Who are the best soldiers in the world?

Answer 1

Best for what? Context is everything...

British Special Forces are extremely good, & have been the model for many other similar units around the world, but there are only a few hundred of them (probably 5-600 max), and, at present, they're extremely overstretched! Most other Western armies have Special Forces units of high quality - eg the Dutch Korps Commando Troepen; German KSK; French RPIMA, & the Parachute Dragoons; Norwegian & Danish "Jaegers"; Canadian JTF-2, to name some of the better known. Less well known are units like the Spanish Legion's BOEL, which in recent years has significantly upgraded its capabilities. Although, in most cases, such units lack the breadth of operational experience of the SAS/ SBS, & equivalent American, Australian, Israeli, & Russian units, & in some cases are very small (eg Danes, Norwegians - little bigger than enhanced platoons), their selection & training standards are very high, & when deployed operationally they've not been found wanting!

The British Armed Forces are extremely well trained professionals, but the British Army & Corps of Royal Marines (part of the Royal Navy) are relatively small, & compared with the US Armed Forces (also, btw, extremely well trained professionals!) lack resources, notably in areas like Close Air Support & Tactical Air Mobility (helicopters etc).

The Gurkhas are excellent light infantry - naturally very physically fit & resilient; adaptable & cheerful in the face of adversity; possessing a "warrior ethos" that means they really do believe in "Death Before Dishonour"! They're particularly adept at jungle & mountain warfare, & have also proved very good at counterinsurgency operations. They do, however, have their limitations: relatively low literacy levels, & lack of familiarity with much modern technology, means they require a lot of extra training to integrate fully into a modern army. Generally they've not adapted well to the mechanized infantry role when it's been tried. The British Army has, therefore, long concluded that the Gurkhas are an extremely useful asset for light infantry roles (especially in difficult terrain, or involving COIN working with people in the less developed world), but they would not get the first call for "heavy" armoured warfare.

The Royal Marines is an elite corps of amphibious light infantry; all are commando trained, & they're expert at mountain & arctic warfare, jungle operations, reconnaissance & raiding etc.. Their basic training is the longest & arguably most demanding of any infantry force in the world; they're extremely physically fit/ resilient, & individual initiative & flexibility are the keynotes of their ethos. The same, incidentally, is also true of the Dutch Marines (Royal Netherlands Marine Corps), who share battle honours with the RM, and who integrate very closely with the British in the UK/ NL Amphibious Combat Group, tasked to operate on NATO's "Northern Flank" (Baltic & Scandinavia).

There are, however, only just over 7,000 Royal Marines (comprising 4 battalion sized units, plus various other specialist units, plus additionally a little over 2,000 RNLMC), & there is really only 1 brigade sized formation continually available for amphibious deployments. They're extremely good at what they do, but their real force projection capability is only about 10% of that of the USMC, & they lack the integral heavy armour & Close Air Support necessary to succeed in opposed amphibious operations.

The United States Marine Corps, in contrast, has the capability to deploy many self-contained Marine Expeditionary Units/ Brigades simultaneously. Each MEU is a "mini-military" containing integral helicopter lift, CAS & CAP, armour (amphibious personnel carriers, recon vehicles, battle tanks) & artillery (155mm guns, multiple rocket launchers etc), plus supporting logistics, medical, recon etc.. The USMC has unique "amphibious force projection" capabilities that are unmatched anywhere else in the world, and no-one integrates all combat arms as well as them.

The USMC alone is larger than most other national militaries! For example, it has more trained infantry, battle tanks, & artillery pieces than the British Army; more combat aircraft than the Royal Air Force (the second largest airforce in NATO!), and more amphibious landing vessels of the US Navy at its disposal than can be mustered by the other 5 leading navies of the world combined!

So, whilst it's probably true that Royal Marines are generally better trained, more individually flexible, & certainly more highly skilled at raiding and small unit operations, than most of their USMC counterparts (Force Recon etc excepted!), the US Marine Corps is, without doubt, the world leader in undertaking large scale force projection operations from the sea. Thus if you wanted to launch relatively small scale (say battalion strength or less) raids on the littoral, or operate in mountains etc, the Royal Marines would "edge it" as first choice. If, however, you wanted to undertake larger opposed landings on the littoral, and exploit in depth, then you'd choose the US Marines, who have the assets & critical mass to do this effectively. It's not a matter of who's best; rather it's about who specialises in what, & also sheer mass - pretty important in large scale warfare!

Same is true re British & US Armies: the British Army's 16th Air Assault Brigade is a formidable formation, comprising 4 infantry battalions, integral artillery, light armour, engineers, & 2 regiments of Apache attack helicopters, but it's very small compared with the mighty 82nd Airborne & 101st Air Assault Divisions of the US Army. The USAF has designated airlift capability that can put nearly 20,000 troops with all their equipment on the ground anywhere in the world within 72 hours. The RAF can only dream of such a capability! So, the British Army can mount very effective air assault operations of battalion to brigade strength in support of larger ground operations (as 16 AA Bde did in GW II), but it does not have the strategic airborne assault capability of the US Army.

The entire British Army can muster a little over 400 Main Battle Tanks; fewer than are contained in any one of the Armored Divisions of the US Army. In Gulf War I the British 1st Armoured Div did excellent work forming the pivot of the main Coalition armoured thrust; protecting the flanks (and annihilating 2 Iraqi armoured divisions for no combat losses to enemy action), and thus clearing the way for the much larger American VII Corps Armored forces, with their large number of attack helicopters, to advance rapidly to hunt the Iraqi Republican Guard.

IMO, the Israelis are not always as good as they're generally reckoned to be. Certainly, their Air Force & Special Forces are excellent, but many of their other units often have surprisingly low training standards (reflecting, to some degree, the large reservist component therein), and in some cases fire discipline is very poor. The great advantage enjoyed by the IDF is that generally (the Jordanians aside) most of their enemies have been grossly incompetent most of the time. Plus, of course, the Israelis can not afford to lose &, therefore, "when push comes to shove" most of their soldiers fight with incredible determination; combined with the ineptitude of their opponents, this "human factor" has enabled them to prevail. For obvious reasons, Israel likes to project an image of itself as "David" facing the Arab "Goliath": in truth, Israel has been the militarily dominant power in the Middle East for decades, & impressive though the feats of the IDF are, this should not lead to the conclusion that it's outstanding in every way. Good - yes. Exceptional? No, not when considered objectively in context.

Armies such as the Indian, Pakistani, and Chinese (PRC), and for that matter Vietnamese, are formidable in various ways: no one but an idiot would choose to fight them on their own ground! Anything else aside, they're very large, & in serious full-on warfare, mass has its own quality - as the Russians have frequently demonstrated! That stated, training standards are variable (some units/ formations are first rate, but others are little more than light scale militias; useful in home defence, but not much use elsewhere), and a lot of the equipment is outmoded. Yes, this is changing (especially in the case of the PRC & India), but generally most of these armies do not yet match major Western armies in terms of first class MBTs, IFVs, SP Artillery, remote surveillance, & key aspects of Command, Control & Communications. They'll probably be "up there" in the first division of world armies within a generation, but they're not there yet.

The power of the Russian Army (RFS) can not be gainsaid; the record speaks for itself. It's large (although considerably smaller than in the Soviet era!), equipment is improving, and Russian soldiers are formidably tough & resilient. There remain, however, significant problems with lower level leadership (notably severe bullying/ physical abuse of recruits), alcoholism, and payment & retention of troops. The sheer brutal stupidity displayed in some operations (Chechnya, the Moscow Theatre Siege, Beslan etc) suggests that operational planning, control, & fire discipline are not yet all that they should be, even in "elite" units.

The Koreans (North & South) are "tough cookies" - not to be messed with! But, the N Korean military is pretty well locked-in to the 1950s; training is hard but unsophisticated; equipment outdated (and probably very unreliable!); initiative & tactical fexibility are simply not allowed! Were they to "come over the border", they'd rely on sheer mass, and probably suffer terribly as a consequence! ROK forces are very good - well trained & equipped; generally "hard" & militarily skilful - eg the performance of the ROK forces (notably Marines) in Vietnam. They are, however, very dependent on the United States, & are only really trained/ tasked for defence of the homeland.

Individual soldiers may be outstanding, good, average or poor - most armies, professional or conscript, contain a fair number of each. Generally, however, the training & leadership standards of Western professional armies (plus the availability of sophisticated weaponry, communications systems, intelligence & logistical capabilities etc) mean that these are the best soldiers - as in most militarily capable/ skilled, & able to bring the most firepower to bear. That stated, however, as events in Afghanistan & elsewhere demonstrate, this does not always mean they'll necessarily prevail easily over determined opponents who have little to lose & much to gain via sustained resistance. The "human factor" is massively important in warfare, especially of the "asymmetric" variety.

Answer 2

There is no one definitive answer as it depends on the criteria used to determine the best soldiers. However, special operations forces from various countries, such as the US Navy SEALs, British SAS, Russian Spetsnaz, and Israeli Special Forces, are often considered among the top in terms of training, tactics, and capabilities.