RE: 2nd and 3rd rate powers

--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:

> I'd think that would apply at least as much to the
> Gurkhas, who you put as
> 1st rate.  Same thin with skills subset--the
> Gurkhas probably *don't* kick
> butt at, say, panzer maneuvers or zero gee.
-------
For all pracitical purposes, the Gurkas are
a dedicated 1st rate mercenary force.

> >4: NAC as 1st rate: I cite long mili tary tradition
> of successful campaigns, strong culture of fixing
mistakes, emphasis on flexibility 
> at lower and intermediate levels, highest tech
> training aides, largest military budget, etc. 
> 
> Doesn't necessarily do it.  The US army that started
> off in Korea was pretty poor, as I understand it. 
--------
Not to mention taken by suprise, and massively
outnumbered.

 Certainly *some*  NAC deserve
> first rate, but I'd say
> the bulk do not.
-------
Depends on what the chart is trying to do.
If the object of the chart is to describe the 
'overall' condition of the 'standing' military forces
without any reference to the reserves then the chart
may be generally correct.

Bye for now,
John L.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs