Top Ten Armies of the World

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NEXT

RM-Nod RE:My list of top TEN armed forces - Fabio & Strat 4/1/2004 9:55:49 AM

"Russia has no capability to produce a mass planes, how do you say it? Russia is the most export military equpments currently... but still supllying China India, and other countries..." Russia has no money to buy it's planes. Something like 80-90% of all planes produced by Russia is exported because Russia cannot afford them. "I will not discuss about political subjects, but UK alone would not beat Irak so easier(as an example) Every war, you war with support. Even in FalKLANDS u have the French help. France did not send some Exocets missiles that were bought by argentina. Would not change the victory, but will be sense more problems." OMG! Yes Falklands was a coalition war ofcourse, the UK could never have done it alone. I wish I lived in your world. "You must calm down to write... cuz anybdy can't understand" What? You need it explaining do you, ok then. You said that the Royal Navy would be attacked by Russia so I assume you mean if we tried to attack Russia with the RN. But this also means that Russian forces would be attacked if they tried to get anywhere near Britain, exept Russian can't actually get anywhere near Britain. "Even in WW2 , if wasn't US, or even Russia, you would be talking german as well my friend." You so naive, you do know that we won the battle of Britain, the Atlantic and the E-boat war. Those were the only one's vital to our survaval and we won them alone. How do you think WW2 would have turned out if Britain had not been in the war? Typhoon, obsolete? Do you want to back that up? Harriers are excellent dog fighters (war proven) and with blue vixen has the range and missiles to be a competant BVR fighter. However the Harrier is primarily an CAS aircraft. "Carriers?? would be destroyed with a couple of some anti carrier missiles, that Russia has the best. (to defend theirselves from US age of cold war)" Does the UK not have anti ship, anti missile systems or something? And are you seriously ranking countries based on who they can attack or something? "Russia has developed maybe the best systems defences of their logistical and strategical cities, cuz US was a great threat. Do you really think that they forget it?" Do you really think the Soviet Union still exists. The Russian forces have been cut in many area's by up to 80%, they have excellent defences but they can't do anything but defend that is the point. "I meant that UK HAS NO CAPACITY and logistic power enough to fight against countries like those." But no one has the capacity to fight China or India except maybe the US. "About the SU37, you forgot that 2000 miles is without the maximum payload. Ok??" So the aircraft has even less range, what's your point. I thought you were trying to say the Russian airforce could strike distant targets. "I will not discuss with you anymore, if you think that BRITAIN is the "most power projection", the idea is yours." You have no idea what you are talking about. The UK has a 480 merchant and auxilary logistic ships, 129 ship navy (34 major surface combatants + 15 below surface combatants), 83 tanker/transport aircraft and 370 transport helicopters. Now you tell me how many other countries have that? I can think of only one. "If our president Bush , Blair would clean. "have disagreed with the US on many occasions" about very important things?? like Zambia or something like it??" Oh seriously do some research before you start acting like you know what you're talking about. India Palestine Malaya Korea Canal Zone Kenya Cyprus Aden Radfan Suez Borneo Northern Ireland Oman Dhofar Falklands Gulf War Bosnia Kosovo Sierra Leone Afghanistan Gulf War 2 That was a list of the conflicts that the UK has been a part of since WW2, how many of them were done on the US's say so? How many weren't? How many were done with allies carrying the UK? How many had the UK in a/the leading role? In Oman the US was supporting the UK's allies enemy yet we fought in the war. So how about you actually back up your simplistic claims. "UK alone would not beat Irak so easier" Easier? Ofcourse not but that doesn't mean we couldn't do it. French Strat - Perhaps "a few" was the wrong phrase but Russia's infrastructure is a lot more fragile than the US equivalant, the UK and France have enough nuclear weapons for that. I also agree that the FAF is better than the RAF but the UK isn't going to be fighting France any time soon so all of UK's potential targets have infereor air forces and there are few airforces around the world that are superior.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:My list of top TEN armed forces - Fabio & Strat 4/1/2004 11:12:20 AM

As far as Fabio?s comments on the Second World War, I find them extremely insulting, since it was the Royal Navy which kept the good for saken whole that was the Soviet Union in business, through out their darkest days of 1941 and 1942. To claim Britain is not speaking German now because of Russian aid (which didn?t exist as it was the other way round you FOOL!) and American aid, is to negate history. For one, yes America did manufacture arms for the allies, yet the Spitfire and the Hawker Hurricane were produced in Britain, manned by British pilots in 90% of the sorties flown. Some brave Poles did participate, as well as the odd American. It was also British made warships crewed by British sailors which won the battle of the Atlantic. It is pointless explaining history to someone who clearly knows nothing about it, lets face it, RM-Nod hit the nail on the head. This cretin still believes that the Soviet Union still exists! And that Russia are a force to be reckoned with! �22BILLION military budget, yes it has me worried! That?s around half of what Britain?s is. Who happen to be paying for the correct storage of your nuclear arsenal, as leaving them on rusting ships up in Murmansk doesn?t help things. As far s the FAF goes, I would say that they have the edge for the time being (or at least until 2007) in terms of air superiority fighters, yet they lack Britain?s numbers for Strike aircraft. This furthers Britain?s projection capability, as they are attacking aircraft. Considering the nations we are likely to fight, the Tornado F3 is more than capable of defending the RAF?s strike aircraft, at least until the Typhoon comes into service.

Quote Reply

fullamongo This place has gone a little nuts... 4/1/2004 11:17:36 AM

This place has gone a little nuts since the last time i checked up. A few things i would like to say. I wouldn't compare Chechnia with the north. Chechnia was more like an open war than Northern Ireland and the chechnians are better equipped RPG-7's, SA-7's, SA-18's etc. You must also remember that the majority of people in the north want to stay with the UK. If that ever changed, the north would become part of the republic. Russia could do a serious job of destroying the RN. It has 6 operational Tu160's capable of carrying 24 cruise missiles each. 6*24=144. This would probably be good enough to overwhelm the fleets defences. I havn't even mentioned the tu22m3 yet. The current missiles have a range of several hundred miles and a supersonic, stealth missle has been developed with india (has it been deployed?). The bombers are supersonic, faster than harriers. RN has no carrier-bourne AWACs as far as i know so they won't have much of a warning about the missiles. Fabio obviously didn't read my post about south korea deploying t80u's against the nth korean t62's. this is an example of the tech gap between the north and the south. south korean soldiers get fed too. Argentina did have submarines in the falklands and they caused the RN a lot of trouble. It must be remembered that in the falklands, the harriers were attacking aircraft that hadn't much fuel for manouvering. that said, the argentines succeded in sinking ships with their limited resources. RN needs those new carriers and AWACs badly. I'd still rank russia 2.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:This place has gone a little nuts... 4/1/2004 11:36:55 AM

No the Chechens were are better equipped. The PIRA had and still has a clear selection from any of the US?s most finest weapons. As well as the RPG-7. ?It has 6 operational Tu160's capable of carrying 24 cruise missiles each. 6*24=144.? The Russian Navy can?t operate 6 SSN?s. It can only operate for subs at a time, including SSBN?s. The Russian navy is a disgrace and in total disarray. ?RN has no carrier-bourne AWACs as far as i know so they won't have much of a warning about the missiles? Although there are no carrier born AWAC?s, the Nimrod MK4 fills this role, not to mention the fact that it can also be used as an offensive platform. The MRA4 is the much needed upgrade from MR2 aircraft and will provide significantly improved Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW), and Search and Rescue (SAR) capabilities required during a conflict within an established battlespace. When the CVF programme is completed there will be a complement of V-22 Osprey which will fill this role. Russia can not possibly be ranked second as it lacks any form of power projection. If it can?t move its forces, lacks the finance to operate its navy, then how can it afford to pay for a war? Russia relies on its nuclear arsenal as a bargaining tool. However this is useless against NATO and France, as Russia tried and lost this tactic. It was called the Cold War.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:were *not* better... 4/1/2004 11:37:36 AM

Were *not* better Sorry about the mistake.

Quote Reply

civvystreet and nationalistic 4/1/2004 11:40:50 AM

This getting ridiculously nationalistic-and innane-I mean come on guys-besides the US which we all agree is the most powerful- no other country belongs on the same pedestal. Sorry mate, but they are no seconds- Great Britain, France, Sweden, Upper Volta... However: - first, DPRK?! LOL a "we are the world" extravaganza is more appropriate. Their annual GDP is something like 5 billion. Need I say mo'

Quote Reply

Ad RE:and nationalistic 4/1/2004 11:43:54 AM

?Sorry mate, but they are no seconds? What a ridiculous thing to say. Surely the ?second? most power military nation would be second behind the US?

Quote Reply

civvystreet Hardly 4/1/2004 11:47:31 AM

"What a ridiculous thing to say. Surely the ?second? most power military nation would be second behind the US?" Well -yes but, there is such a huge gap. I mean the US is a Giant in Lilliput

Quote Reply

civvystreet RE:Hardly 4/1/2004 11:53:24 AM

France and UK are I believe on par and have historically fought each other to a standstill. WWII was an aberration- they were caught relying on cavalry from WW1 and static defenses a la Maginot. Point being that how can you, one logically rate "second" except to say that it is very distant from first and probabaly indeterminate within the confines of this medium. By way it wasn't only the French who were caught napping- I recall that little affair of the lend lease act.

Quote Reply

civvystreet RE:AD 4/1/2004 11:57:45 AM

All the allies helped each other- the U.S provided destroyers, supplies etc. before it even got into the war. So the fact that the Great Britain helped Russia does not diminish their pivotal contribution. Just as the US aid to the UK does not subtract from British and commonwealth heroism.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:AD 4/1/2004 12:16:10 PM

?France and UK are I believe on par and have historically fought each other to a standstill? Care to make a historical reference? ?All the allies helped each other- the U.S provided destroyers, supplies etc. before it even got into the war. So the fact that the Great Britain helped Russia does not diminish their pivotal contribution. Just as the US aid to the UK does not subtract from British and commonwealth heroism? It wasn?t me who questioned this in the first instance, it was Fabio, who claimed Britain were some how ?saved? by Russia.

Quote Reply

civvystreet Historical reference 4/1/2004 12:59:06 PM

Well I think what Fabio was trying to say in his own way, was that Russia or rather the USSR, basically broke the back of the Wehrmacht in Continental Europe. It emerged consequently as the pre-eminent power along with the U.S. I think it is safe (though perhaps not entirely morally justified) to argue that the US and the USSR made the principal contributions during WW11. So they were poised to take on the mantle of superpowers.Both countries had mediocre armies at the start of the war. Both went on to tap their economic base to build war machines that eclipsed those of France and Great Britain. As far as France and GB go, I meant that both powers sort of historically contained each other on along term strategic level. Though in the later part of the 18th century, Great Britain did pull ahead of its contender. Plus yes it did have the industrial revolution first and yes tactically speaking I agree that the GB was superior- Agincourt, Crecy, Waterloo (that Napoleon was a tough nut to crack)... though wasn't 1066, the Norman conquest basically a French invasion? I think I've opened a pandoras box. However, as things stand today, I think one would have to place UK & France on par. Both also have virtually identical GDPs (I don't know the GNP figures).

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Historical reference 4/1/2004 1:09:30 PM

I wasn?t contending Russia?s contribution to the Second World War. ?Agincourt, Crecy, Waterloo (that Napoleon was a tough nut to crack)... though wasn't 1066, the Norman conquest basically a French invasion? I think I've opened a pandoras box.? Don?t forget Blenhiem! The treaty of Utrecht which followed this was really the even which gave the rise of the British Empire (British following the Union with Scotland in 1707 of course). And don?t forget the Seven Years War! And no, it was a Norman invasion, if people in New York can claim that they are half Irish after over one hundred and fifty years of their family living inside America, then I can claim that the Normans were Norsemen, who had settled in Northern France and had been there one hundred and ninety years. Actually, the Norman culture was quite unique and differed greatly to that of the rest of France. It is clearly visible in the architecture of Norman buildings in Normandy and Southern Britain.

Quote Reply

RM-Nod RE:Historical reference - civvy - Russia rant 4/1/2004 1:41:43 PM

Russia in WW2 made a huge contribution and no one is denying that but what would have happened if Britain had not won the battle of britain (or the e-boat war or the battle for the atlantic for that matter)? The Luftwaffe would have went on to dominate the skys over Britain and eventualy the Germans would have invaded and conquered Britain. The knock on effect of this is total German dominance in the atlantic, the mediteranean (with the italians), Africa, the middle east (huge supplies at there disposal), this would have also meant German industry would not be hindered by bombing raids and that the German forces could concentrate fully on Russia. Because Britain has been conquered it would be logical to think Hitler would wait untill more forces could be pulled out of Britain to fight Russia so a short amount of time could have been enough to avoid the Russian winter and German forces would have had a much easier time in Russia. There would also be no supplies going to Russia either. So it could be argued that if it wasn't for Britian Russia would be speaking German. Ofcourse that is an insult to Russia because Russia did a hell of a lot in her defence but so did Britain and to say Russia or the US "saved" us is simplistic and insulting to say the least. Rant over

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Historical reference - civvy - Russia rant 4/1/2004 1:52:41 PM

Just to back up what RM-Nod said. It annoys when some Americans decide to ignore Britain?s role in the Second World War. France would still be German now had it not been for Britain winning the Battle of Britain, as Russia wouldn?t have been supplied with much needed war essentials, Germany wouldn?t of had to keep her forces split between North Africa and Northern France. Not to mention the fact that D-Day would not have occurred if Britain hadn?t of won in 1940. It stands a good chance that India would of fallen had it not been for Britain and the Commonwealth nations; Operation Downtown for instance, by the Chindits set up an excellent counter offensive inside Burma. The Italian front would of never opened up had it not been for the large British force in North Africa, which allowed the Allies to control the Med. Each power, Russia, Britain and the Commonwealth and the US added the essentials for the victory. Whether it was professionalism, sheer man power or industrial might, with out either of the ?big? three, victory would not have been achieved.

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NEXT

	News As History - November 8, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us