Topic: "Turkey has the most powerful land army in Europe"
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
wha?
I was listening to a radio interview with the Chief of Staff for former Sec. of State Collen Powell this guy was a Colonel and is now teaching Strategic decision making in Washington and he said the above quote, is it true?
IP: Logged |
posted
That depends on if you count the US forces stationed there (and there aren't that many of them, so its probably true even so).
Most of Europe has tiny militaries. Places that have good militaries (Switzerland) are small. Turkey has mandatory military service and the funds to buy modern military equipment (and high-end suppliers such as France to buy it from).
edit: oh, and it has a huge population that dwarfs that of most (all?) European countries.
posted
Not really, no. Fairly well trained and very well equipped, but very small and with little combat experience.
They do spend a lot more on the military than Turkey does, but Turkey has a large army (which is the part of the military in question here). Over one million soldiers, and its been overhauled significantly in the past decade.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Turkey has some of the best mountain fighters, to my knowledge, and (from what a Turkish soldier told me on a train once) other European militaries send troops to train with them.
Even, so, though, isn't Turkey, you know, more than 90% in asia?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Like if they consider Turkey as being part fo Europe whats all the fuss about their mebership in the EU?
IP: Logged |
quote:Even, so, though, isn't Turkey, you know, more than 90% in asia
quote: Like if they consider Turkey as being part fo Europe whats all the fuss about their mebership in the EU?
Well, historically/politically Anatolia has been part of Europe ever since the Greeks colonized it way back when. And of course it was part of Rome and later in the core of the Eastern Roman Empire around Constantinople.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Turkey is a NATO member though, isn't it? I think it was admitted in the 50s, but I could be making that up.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Turkey is one of the few remaining countries that not only has universal military service (for men, that is), but actually enforces it. On the other hand, numbers are one thing, equipment another. They can certainly defend themselves, but I doubt they'd care much for any aggressive adventures.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have to figure with neighbors like Syria, Iraq, Iran, and (at one time) the USSR, along with the conflicts they've had in Cyprus, that Turkey would have a pretty well prepared military, no?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, Turkey's a NATO member. One we're very friendly with due to their importance in the region, too.
No worries, Turkey isn't about to go to war against Europe. Turkey wants to be part of Europe, not conquer it. And even their military isn't big enough to make much headway in Europe.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Turkey has been officially recognized as a candidate for the European Union. That might be what you're thinking of, AM4.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not like being a NATO member is really that big a deal anymore. Being a NATO member now is like someone giving you a seat at the big kid's table, but with no obligation to actually participate in the meal.
No one is legally bound to defend you if attacked, there's an opt out clause. No one can make you do anything. We couldn't even make Turkey let us stage Iraq operations from their air space.
Does anyone know what hardware Turkey uses? Mainline battle tank? Air Force? Navy?
Seriously, they might just have the most powerful LAND army in Europe, but France and Britain could do a hell of a lot of damage with their Navies that Turkey would be impotent to defend against or counter attack against.
I'm not sure if air force is included in "land army" or not, but I don't think it would be. If not, it's almost insignificant to even make such a claim. Only Britain has a decent sized, battle hardened military force, from Iraq and Afghanistan, followed by Germany (seriously not to be discounted at all) and Italy.
If it came down to it, I'd pick a united Europe against anyone else on the planet except China, or the US.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Turkey puts alot of pride in their army, its one of those icons everyone in Turkey rallies around.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Not really, no. Fairly well trained and very well equipped, but very small and with little combat experience.
They do spend a lot more on the military than Turkey does, but Turkey has a large army (which is the part of the military in question here). Over one million soldiers, and its been overhauled significantly in the past decade.
At the outset of the first gulf war, Iraq had the 4th largest standing army on earth, and they lost in like 2 weeks. It's all about the training and leadership, the equiptment and the supply lines. Turkey had the largest cavalry on earth during world war II, but the only problem was, they were still horse mounted- so they didn't do a whole heck of a lot of good.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it came down to it, I'd pick a united Europe against anyone else on the planet except China, or the US.
If there ever were a united Europe.
For war, it's as united as it needs to be. Does anyone really think that if any county in the EU were attacked, that the other members of the EU wouldn't trip over each other in their attempts to render military assistance?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QUOTE]For war, it's as united as it needs to be. Does anyone really think that if any county in the EU were attacked, that the other members of the EU wouldn't trip over each other in their attempts to render military assistance?
Actually, I think there is a good chance that if the USA or England didn't get involved, there is a good chance the EU would try to negotiate rather than fight. Though, a lot of the reaction would depend on which EU nation was attacked.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Granted my assertion is just a gut instinct, but I'm curious as to where you get yours from.
I really don't think it would matter much which nation it was, though it's safe to assume it'd be an Eastern European nation, it makes the most sense geographically. We haven't seen an attack on mainland Europe in 50 years, there's no way to gauge how they'd respond. But they are sending troops to the Middle East to solve problems, why wouldn't they send troops to their back yard to solve them?
No continent in the world has had more chances to learn this lesson than Europe, and that lesson is that unchecked aggression only breeds a greater threat. France and Britain especially should know that one, and Germany too, since they used that formula to launch a couple wars.
I have to imagine Britain, if a man like Tony Blair were in charge, would round up a coalition to fend off the attack, and at this point, America would be hard pressed not to use in theater assets to help, regardless of the mess in Iraq. Granted this all depends on WHEN such an attack would take place, but I think if too much more time goes by, the EU will be a single nation anyway, and it'll be a moot point.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Places that have good militaries (Switzerland) are small.
Yeah, but they have those awesome army knives. If they ever get into a battle situation where it is necessary to uncork bottles or file fingernails, Switzerland will reign victorious.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
