What is Best MBT in Asia?

[visioninthedark]

I think kazak has made some valid points .... which no one here seems to be answering ...

[Officer of Engineers]

Kursk was a battle. Stalingrad was a battle. Leningrad was a battle. Berlin was a battle. Just because the two sides took breathers does not mean that either side gave up the fight. The two sides did not leave the battle area until the action was decided. If you don't know the definition, don't try to impress me with your illiteracy. If your relatives lived through that war, then what the hell did you make that claim the Israelis are the masters of tank warfare. Nothing the Israelis did even come close to the AT setup by the Soviets and not even close to how the Wehrmacht came to breaching that salient. You're thinking of skirmishes which could be a battle if and only if the enemy is vanquished from the battlefield which was not the case with Kursk, Stalingrad, and Leningrad.

Face what odds? How about 1000 tanks just for the Berlin theatre of operations? Those odds. At its height, the Israelis was never prepared for a war involving over 200 divisions (173 of theirs/yours against 87 of ours). We were.

The Israelis got alot to teach but they also got alot more to learn. The Israeli Army could not have done what V Corps had done in Iraq - 100 miles in less than 4 days. Hell, the IDF couldn't even do the 79 Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.

I'm sick and tired of everybody bogusly claiming the Israelis are end-alls/be-alls of military expertise. They're good soldiers and have some very good unique ideas and experiences but they are not our match, not even close.

To this day, the American 11th Armoured Calvary Regiment is the best tank force on earth, and I mean heads and shoulders above everybody else, including their own people. The USArmy sets the standard to which by every other army is measured, not the Israelis. Otherwise, it would be Jerusalem DC and not Washington DC as the main corridor of a world hyperpower. 11ACR sets the tank force standard, not the IDF.

I have yet to meet one Israeli officer after he was exposed to the Fulda Gap could even imagine the fire and numbers we were prepared to throw at each other. Had the Israelis ever comtemplated by carpet bombed and retain fighting capabilities only minutes after?

[bigross86]

OOE, you and I have fought before, and I recognize your expertise and everything, but I'm afraid in this case you may be wrong. I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, so please read my message the way it's meant to be read, without insults.

Though the 11th ACR may very well be the top unit in the world, the Israeli's do not "got alot to teach but they also got alot more to learn. The Israeli Army could not have done what V Corps had done in Iraq - 100 miles in less than 4 days. Hell, the IDF couldn't even do the 79 Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan."

I suggest you readup on the wars of 1956, 1967 and 1973. In the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel managed to capture over two and a half times it's own size. By the time the UN-imposed cease-fire took effect in the evening of June 11, the IDF had seized the entire Sinai Peninsula to the east bank of the Suez Canal; the West Bank of Jordan, including East Jerusalem; and the Golan Heights of Syria.

In 1973, Israel launched its counteroffensive first against the Syrian front, and only when it had pushed the Syrians back well east of the 1967 cease-fire line (by October 15) did Israel turn its attention to the Egyptian front. In ten days of fighting, Israel pushed the Egyptian army back across the canal, and the IDF made deep incursions into Egypt. On October 24, with Israeli soldiers about one kilometer from the main Cairo-Ismailia highway and the Soviet Union threatening direct military intervention, the UN imposed a cease-fire.

In both wars, Israel had 200,000 soldiers, divided amongst the Navy, the IAF, the Infantry and Armor. So let's figure approx. 50,000 (large overestimate) for the armor? How many international solderis are there in Iraq at the moment? And that's for one country. Now add Afghanistan into the equation. How many soldiers for just those two countries? Take those (overestimated) 50,000 IDF soldiers and put them in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, and compare. Is it safe to assume that the situations are similar, even thought the Israeli's are hated much more, and don't have the support of the citizens? Then how is it that we haven't heard of all these deaths of IDF soldiers while the UN was talking back then?

Yes, the IDF still has stuff to learn, but again, the insinuation that the IDF are fakes, wannabes, and are claiming a title they don't deserve, is not acceptable. In 1973 2,000 people, not just soldiers but innocent citizens also, died out of a total population of 3,800,000. That's a percentage of what? How many people have died in Iraq/Afghanistan? Out of a total of more then 250,000,000?

Let's compare the wars. Wars of freedom and liberation, which are truly noble causes, and wars of survival. Wars where the Arab chant was "We will push them to the sea!" Wars where the IDF had no choice but to win, or to die. What's stopping the US from pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan? Nothing. What's stopping the IDF from pulling out of Gaza and the West Bank? Everything.

So please, don't claim that the IDF are a bunch of posers. And I beg of you, please don't use the claim that you are a soldier and I am not, because I am going off to fight for my country, just like you. And if I die, I'll know that I'm dying to protect my people's freedom, and ensuring their survival, without support from the EU, the UN or whoever. Because it's a do-or-die situation, and I know that like me, there are thousands who will do-and-die.

I eagerly await your answers, and I hope we can keep this civil

[Officer of Engineers]

I suggest you readup on the wars of 1956, 1967 and 1973. In the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel managed to capture over two and a half times it's own size. By the time the UN-imposed cease-fire took effect in the evening of June 11, the IDF had seized the entire Sinai Peninsula to the east bank of the Suez Canal; the West Bank of Jordan, including East Jerusalem; and the Golan Heights of Syria.

All of which is very impressive by any standard and most certainly, the IDF could claim kudoes for its performance but does this imply that no other army could do similar against the Arabs? Kuwait War and Iraq War has shown what a more powerful army could do.

In 1973, Israel launched its counteroffensive first against the Syrian front, and only when it had pushed the Syrians back well east of the 1967 cease-fire line (by October 15) did Israel turn its attention to the Egyptian front. In ten days of fighting, Israel pushed the Egyptian army back across the canal, and the IDF made deep incursions into Egypt. On October 24, with Israeli soldiers about one kilometer from the main Cairo-Ismailia highway and the Soviet Union threatening direct military intervention, the UN imposed a cease-fire.

Exactly my point. What was Israel's chances against the USSR? The Soviets certainly felt that Israel was no match.

In both wars, Israel had 200,000 soldiers, divided amongst the Navy, the IAF, the Infantry and Armor. So let's figure approx. 50,000 (large overestimate) for the armor? How many international solderis are there in Iraq at the moment? And that's for one country. Now add Afghanistan into the equation. How many soldiers for just those two countries? Take those (overestimated) 50,000 IDF soldiers and put them in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, and compare. Is it safe to assume that the situations are similar, even thought the Israeli's are hated much more, and don't have the support of the citizens? Then how is it that we haven't heard of all these deaths of IDF soldiers while the UN was talking back then?

Similar situations to Israel would be WWII Europe and Asia. Even by per capita (let alone raw numbers), Canada had a million people under arms, there is no comparison to WWII. The closest situations to today's Afghanistan and Iraq are Korea and Vietnam.

Yes, the IDF still has stuff to learn, but again, the insinuation that the IDF are fakes, wannabes, and are claiming a title they don't deserve, is not acceptable. In 1973 2,000 people, not just soldiers but innocent citizens also, died out of a total population of 3,800,000. That's a percentage of what? How many people have died in Iraq/Afghanistan? Out of a total of more then 250,000,000?

They are claiming a title they don't deserve, at least the uneducated civies. That they are the best military force on earth. I will take advice from any IDF officer when fighting the Arabs. I will tell him to shut the hell up when facing the Soviets or the Chinese. I will give them their due but I will not bow to undeserved arrogance. The IDF has expertise that I can use but they are certainly not the masters of my World War III battlefield.

Let's compare the wars. Wars of freedom and liberation, which are truly noble causes, and wars of survival. Wars where the Arab chant was "We will push them to the sea!" Wars where the IDF had no choice but to win, or to die. What's stopping the US from pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan? Nothing. What's stopping the IDF from pulling out of Gaza and the West Bank? Everything.

Yes, wars of freedom and liberation - ie World War II. What was stopping us from giving in to Hitler and Tojo? Everything. No war post WWII comes even close to that meatgrinder. If we claim honours and knowledge above the IDF is because we've earned it.

So please, don't claim that the IDF are a bunch of posers. And I beg of you, please don't use the claim that you are a soldier and I am not, because I am going off to fight for my country, just like you. And if I die, I'll know that I'm dying to protect my people's freedom, and ensuring their survival, without support from the EU, the UN or whoever. Because it's a do-or-die situation, and I know that like me, there are thousands who will do-and-die.

I eagerly await your answers, and I hope we can keep this civil

Most IDF officers who got a chance upfront to see what we were facing got a real education. Imagine being hit by 100 500lb bombs only to face a bayonet charge moments afterwards with the bayonet at the end of a tank and that's just on my sqn's front. Imagine that even by some miracle that you could hold out, you've just invited a nuke on yourself.

Kemel said something to his Turkish troops facing the Australians and it was appropriate. "I don't want you to fight. I want you to die."

I pray for you because I know you will see shit and do shit that no one on earth should see or do. You will do your country proud simply by putting on your uniform. However, that does not qualify you nor any of your fellow Israelis to teach me about my WWIII battlefield.

[kazak]

Okay, now Bigross answered you, Officer, and explained you why most of what you say is wrong and unfounded. You may want to read some stuff about israel's wars and discover what it has managed to achieve. I, personally, am amazed that a former officer and a trained professional could say such ridiculous things in such a confident manner.
What are you saying about Stalingrad and Leningrad (which Leningrad battle? this is something new)? The sides didnt leave the battle area? What, they did not recover the wounded nor repaired the tanks? They didnt change and rethink their plans? Those were long campaigns, with long periods of rest. I read and re-read and still couldnt get the meaning of this: "You're thinking of skirmishes which could be a battle if and only if the enemy is vanquished from the battlefield". What? In many battles ISrael fought the enemy was vanquished and then there were other battles.. What are you saying exactly? I cant get it, sorry. Btw, there is no "formal" definition of a "battle", this is an arguable and almost philosophical term, so dont *you* impress me by your illiteracy.
Anyhow, this point isnt even too important. I mentioned that even if i accept your claim that Israel has no experience in this kind of long fighting, it still doesnt mean that it doesnt have agreat experience in tank warfare. Are you even reading what i try to explain? Re-read my first message, please.
You're just keep saying again and again "the Israelis did even come close to the AT setup by the Soviets and not even close to how the Wehrmacht came to breaching that salient". Why didnt they come close? Havent i already explained this point of "coming close"? And even if, i already told you that it isnt important. Even if you admit that israel *didnt* have such a big battle, it still has great experience... hell, what am i doing, just re-read my first message. You never answered one thing that i was saying, all you do is repeat the same things without proving them, this applies also for the berlin stuff you mentioned... oh, btw, israel has something like 2000 tanks so your 1000 is nothing. About what ISrael could or couldnt of done (100 miles in 4 days or something) Bigross answered you, and plz dont try to claim more crazy stuff before you read some additional material about Israel's war or its ability. THe 11 division is not the best in the world. Its american alright, but not the best, althought i know it can sound strange to you.
You say that "The USArmy sets the standard to which by every other army is measured, not the Israelis. Otherwise, it would be Jerusalem DC and not Washington DC as the main corridor of a world hyperpower. 11ACR sets the tank force standard, not the IDF". Yes, americans are the BIGGEST, but that doesnt say they are THE BEST. I guess you cant grasp the difference, nevermind. The question is not who is the more powerfull (of course the US is), but who has the qualitative edge, and that doesnt have to do with your size. This is so american like... omg....
I see that you can not answer to what i have said in my original message about your grasp of "real tank war" and its relevancy, about "long lasting battles", about the tank numbers involved, about the israel-soviets scenario, and about israel's clear advantage in experience of tank use in urban area and anti-guerilla fighing. You keep saying the same things, that are not based on anything, that sound childish and extreme, and avoid adressing the real issues. You keep talking in terms like "they couldnt handle all this", "they never imagined", "would of kicked them", "didnt even contemplated", "aint even close" and these childish monologs seem to be the only arguments you have got. Strange, for a former officer. Okay, this is enough, i dont think im answering another message full of shouting slogans and yelling "we're the best, hurray!!".

[Confed999]

I pray for you because I know you will see shit and do shit that no one on earth should see or do. You will do your country proud simply by putting on your uniform.

Amen...

[bigross86]

All of which is very impressive by any standard and most certainly, the IDF could claim kudoes for its performance but does this imply that no other army could do similar against the Arabs? Kuwait War and Iraq War has shown what a more powerful army could do.

ODS and OIF show what a multi-national force can do. 1967, 1973, etc... are all the IDF.

Exactly my point. What was Israel's chances against the USSR? The Soviets certainly felt that Israel was no match.

The UN didn't impose a cease-fire because they feared for Israel. They feared a war between the US and the USSR.

Similar situations to Israel would be WWII Europe and Asia. Even by per capita (let alone raw numbers), Canada had a million people under arms, there is no comparison to WWII. The closest situations to today's Afghanistan and Iraq are Korea and Vietnam.

How are 1973 and the Intifadas like WWII? How are Afghanistan and Iraq like Korea and Vietnam? One is fighting peasents and ill-trained soldiers with no support, one is fighting a professional army with Soviet support and soldiers.

They are claiming a title they don't deserve, at least the uneducated civies. That they are the best military force on earth. I will take advice from any IDF officer when fighting the Arabs. I will tell him to shut the hell up when facing the Soviets or the Chinese. I will give them their due but I will not bow to undeserved arrogance. The IDF has expertise that I can use but they are certainly not the masters of my World War III battlefield.

As funny as it may seem to you, the IDF IS the best military force in the world, at least in certain areas. Take the 1967 airfield strikes and the 1981 Osirak strike. Israel is theonly armed force that has done them, therefore they have to be the best. Or take Avigdor Kahalani's stand in the Golan Heights, holding off over 1,000 Syrian tanks with less than a dozen of his own unti lreinforcements arrived 24 hours later.

How about anti-terrorism? Israel is recognized as the world leader in security and anti-terror. There's a reason El-AL, Israel's national airline, trusts no one but it's own to do airline security for it, even in foriegn countries.

As for your claim of "undeserved" arrogance, I claim just the opposite! in 56 years of existence, Israel has fought over a dozen wars and campaigns, and won every single one. In America's 228 years of existence, how many wars and campaigns for it's own survival did it fight? How about Canada, or the UK, or the EU? I state that the IDF as a whole is head and shoulders above most, if not all the rest, and their survival is a testimony to that.

Yes, wars of freedom and liberation - ie World War II. What was stopping us from giving in to Hitler and Tojo? Everything. No war post WWII comes even close to that meatgrinder. If we claim honours and knowledge above the IDF is because we've earned it.

There is a difference between a hostile continent, and a couple of hostile countries in a region that hates you anyway, don't you say? Besides, not once did I compare the IDF of today and it's wars to WWII. I compared it to the more modern wars of ODS, Afghanistan and Iraq. I am not taking away any honor from any country or its armed forces, yet you refuse to accord honor to Israel and the IDF.

I pray for you because I know you will see shit and do shit that no one on earth should see or do. You will do your country proud simply by putting on your uniform. However, that does not qualify you nor any of your fellow Israelis to teach me about my WWIII battlefield.

I thank you for your prayers from the bottom of my heart. I thank you for your giving me honor.

Unfortunately, it seems that in this WWIII scenario, both the USA and the IDF are the leading armies, because the RoE have changed. It will no longer be just a Cold War scenario, in which the US will excel, rather it will be combined with a guerilla/insurgent/terrorist/whatever you wanna call it battle, in which the IDF will excel.

[Officer of Engineers]

ODS and OIF show what a multi-national force can do. 1967, 1973, etc... are all the IDF.

Only goes to show that on the Arab battlefield, the Israelis got more than her equals.

The UN didn't impose a cease-fire because they feared for Israel. They feared a war between the US and the USSR.

And that's the point. Israel could not handle herself against the USSR. The only country that could was and is the US. So, what makes you thinks she can teach WWIII armies how to fight?

How are 1973 and the Intifadas like WWII? How are Afghanistan and Iraq like Korea and Vietnam? One is fighting peasents and ill-trained soldiers with no support, one is fighting a professional army with Soviet support and soldiers.

Your comparison was between Israel's geo-strategic position and the US's Afghanistan and Iraq. It does not compare. The only geo-strategic situation that would fit the US's current roles are that as I outlined.

As funny as it may seem to you, the IDF IS the best military force in the world, at least in certain areas. Take the 1967 airfield strikes and the 1981 Osirak strike. Israel is theonly armed force that has done them, therefore they have to be the best. Or take Avigdor Kahalani's stand in the Golan Heights, holding off over 1,000 Syrian tanks with less than a dozen of his own unti lreinforcements arrived 24 hours later.

Thank you. You've just proven my point. You've qualified your statement "at least in certain areas." There is absolutely no doubt that the IDF has expertise that we all want but that does not qualify them to be superior in all regards. The IDF can field a tank division overnight. Canada couldn't even field a tank brigade but we can send two battalions into Afghanistan within 72 hours from Canada and take the fight there. Does that mean that Canada has a superior fighting force than Israel? Guess what. In Afghanistan, it certainly means that. Israel has not and cannot fight on the WWIII battlefield.

Also, if I can win on the WWIII battlefield, I can win anywhere. No matter how impressive Israeli victories, the IDF would be minced meat on the WWIII battlefield.

How about anti-terrorism? Israel is recognized as the world leader in security and anti-terror. There's a reason El-AL, Israel's national airline, trusts no one but it's own to do airline security for it, even in foriegn countries.

Anti-terrorism is more a police matter than a military one. The military is purely one of reaction.

As for your claim of "undeserved" arrogance, I claim just the opposite! in 56 years of existence, Israel has fought over a dozen wars and campaigns, and won every single one. In America's 228 years of existence, how many wars and campaigns for it's own survival did it fight? How about Canada, or the UK, or the EU? I state that the IDF as a whole is head and shoulders above most, if not all the rest, and their survival is a testimony to that.

We fought two World Wars and prepared to fight a third in less than 50 years. Israel is nowhere close. An ancient Hunan proverb. You're measured by your enemies.

There is a difference between a hostile continent, and a couple of hostile countries in a region that hates you anyway, don't you say? Besides, not once did I compare the IDF of today and it's wars to WWII. I compared it to the more modern wars of ODS, Afghanistan and Iraq. I am not taking away any honor from any country or its armed forces, yet you refuse to accord honor to Israel and the IDF.

I do accord Israel and the IDF that they deserve. They have a few tricks of the trade that everyone would want and alot of their thinking is innovative. However, that does not mean that the IDF fits within the combat roles that we're destined for and she cannot teach what she doesn't know. And she does not know WWIII. We do.

I thank you for your prayers from the bottom of my heart. I thank you for your giving me honor.

Unfortunately, it seems that in this WWIII scenario, both the USA and the IDF are the leading armies, because the RoE have changed. It will no longer be just a Cold War scenario, in which the US will excel, rather it will be combined with a guerilla/insurgent/terrorist/whatever you wanna call it battle, in which the IDF will excel.

I've already made my points on this regard. The only army that could win in this are the Mongols and both the USArmy and the IDF are sorely lacking.

[kazak]

Wait, what was this: "Yes, wars of freedom and liberation - ie World War II. What was stopping us from giving in to Hitler and Tojo? Everything. No war post WWII comes even close to that meatgrinder. If we claim honours and knowledge above the IDF is because we've earned it".
Who earned what? Who claims what? There's a difference between saying that the great battles were all during WW2 or something, and that russians and germans have the experience, and saying that the americans deserve to claim the honors for WW2. In WW2 the USSR did all the work, while the US joined in later and didnt do anything. And i mean that. What i said earlier was:
"The US just stabbed the germans in the back, and fought with their ramaining forces, while the serious fighting was taking place on the eastern front. Actually, the americans even couldnt do that successfully, and while the second front was all about helping the russians defeat the germans in the east, the americans were constantly demanding that the russians "press those germans" to make their advance on the western front more easy, thus kinda defeating its whole point".
Anyone that is saying that Americans have won the war and not admitting that the american role in that war was a small one is ... i dont know how to call him.... The USSR won the war, and the americans are claiming all the glory, like always.
The WW2 is The war of the great Russian Victory. Americans acted like cowards along with the brits. Waited till it was all done and then joined in to have their share of the glory. Americans just cowardly nuked the japanese. Thats all they have done, and now are yelling about "claiming honors because we deserve it". This is the biggest irony in history.

[bigross86]

OOE, Thankx for clarifying that for me. I learned alot from this discussion, and while I may not agree with everything, you showed me an opinion that was aside from my own, for which I am grateful.

Kazak, your comments are definetely starting to turn sour. America and England fought hard in WWII. Do the Battle of Britian and Normandy ring any bells?

[Officer of Engineers]

BR,

Historic sidebar.

I could think of only one other country that is in similar shape as Israel right now. Militarily strong enough to defeat any combined armies of its neighbours but not strong enough to counquer them and that was the Byzantine Empire. I don't know if the lesson is applicable. If you cannot destroy (ie conquer) your enemies, they will eventually destroy/conquer you. How many armies died crashing into the gates of Constantinople (sp?). The follow up question is why is it called Istanbul now?

As for Kazak, his nonsense is for all to see. The forum will judge. He's on my ignore list.

[Praxus]

OOE how could forces in your WW3 battlefield resupply themselves, given the fact that nearly everything is irradiated from nuclear weapons?

Also how much of NATO forces do you think would have survived after a full nuclear war?

I could think of only one other country that is in similar shape as Israel right now. Militarily strong enough to defeat any combined armies of its neighbours but not strong enough to counquer them and that was the Byzantine Empire. I don't know if the lesson is applicable. If you cannot destroy (ie conquer) your enemies, they will eventually destroy/conquer you. How many armies died crashing into the gates of Constantinople (sp?). The follow up question is why is it called Istanbul now?

How would you consider America's military domination to some former "super-powers" of the ancient world (Rome, Mongol Empire, Persian Empire, etc...) relitive to the rest of the world?

[troung]

“Now its just not Israel in Asia with vast tank experience, take the case of Indian and Pakistan. We happened to have large scale (thousands of tanks)tank battles in 1965 and in 1971.”

Vietnam also has lots of experience in armored warfare over different terrain. During the Second Indochina War, the fighting in Laos during the 1970s and the invasion and occupation of Cambodia. The fall of South Vietnam was spearheaded by armor in the form of T-55s, Type-59s, T-34-85s, Type-62/63s, PT-76s and K-63s. Hell the fall of the Plain of Jars in Laos during the 1970s is in no small part because of the use of armor and artillery in the face of massive American, RLAF and RTAF air power.

I can’t think of to many units that would be able to keep fighting in the face of B-52s and F-4D/Es strikes and keep taking ground without much air cover. Yeah that's not WW3 but to keep fighting with the presense of enemy air like that and to actually keep on the attack shows skill. During the 1972 and 1975 armored drives the units made great progress while under intense aerial attacks.

The invasion of Cambodia has spearheaded with a massive armored thrust as well. Armor was used to support COIN operations in Laos and Cambodia after 1975 as well.

“I'm sick and tired of everybody bogusly claiming the Israelis are end-alls/be-alls of military expertise.”

So true.

“You're measured by your enemies.”

That’s very true.

“As funny as it may seem to you, the IDF IS the best military force in the world”

BS.

“Take the 1967 airfield strikes and the 1981 Osirak strike. Israel is theonly armed force that has done them, therefore they have to be the best.”

I don’t think you want to get into the poor quality Russian equipment supplied to the Arabs and of course the inflated numbers the Israelis put out after the fact. And Osirak is hardly impressive when you realize that Iraq was bogged down in a large-scale war with Iran. And were mostly flying the MiG-21MF back then.

Hell Iran’s air strikes in 1980 were more impressive then the 1967 air strikes in terms of the penetration into Iraqi air space they did.

“Israel has fought over a dozen wars and campaigns, and won every single one.”

Israel pulled out of Lebanon for the cost in personal. They kind of lost that one the same way the Russians lost Afghanistan. And at best the IDF fought 5 wars and not a dozen. And of those only one was an actual invasion. 1967 was brinkmanship as the Arabs never planned to attack. And 1973 was not to take Israel over but to draw attention and then negotiate for their land back. When you think of it Egypt did get back the Sinai through negotiations which is why they celebrate the 1973 war over there.

So I would never call the IDF the best military.

[Officer of Engineers]

OOE how could forces in your WW3 battlefield resupply themselves, given the fact that nearly everything is irradiated from nuclear weapons?

For us in VII Corps, it was a come-as-you-are war. What we have at hand is all we get. So, if we are still alive after a nuke exchange, so are our stocks. Also, we were readying a defensive war, meaning that we're always shortening our LOCs and falling back towards tactical, but not strategic, strength.

Also how much of NATO forces do you think would have survived after a full nuclear war?

Most things on those REFORGER ships would still be alive. I really doubt that the Soviet subs could get a significant portion though it was never a comfortable thought. As for Europe itself, hindsight is 20/20 but we were expecting 60% reduction within VII Corps with some bdes totally wiped out (my 4CMBG was not expected to survive).

How would you consider America's military domination to some former "super-powers" of the ancient world (Rome, Mongol Empire, Persian Empire, etc...) relitive to the rest of the world?

It doesn't compare. The US isn't conned the term hyperpower for nothing. All past superpowers were checked by either geography or at least local inferiority (economically, politically, or militarily). The American Revolution was a check against the British Empire.

While the US could not dominate everywhere, there is not one place which could stop American domination if she so chooses - again economically, politically, or militarily.

[Praxus]

Thanks:)

It doesn't compare. The US isn't conned the term hyperpower for nothing. All past superpowers were checked by either geography or at least local inferiority (economically, politically, or militarily). The American Revolution was a check against the British Empire.

While the US could not dominate everywhere, there is not one place which could stop American domination if she so chooses - again economically, politically, or militarily.

God Bless Capitalism:)