Top Ten Armies of the World

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

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 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NEXT

french stratege Fabio 4/1/2004 8:01:18 AM

The strategy page database is a joke (and expect to be delete as I like this site: but this database is not serious). However south korea belong to second circle with germany, Israel, Turky, Sweden, Greece, Pakistan or Taiwan.

Quote Reply

FABIO RE:Fabio 4/1/2004 8:04:48 AM

maybe I can agree, abou this databases, and I can discuss with you, instead others that are tottaly UNPOLITE. The databases are not current... but is a start to have FACTS, not DEDUCTIONS. I agree about your "1 circle", just Japan I disagree. C U

Quote Reply

french stratege Japan case: virtual nuclear power 4/1/2004 8:10:39 AM

For Japan: they have work a lot on nuclear matters and can field ICBM with MIRV in one year (design already tested under civilian coverage studies and nukes components and materials available for FIVE THOUSANDS nukes: they have publicly aknowledge that last year from the governement).And they have almost full independant design capacities and full independant production capacity.Also they have reco satellites and a good navy for self defense.

Quote Reply

FABIO RE:Dos Vidania Fabio... 4/1/2004 8:15:39 AM

"Of course not you CRETIN! But neither could the US! Nobody could, that?s why there major powers you fool! Maybe you would like to comment on how effectively Russia is dealing with peasants armed with AK-47?s, who seem to be ripping apart the decaying Russian military inside Chechnya?" 1 - Dont forget you British education, cuz I have not cursed u. Ok? 2 - Neither Could US?? maybe you can post a new topic. "Can US win a war alone" - OFF COURSE US CAN. 3 - Checheny, currently is a Guerrila war. Is not troops against others, is not Air force vs. other. In some time, you will see in Irak the same. U cannot compare go 3000 miles, and fight against few old mirages, and no SUBS / and no defence systems. To a war against Russia. It's like compare Irak and US, even worst.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Dos Vidania Fabio... 4/1/2004 8:43:11 AM

I know Britain at this point in time is only operating the Tornado F3 as its air superiority fighter, which isn?t as moderns the Rafle. However Britain, as you well know, has an order of 232 Typhoons set for completion in 2007. RAF pilots have already begun to test the machines, and it was found that they out preformed the F-15 by a long way in a two on two combat test last month in the Peak District. I would disagree with France being level, as they lack the ability to maintain troops in the field for the same length of time as Britain. The FN is a lot smaller than the Royal Navy, which can operate on its own for 30 days with out re-supplying. The F/A2 is an excellent aircraft and I am sad to see it go, and I would like to see it in service until the F-35 enters. Although Britain will be using GR9/A?s in the interim, which are not capable of maintain air superiority, like the F/A2. However in terms of conflict the possible targets in which Britain might go to war against would be; Iran, Syria etc. Where the RAF would dominate the sky with the Typhoon and where the T45?s would be more than capable of providing air-cover. Although this is getting off the point as I do value France very highly as a military power. As far as FABIO goes. The US possibly could win a mainstream conflict against China and India, yet they wouldn?t become involved due to the high sacrifices and casualties that they would take. Chinas best deterrent isn?t her Nuclear weapons, but here endless amounts of (ill-trained and ill-equipped) conscripts. ?3 - Checheny, currently is a Guerrila war. Is not troops against others, is not Air force vs. other. In some time, you will see in Irak the same.? Britain fought a very successful anti-guerrilla war in northern Ireland against a far better armed and trained opponent and still cam off on top. Hence why the PIRA signed the Good Friday agreement and why Northern Ireland is still in the Union, despite the suspension of the Northern Irish assembly. ?U cannot compare go 3000 miles, and fight against few old mirages, and no SUBS / and no defence systems. To a war against Russia. It's like compare Irak and US, even worst.? For one you clearly lack any concept of the Argentine capabilities at the time. The AAF was certainly far better suited to fighting an Air war than the RAF. Also I wasn?t comparing the Falklands to Russia. I was commenting on how you seemed to think its funny that a power like Britain was able to sustain and fight a war 3,000 miles away. Something that no power has done on its own since. Not forgetting that Russia would stand no chance of fighting such a conflict as you lack power projection. And I haven?t curse either. Cretin and fool is possibly the mildest forms of insults I could of slung at you.

Quote Reply

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

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 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NEXT