I want to amplify on this point. Your selection of excellent infantry units is biased heavily in favor of commonwealth forces and those with some legacy of commonwealth (i.e. BRITISH) training- or so you profess. I can't believe that you'd consider the Israeli army to be today a product of a British training legacy. That's a far stretch from their operational thinking which deviated dramatically away from that legacy in 1973.
Perhaps they are excellent. None have amassed the operational expertise across the full spectrum of infantry combat to the degree that the American army and marine infantry have. None.
More Americans have fought as infantry under recent, very relevant experiences, and across a wider range of infantry-related skill-sets than any other nation- by far. Many of those American marine and army infantry officers and NCOs are now serving their third and fourth tours in war-zones. We've air-assaulted brigades 100 kms, fought in cities, humped mountains, waded swamps, killed numerous bad-guys and done so in numbers and with skill never before seen.
Bring your considered and relevant expertise to the fore as to why you shouldn't elevate the American infantry forces right to the top of your list. (
EDIT: I suspect at least one former non-commonwealth, non-American NATO member infantry officer might have a thought or two about this interestingly conceived and premised list.
)
"Almost every volunteer soldier is better than a conscript soldier!"
Check
"Fire-power is not always a substitute for brains and initiative!"
Grossly over-simplified fallacy.
"Afghanistan (US Coalition invasion)"
Special forces and C.I.A. Are you sure you understand what you're talking about? I'm concerned. As light a footprint to liberating a nation as you'll likely experience in your lifetime. Ah! I bet you're just aching to find a place to whisper "softly, softly".
"Operational experiences!"
That matters and you've the Germans on your list!?
I like ours quite a bit more than any nation on your list for all the clearly obvious reasons heretofore mentioned.
"Most dictatorship ran Armies capability is usually more a product of
propaganda, than actual combat efficiency and capability!"
Tell that to the German army in 1939-45 or the Red Army in the same period. How about the GSFG in E. Germany in 1976 or the NKPA anytime, including now. You'll die an early death in battle with that hubritic nonsense, propaganda or otherwise.
"Many dictatorship run country's media and freedom of speech, do not give a true insight into their military's capacity!"
You will?
"- Many post-WWII established countries and their military have not fought or been involved in modern operations or war – so their metal has not been tested."
Nobody's "metal" has been more tested than our infantry. That includes Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, and Taiwan. Africa?
Modern wars? What's that? They're fighting all the time somewhere in Africa. Just not modern enough to suit your criteria?
Yeah. There's a very parochial and unprofessional bias to your list that doesn't match ground reality. It colors your credibility badly.
Pioneer, I know that this isn't necessarily the correct thread but sometimes the battle is fought on ground not appropriate. That's o.k. To put things back on course, though, perhaps you can expand on the virtues of the CV-90 to Albany Rifles. You know? He's the former U.S. Army M-2 Bradley mechanized infantry company commander who replied to your comments here and went unanswered.
"‘More to follow over’"
Save it, out.