still cannot guarantee total discipline. However, as the selection process gets harder (both physically and mentally) and the requirements and amount of soldiers to be recruited decreases, you get a lower margin for error. This is why your average US 10th Mountain Division soldier is less skilled/elite and formidable than an SAS trooper.

- Fanaticism: Lastly, but less significantly, fanaticism can affect the discipline of an armed force. It is not very major but I thought I would point it out anyway. Fanaticism, for example, religious, can be beneficial because the followers could obey and fulfill the commands of their leader to the death. This is of course, not always the case. Adversely though, fanaticism can cause impetuosity and eagerness, leading to unruly and/or detrimental consequences. A good example of discipline (or lack of in some cases) would be the Orders of the Middle Ages -Templar, Teutonic.etc.- or the Hashashim.

My conclusion based on these and less significant criteria is that the smaller and more arduously selected an armed force is, along with the loyalty and willingness within it, almost always determines that the discipline will be very high.

From this conclusion here are some contenders for "most disciplined armed force":
- Royal Guards. These are the bodyguard or the like, of Imperial/Royal Families in different nations. Each has its unique name, and there are always exceptions. For example, the Hogvatken (Swedish), or English Royal Guard. These troops conform to all the criteria above.

- Special Forces/Counter-Terrorists. These are the troops who undergo the most painstaking and burdensome selection process, which in turn would actuate the loyalty and size of the force. They tend to be small, but highly elite (if not the best the modern world has). Examples include the Polish GROM, Australian SASR and the German KSK.

- Others? Please specify...

- Knights -