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:This place has gone a little nuts... - and to civvy 4/1/2004 2:29:23 PM

It may have gone a little nuts but since I have been here there have been something like 5 top ten threads and all have the same mistakes in, since the Iraq war they have all had some small minded person come on and talk about how the UK is Americas puppet or some other totally unsubstantiated remark. We've also had the same discussion about Russia a few times in only the past few weeks, so excuse us if a few of the older british members here seem like they're getting at you or someone else, we're just letting off steam. Anyway to get on with the discussion. Russia... Chechnya is a little different from NI yes but not massivley so. However Britain has faced many other apponants that have been more potent than what Russia faces there. Malaya for example, Oman Dhofar, Borneo, etc etc, I posted a list earlier on. "Russia could do a serious job of destroying the RN" How do you mean? If the RN was attacking Russia? Well yes it could but then the RN would destroy anything Russian that came at it if Russia was attacking the UK. You mention TU-160s carrying a combined 144 cruise missiles (I presume anti ship missiles). This sounds good but it doesn't really take into account all the facts. The Sea Harrier FA2 has a range of 185km from the carrier, and is equiped with AMRAAM that has a range of 80km, so the Harrier can intercept the TU-160s when they get withing 265km of the carriers which is before they are close enough to fire there missiles. If the TUs do release any missiles our ships are equiped with either SeaDart (80km range, 2 per ship) or SeaWolf (13km range, 32 vls per ship) missile systems*, added to this all are equiped with anti missile decoys and passive defences aswell as Goalkeeper and Phalanz CIWS. This does not take into account the Harriers. So the RN is very well defended against attack (it was designed specifically to fight the Soviet Union afterall) The Invincibles are equiped with Sea King AEW Helicopters. "Argentina did have submarines in the falklands and they caused the RN a lot of trouble." They had submarines but they caused no problem. One of there boats was hit by a British torpedo and was badly bamaged, it limped into it's home port and after the sinking of The Belgrano the Argentine navy was no problem (it wasn't while it was there anyway). About the losses. Britain was the first country to encounter sea skimming missiles and as a result no tactics or counter systems were in place. This was a serious problem when coming up against the Exocet. The UK also had no AEW aircraft (the carriers were designed for ASW warfare) which is why the RN had the losses it did. Added to these problems the Argentinians had two T42 destroyers which gave them a great insight into how to attack the RN. For the UK this was the opposite, the Argentinians were traditionaly allies and as a result the UK task force had practically no information on the composition of the Argentinian forces. However the UK now has AEW aircraft, the Sea Dart and Sea Wolf have been massivley upgraded since the war, CIWS has been incorporated into ship defences, tactics have now been developed to deal with sea skimming missiles and other air threats. There have also been countless other developments that have added to the effectivness of the RN. It is impossible to compare a force of today to what it was over 20 years ago. Civvy - I think anyone reading this must have a decent knowledge to understand most of what is being talked about. Since that is the case then saying Britain is the second most capable power projector should not seem like we're saying we're anywhere near the level of the US but if the readers here know anything about what they claim to then they should realise this themselves. Despite the large gap the UK and France are still the only other nations capable of serious power projection and so would come in as numbers 2 and 3 (or joint 2 to avoid war ;))

Quote Reply

FABIO Discussion 4/1/2004 3:04:57 PM

Friends. This is a discussion list , os something that would burn someone with fire? 1st - RMNOD - I like read you explanations - You do with a lot entusiasm and real facts. 2st - French Strategy : I agree with you in 95% of the cases (not considering Japan). 3rd - There are some people , who doesnt know anything about a good discussion. And just think with such nationalism that makes they blind. 4th - I live in America and I am pretty sure, that without US Help, UK would loose the 2nd war, maybe in 5 years, or ten. But would loose. Russia helped UK without the reason to help UK. as a conclusion , I have never written that Russia Saved UK. Russia just accomplished its job. I will show , why I think Russia is still the second. I dont think that USSR exists. OK IDIOT?? I will compare some sectors: NAVY UK/France: 7 Russia: 3 Air Force: UK/France: 6 Russia: 8 Strategical Nuclear forces Russia: 9 UK/ France:5 Army/tanks/artillery - SIZE UK/France: 6 Russia: 8 Army/tanks/artillery - trainament UK/France: 8 Russia: 6 Resources (gas, oil, ore, etc..) Russia: 8 UK/France: 6 Know how: Russia: 7 Uk/France: 8 Spy satellities/ strategical space tools Russia: 8 Uk/France: 6 Dependent of other countries/ Allies UK/France: 5 Russia: 8 Now You take the total, and see that Russia still the second. I am not the owner of the thruth, but is my poit of view. I put UK/France because I consider almost the same (just the royal navy is far superior) I meant: comparing Russia x UK - Russia still better ... Russia x France - Russia still better... Russia x UK and France change the side. The money , in a great war, is in a second level. Russia has Resources (people and material) to produce in large scale , if they really need. They didnt buy almost anything from other countries. I am considering that the grade 10 (the best -maximum)are from US.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Discussion 4/1/2004 6:18:44 PM

?I live in America and I am pretty sure, that without US Help, UK would loose the 2nd war, maybe in 5 years, or ten. But would loose. Russia helped UK without the reason to help UK. as a conclusion , I have never written that Russia Saved UK. Russia just accomplished its job? This is somewhat ambiguous and therefore confusing. Are you saying Russia supplied aid to Britain? Which it didn?t, Britain supplied vast amounts of war materials and general aid to the U.S.S.R. Yes the lend-lease programme did help Britain. However it had already been proved that by the late Autumn of 1940, an invasion of Britain was impossible, as the RAF had won the battle of Britain. If for instance, Hitler had attempted to reattempt this massive undertaking in 1943, then he would of faced a much stronger Britain than before, while the Luftwaffe would have been considerably weaker. While at the same time the Royal Navy would have been even larger, because of the lend-lease programme. So Hitler would not have been able to ?defeat? Britain. If Hitler had of got his way in 1936, Britain would have been allied with Germany instead of being at war with her 3 years later. This would of given the German armed forces the ideal situation with which to attack Russia, as 100% of the German war machine could have been concentrated on the East, instead of the 70% which was actually devoted. Would Germany have won? That?s questionable. No one has ever debated the Russian contribution to the Second World War. I like your argument style; ?NAVY UK/France: 7 Russia: 3? Interesting rankings, which are followed up by; ?I put UK/France because I consider almost the same (just the royal navy is far superior)? Its always nice to contradict ones self. I would suggest that you are right in your second point, the Royal Navy is far superior to the FN. How do you come up with your rankings? The fact that you have the Russian Navy at 3 means that the Ivan?s can?t possibly be the second strongest power, as you lack global projection. Its all very well having a large conscript army, yet you couldn?t move them anywhere to fight a war, which makes your Spy satellites irrelevant, as its all well and good having the intelligence, but if you can?t act on it, what?s the point? Size isn?t everything, this is a pissing contest. it?s the application of force at the right moment that counts. It also helps to have highly trained, which the average Ivan squadie isn?t and also to be highly motivated, which the average Ivan squadie isn?t. The Russian defence budget covers �22 billion. What do you think that Britain and France spend their cash on, to come out inferior to Russia?

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Price of War 4/1/2004 6:50:25 PM

Fabio. You also need to remember that wars like all things, cost money. Russian GDP lags well over $1.2 Trillion behind that of Britain, which approximately has a 2% growth rate. Although Russian growth is 5.5%, it still has some way to go; especially considering that Britain along with the other G7 nations are developing tertiary and Quaternary industries (See Rule Britannia 3/15/2004 5:28:11 AM) link

Quote Reply

civvystreet A Russia-Uk comparison- RM-Nod, Ad, Fabio 4/1/2004 11:54:53 PM

RM-Nod & Ad- I agree. Without any of the "Great Powers": US,UK & Sov Union, the outcome of the war would be called into question. Particularly, given that the nazis were close to developing nukes. Part of the reason why Stalin pushed for Berlin was because the nazi atomic program was based in a suburb of berlin and the Sovs wanted to strip it of its equipment and uranium. So it is conceivable that any delay in the prosecution of the war may have resulted in nazi germany attaining atomic capability. However, I was merely alluding to the sheer scale of warfare on the Eastern Front and the horrendous casaulties (numbering around 15 million was it?) which I believe only the Soviet Union could have borne. They repulsed an attack of 3 million, comprising 3 german army groups during Barborossa. So yes, that made the Normandy landing possible. Anyway I quibble and digress. Fabio- You raise an interesting armchair debate- the UK vs. Russia today. A small, high-tech compact power "with tertiary and quaternary industries" vs. a re-emergent Russia complete with its massed rust buckets. I'll be willing to bet that they can re-forge their armies in short order (6-10yrs). Any timeframe less than that and the Russians will come up come up short. Plus their doctrine is untested today. Yes I know the arabs tried it in '73 but its not the same as if the erstwhile warsaw pact pushed towards the Fulda Gap. I think that would have given new meaning to the term "shock and awe". A perennial debate with wargamers.

Quote Reply

french stratege France logistic bases around the world 4/2/2004 1:39:28 AM

UK fleet is double French capacity for ASW warfare and logistic only.Not double for amphibious operation and land attack but on a par: Advantage for UK for amphibious ships Advantage for France in air support (especially with 3E2C) But inferiority for French in logistic and little inferiority in amphibious is compensating by the fact French have naval (and airport) facilities and supply deposit around the world: America: antillas and Guyana Africa: Dakar and Djibouti Indian ocean Djibouti and Reunion Pacific: New caledonia and Papetee So France have bases on all potential operations theater with oil deposits (and 25 200 man to proetc them aboroad).(UK mainly in Gibraltar now but France has mediterranean sea shore) We need less logistic support ships. Also our aircraft carrier is nuclear. Martime transport is a mix of amphibious military ship and mainly civilians ships (ferries and ro-ro) and France have enough to transport two divisions like British.

Quote Reply

jacques sorry to interrupt your debate 4/2/2004 1:50:33 AM

has anyone seen Couac-Attack ?

Quote Reply

quokka RE:France logistic bases around the world 4/2/2004 7:10:53 AM

but does france have the commonwealth as back up?

Quote Reply

Rule Britannia RE:France logistic bases around the world 4/2/2004 7:41:10 AM

The UK also has a number of colonies around the world that are home to naval stations or have port facilities to potentially act as logistics stations, namely: Gibraltar, The Falkland Islands, Anguilla, Montserrat, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Tristan de Cunha, British Indian Ocean Territory, Turks and Caicos Islands, Virgin Islands, St Helena, Ascension, The Pitcairn Islands, The Henderson Isles, Duchie, Oeno and Cyprus. There are others although their port and tendering facilities are questionable. More to the point, this is not an entirely practical way of maintaining logistical support. The Royal Navy has only used one of these stations in a relatively recent time of conflict; Ascension, en route to the Falklands in 1982 where I had to fly out with a team of marine engineers and draughtsmen to help HMS Invincible replace a three and a half ton gear box coupling. If the French Navy relies on this method of logistical support, then it would have to make arduous detours to make it possible, adding considerably to the transit time and therefore making operations far less effective in the short term thus hampering their projection capabilities.

Quote Reply

RM-Nod RE:France logistic bases around the world 4/2/2004 8:17:30 AM

"Not double for amphibious operation and land attack but on a par:" I'm afraid I have to disagree on this point. Aside from naval guns the UK has a far larger land attack capability than France, not the same. The French navy has a superior air arm for offensive operations but that is the extent of there land attack ability (If I'm not missing something). The CDG carries around 40 aircraft, but there is only one, the Invincibles carry 22 aircraft but 2 can be used at once (3 if it was really needed) bringing the total number of aircraft up to 44. While aircraft range is on the CDG's side that is not that important because the GR7 is capable of launching Storm Shadow missiles. So overall in carrier based land attack I would say France is only slightly ahead due to better aircraft. However the RN has the 1000nm range TLAM at it's disposal, and can be deployed in any of 11 SSNs. Added to this UK ships are capable of using the land attack version of the Harpoon missile. Overall I would say the UK has a better land attack capability.

Quote Reply

french stratege rm nod 4/2/2004 10:15:54 AM

You forgot E2C and we have also land attack cruise missiles.3 E2C provide a very usefull low aaltitude coverage about 250 miles around the task force and can coordinate attack. We could redo Falkland war even more easily than UK.No Argentina aircraft would even approach successfully our task force even if they have 2 dozen SU27 (but not awacs and air refueling).In case of war we would use also ferries and civilian auxiliary ships like tankers and ro-ro (as UK can do).UK has only 20 % more capacity for troops aboard pure military landing ship.Don't forgot also BVR capacity for fighters. Also commonwealth capacity depend on political will of other commonwealth country. It is different than having already a logistic military base, maintenance facilities and prepositionned supply. For chance geographical position of our bases is well located: south America, Dakar and Djibouti, la Reunion and New Caledonia.Close to main potential theaters of operation. I don't change my point of view.

Quote Reply

Arditi RE:Top Ten Armies of the World 4/2/2004 12:43:36 PM

The French are the only Country that owns the distinction of having lost to the Italians twice.

Quote Reply

RM-Nod RE:rm nod 4/2/2004 1:13:31 PM

"we have also land attack cruise missiles" You mean Scalp? Yes but you only have a maximum of 40 aircraft carrying these and that assumes your carrier is only embarked with offensive aircraft. The actual number of offensive aircraft is 37 assuming the usual 3 E2C are embarked, 2 Invincibles carry around the same number aircraft (38 with 6 AEW SeaKings). So we can assume the same amount of Scalp/Storm shadow can be carried. Though Frances aircraft are superior to the Harrier in AA combat the Harrier GR7 is very capable in the air to ground role annd has a similar range to that of the Super Etentard so the CDG does not give a massivley more capable land attack capability in my opinion. However the UK also has longer range TLAMs which can be fired covertley from most enemies. It is this fact that I believe gives the UK a better land attack capability. "We could redo Falkland war even more easily than UK" Do you mean more easily than we did originally? If so then I agree though I would have thought that would be obvious. However if you mean better than the UK could do now then I have to disagree. The UK would barley have to go anywhere near the islands with any surface combatants thanks to TLAM. "In case of war we would use also ferries and civilian auxiliary ships like tankers and ro-ro (as UK can do)" It's not as simple as that, at least not against an oponant with good air assets. The FN has only 17 major and minor surface combatants with any air defences compared to the UK's 33. These ships are needed to escort your logistical ships and without them any operation against anyone with good air forces or ship to ship missiles would be difficult. "Also commonwealth capacity depend on political will of other commonwealth country. It is different than having already a logistic military base, maintenance facilities and prepositionned supply. For chance geographical position of our bases is well located: south America, Dakar and Djibouti, la Reunion and New Caledonia.Close to main potential theaters of operation." I don't think Quokka meant the UK has the commonwealth to help out with logistics, I think he meant more as general back up. But as Rule points out the UK also has many bases around the world, as he has listed, yet despite the number of conflicts the UK has been involved in few have been used at all. To repeat what he says, using these bases means you have to take detours which ultimatley is difficult and costly.

Quote Reply

fullamongo RE:This place has gone a little nuts... - and to civvy - RM nod 4/2/2004 1:47:23 PM

"so the Harrier can intercept the TU-160s when they get withing 265km of the carriers which is before they are close enough to fire there missiles" The indian/russian PJ-10 has a range of 300Km, is stealth and supersonic. The Kh 55 (12 carried by a blackjack) has a range of 3,000Km. Russians also have tu22m3 and tu95's. I think they have the measure of the RN

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:rm nod/French Strat 4/2/2004 3:16:56 PM

1. What is the organization of French amphibious forces? Numbers of LPD/LPH group and amphibious helos, landing/assault craft? The name/number of the specialist amphibious brigade/division would help. 2. Falklands. A subject, as you know, on which I abhor superficial analysis. As in "do the Falklands" - do you mean your present equipment against 1982 Argentina or 2004 Argentina? With or without Mount Pleasant airfield? If you put the 1982 Argentine air force on Mount Pleasant today the job would be a lot tougher. And please "mind the gap" - it is one thing to fight a carrier-to-shore battle. It is very different when your amphibious group has to close the gap and must be protected during the landings. Hence my question about the specialist French amphibious group.

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 21, 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