I found an error about Italy here: link

Where it is written that: "Conscript based forces, with many professional segments. Continuing to shrink because of the of the Cold War. Major reorganization under way, with an eye towards having only professionals in the armed forces."

Italian armed forces are, since 2005, only professional-based. Conscription is suspended rather than abolished (in the event of war) but no conscript has been called since 2005: so the statement is 3 years old.

 

 

The reorganisation of Italian armed forces can be summarize as following:

 

- 4 different armed forces: Army, Navy, Air Force and Carabinieri (military police);

- Carabinieri were until a few years ago just a branch of the Army; now they have about the same size (120-150,000 men) they act as civilian police during peace time on Italian soil, they are trained to control territory in difficult areas (both against organised crime and as peacekeeping force), they have some light combat capability and good special forces (para regiment Tuscania, for military operations, and the special operations branch ROS, for anti-terrorism ones);

- new units for the navy, to replace old ones (frigates, submarines); a 26,700tons aircrafts and marine infantry carrier, the Cavour link , replacing the old converted cruiser Garibaldi;

- new planes as Eurofighter Typhoon and JSF for the Air Force, to replace F104 (already disbanded), F16 and Tornado planes;

- a major reorganisation of the Army still under way, abandoning many bases and barracks to have a smaller and better territorial organisation, and reorganising some major unit too (e.g. having two separated parachutists, Folgore with light-armed para infantry, and airborne, Friuli based on airborne infantry, airborne armored and attack helicopters regiments, brigades seems a waste rather than a greater airborne force - Italian brigades have often the size of divisions) because of the end of the Cold War and the switching from a conscription-based to a volunteer-based force.

Wow impressive, that was a lot of work and I am sure will be the most read links.

 

But what was the purpose?  Will this be more contructive than destructive?

Does Columbia really have more to fear from Peru than Venzuela?

India doesn't have to match up with Pakistan, it has to be the equal of China.

 

And focusing on land forces, it is easy to misuse.

Can North Korea really take on Japan, when Sea and Air forces matter so much more?

 

And, should Canada step up its ranking a bit?  

Maybe this could be retooled to sort by 'Readiness' divided by GNP so we can see which nations are slacking off when it comes to peace keeping.

 

Talking about GNP...I think it would be usefull to point out what are the 8 nations composing the G8:
- USA;

- Japan;

- UK;

- Germany;

- France;

- Italy;

- Canada;

- Russia.

I left Russia as the last because it was out of the G7: I know many ones neither knew Italy was part of that (I am aware, from comments on British and American blogs, forums etc. that many ones rank Italy no more than the 2nd World) but, liking or not liking it, until a decade ago the first 7 countries in that list were the World economical powers.

Now we would have to add China, India and Brasil, and I would say Australia, South Korea and Israel too: such a G14 can describe both the regional powers and the nations which could afford the expenses for big and modern armed forces, at least until today. If we like the Bomb so much, we could include Pakistan too, but IMHO I consider a nuclear war to be a non-realistic option (otherwise, if you consider a limited tactical nuclear war, even some European NATO country got some small weapon).

We all know other countries have large armed forces and manpower (e.g. Turkey, Iran, North Korea) but none of them is an economical power (nor it is strongly supported by a superpower as Israel): they can have a lot of men and military stuff, but thinking to a real war they would suffer from the economical and technological superiority of other main powers.

In the same way, the countries of that G14 which today got smaller armed forces (e.g. Italy) or manpower (Australia, Israel) would have better times in the event of a long-term expensive war between powers (and not against Kurds terrorists, Mujaheddin fighters or counter-revolutionaries).

Awhile ago I messed around in Excel and put together a list of top 10 Armies, active and reserve units combined, of today.  I multiplied # of ground troops (both active and reserve) and military budget of 1 country.  And the resulting # was basically the military power of the country.  Obviously this is not an exact science as the quality of troops vary AND how a nation allocates its budget to army/navy/airforce varies wildly.  Not to mention that you can't really compare how far a dollar (or yen or pound or whatever) will go in different countries.

Anyhow, the result was very interesting.

US was obviously #1 with its military power greater than the next 9 countries combined.  Guess who #2 in my calculation was?  S. Korea.

BTW, I got the # of troops and budget from wiki.  Yeah, it's not an exact science...

imho

I guess this forum will eventually turn destructive with people arguing which country is better etc etc.  So let me add my little point first. :)  

 

I think it is not a bad idea!
But this would be right for now, for the day you calculate it. I would also calculate "military potential", as written above.

Then we would need two lists:

- countries with massive military investments now (men&money);

- countries which could afford a war with the best armed forces (basically, a problem of economy, military industry and manpower).

Also, we should be able to enlist not just nuclear power, but how much of the military budget goes into nukes rather than conventional forces: so we could make a list of countries with just conventional forces and not (for nuclear powers) combined nuclear and conventional ones.

 

In the end, I think we would need:

- total investments now;

- nuclear powers;

- only conventional forces investments now;

- affording a future war.

 

Then, while I think air power is important everywhere, we would need to judge military preparation on a country's strategy then naval or terrestrial forces for a conventional war.

It would be complicated: USA need both large Navy and Army to be deployed everywhere in the World; Japan and UK would need just a strong Navy to defend its homeland, and the Army is something more that should be judged thinking to the foreign policy of the country; Italy could need a strong Army if it gets involved in an European war, but a strong Navy in the event of a Mediterranean war. Etc.

Denmark- No external or internal threats. Declining armed forces due to end of the Cold War.

 

Denmark has reorganised in light of the end of the cold war.

Been engaged in combat several places.

Has a Home Guard of 50.000 +

 

Navy is listed as 8 ships - wrong every which way you turn it: 2 combat support ships, 3 korvettes, 4 frigates. NO criteria can fit this number.

 

Actually i count 46 vessel (not counting diving ships and barges) plus 30 home guard vessel.

 

Yes they are small - the majority of them. Precisely: The main focus is the Baltic - that demands small ships. Experience show that Aircraft Carriers are not suited for the damp meadows.

 

Effectiveness is in relation to task to be solved.

This list has NO information values whatsoever - and what it has is wrong.

Immature and purile

I am not surprised.  They have a large, well trained army with advanced equipment. 

But I am surprised that they aren't the world leaders in ABM tech and that they aren't making more of an effort to acquire practical field experience.   If the North Korean economy government collapses, a 150,000 soldiers with peace keeping experience would be advantageous.

 

 

Not unreasonable.
But I would like an organization that believes that world economic progress and democracy makes everyone's life better.  And that peace and stability aids that progress.

 

I believe that China and Russia are using military force to upset that peace and stability, so should not be part of a G14.  In fact they are working against the G14 and forcing them to commit more peace keeping forces.

 

I think India is a very good choice to be part of the Group.  Brazil seems like a good fit, but I am not sure of their commitment.  Maybe an associate membership. Australia and South Korea seem to be invested.  Is Israel able to help other countries?

 

There should also be involvement for countries that have shown a commitment to stability, but can't provide economic growth to other countries, like Ethiopia.

Canada?  How much money is coming from the various countries?  Is it really countries that are part of the G8 or international bankers?
 

I am very surprised to see Canada ranked lower than Holland and Australia in terms of Total Quality, Leadership, and Equipment.

ditto, although the dutch do have a credible experienced marine/expeditionary force that they maintain with the UK.

 

the canadian navy has taken a bit of a belting in recent years, but they still have a more than credible airforce and land army capability.

 

list like this are a bit of a nonsense though...

Ill suggest this one:

 

  link

link

Chart Charts of military force by GNP.

Ill suggest this one:
 link

I see the US is at less than average. They are such slackers, lol.

Maybe some other measurement is more appropiate.

No peace dividend for Russia? 

I used in the wrong way the "G": I was just meaning a group of countries that, in my opinion, could afford a modern large-scale conventional war at high to very high level; then not a new World organisation, otherwise e.g. I would have excluded Israel and included South Africa or so. Thus I beg your pardon.

I see that your idea may happen:
Eckart von Klaeden, who holds the foreign policy brief for Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU) in parliament, said leading industrial nations should meet as the G7, without Russia, until Russia complies with international demands.  "The West took Russia in as a member of the G8 grouping of the most important democratic industrial nations even though it fulfilled neither the economic nor the political requirements," von Klaeden wrote in the Bild am Sonntag newspaper.  "Thus, these nations should meet in the old G7 format as long as Russia is not prepared to find a solution under the framework of the United Nations."