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

Ad RE:Yodah 4/7/2004 8:03:22 AM

The question remains, how is Britain America?s puppet? In what ways don?t we have our own foreign policy? ?project it against someone small and weak and then dance around fire? Maybe when China can execute an operation 3,500 miles away from there shores, sustain it logistically and achieve the objective on their own, then maybe you can mock, Britain and France?s ability to project power through their Navies. Lets hail the CIA fact book! Its just as bad for information as this own web sites stats and rankings. Now that you mention it? Where are your statistics? You?ve haven?t given any? Polar, Germany?s economy was a false economy and was doomed to collapse if it hadn?t been for the war. They didn?t defeat the RAF because they couldn?t. We?ve had these alternative WWII discussions, I don?t want to get into them again. As Rule Britannia has pointed out, the G7 are moving into tertiary and quaternary industries, while the BRIC?s are still furthering their primary and secondary, leaving them some centuries behind. Worcester puts it best, PPP is just there to make poor countries feel richer. With the way the property market is in Britain at the moment I don?t think there are too many Chinese who could pay the mortgage under their current salaries of say $300 per month.

Quote Reply

interestred RE:Ad 4/7/2004 8:10:36 AM

indian army is a non-conscript army...!! its 0.9 million strength is its regular force (not counting reserves) believe what u wanna believe but atleast officialy its a 100% professional army.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Ad 4/7/2004 8:13:50 AM

Don?t they conscript for boarder defence?

Quote Reply

interestred RE:Ad 4/7/2004 8:30:46 AM

there is no conscription, its purely a volunteer force.

Quote Reply

Polar RE:Ad 4/7/2004 8:32:06 AM

Query: What, in hell, is a false economy? You could name a capitalist consume orientated economy false as well (as people get fat and dumb... .). 300$: Well, as mentioned above, if you cut down prices for housing and food, how much is left on your account? And for what? If you talk about Liberia or Romania, your right. If you talk about China, India or Indonesia, your not. Luftwaffe vs. RAF: Well, maybe it is a thin line, but the possibility of a nazigerman victory in the Battle of England is there. It did not happen, but it would have eliminate the second front against which no one could win. And it does not eliminate the german battle victories of Rommel and Guderian in the early years. They were completly unexpected, what was my major point in this discussion. Tactics killed the Magnot, not the Luftwaffe or the Panzertruppe itself. Same can and will happen again. Third and forth markets: What, if not third or fourth market, is information? Or computer buisness? Even conservative corporate scientist warn: 1. ecessive money flow from productive communities into speculatative markets (Enron disaster, US trade deficide, etc) 2. growing income differences in the western communities (the way round economy growth was generated in the past decades, along with a distinct population growth) And as you see, there is already a third and fourth market in third and fourth wourld countries as well that rivals the first and second world. Back office f.e. . So what kind of markets do you mean?

Quote Reply

civvystreet RE:Price of War: Ad, Yodha 4/7/2004 9:08:07 AM

Just a couple of points: "Finally, Britain has the fourth largest economy and spends triple on defence of what China does. $20 billion spread over an armed force the size of nearly two million isn?t going to buy a lot of bang for your buck." -Ad China actually spends $65 Bn/yr on defence. This is set to increase. Something which has been ringing alarm bells in Washington according to latest newspaper reports. $20 Bn just represents China's incremental defence purchases not costs such as R&D. It's defence expenditure is divided among 3 different organisations. See the globalsecurity.org link below. As far as I know, neither China nor India have "conscripts"- both have professional armies. If they had conscription, the numbers would boggle the mind. Also, bear in mind that China spends proportionately less on wages per soldier than the UK given the different purchasing price parity (PPP). So alot more goes towards modernisation and equipment acquisitions. Britain spends $30Bn per annum and France $45 B pa. Here's the source at globalsecurity.org: link Yodha- wars are won long before they are actual fought- I paraphrase Sun Tzu. Most of the BRIC countries have pressing internal issues which need to be resolved. Jingoism or nationalistic fervour is a convenient escape for the poor in these developing nations. Both China and India are showing double digit growth of late and this should be their agenda.

Quote Reply

Advocate Of REason nukes 4/7/2004 9:11:02 AM

I think that your comparisons of armies without considering nukes is wrong. For example you compare the armies of britain and india and the outcome of a war not using nukes. This isn't fair because if Britain didnt have nukes then it's army would probably have been three times it's size. And india just got nukes so it didnt have time to downsize it's army to compensate. you see to say not counting nukes is pointless because the whole point of getting nukes is that so you dont have to have such a large army.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Polar 4/7/2004 9:33:40 AM

The German economy only appeared strong and many economists had informed Hitler, that this sort of ?false growth? couldn?t continue. Unorthodox working practises inside German heavy industry such as subsidising various industries and closing of exports. Business were not allowed to raise wages to make a competitive market, albeit internal. There economy could have grown bigger and faster if they had allowed consumer demand to develop by its self. The Four year plan was beneficial for short-sharp conflicts but I?m sure you would agree that it was not suited to long term international wars. As Mason put it ?Germany was trying to have its cake and eat it?. It wanted to rearm as fast as possible and at the same time protect the consumer. It can therefore be concluded that despite its successes, it was too focussed and did not address many of the other problems of the time, it is clear however that both Plans (New and Four years) helped the war effort. However, they did so in different ways. The New Plan managed to stabilise the economy, therefore paving the way for the more war focussed Four Year Plan. (The latter evidently directly benefited the war more). However, the work of Schacht cannot be overlooked, as without this, the Four Year Plan would not have been possible. Also, during the Four Year Plan the limits of the German economic recovery were shown. The achievements in the economy of the 1930s were only just above the level reached some twenty five years before, and from 1936 onwards all the indices of growth started to slow down. Although Germany was economically better off going into the war than any of the allied nations (Britain being well on the road to recovery, while France was in political turmoil, which didn?t help their economic state) Yet Schacht, had, requested that Hitler allowed him more time to remedy the balance of payments problem. If he had been granted this, it is likely that the German economy would have been more stable going into the Second World War, as the long term problems were there for all to see. Maybe false was the wrong word, sorry for this confusion, I probably should of posted this with it. Although as an after thought, the Nazis were very fortunate in every respect, that they had working under them the most efficient civil service in the world. As I doubt whether history has seen such a gaggle of pirates running a country. The only defining and dependable factor was that Adolf was the boss. And even then the Reichswer had their problems with him (Deutschland meeting 1935) Generals plot of 1938, bomb attempt 1944. I?m not a big fan of alternative history, I don?t mind revisionists, but I?m not keen on alternatives as you can go to far down the line and things become distorted. Do you actually won?t to know how much I earn? That $300 was an estimate of the monthly wage of an average Chinese worker, I could be higher it could be lower, it was just a stab in the dark. I?m not counting PPP, I?m taking into account ACTUAL GDP, not (as somebody eloquently put it) your Big Mac GDP method.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Defence budget 4/7/2004 9:55:09 AM

Civy, your probably right about the $65 billion as the Chinese don?t confirm the extra they spend. However they do state that it is only $20 billion as this is what I read from an article today. However, $65 billion, spread over nearly two million personnel, still isn?t going to buy you the necessary bang for your buck, if you want to be an expeditionary or global power. I?m not sure if those figures are correct, as the MoD home page cited them at 31 billion dollars in 1999 and since then the defence budget has risen further, with the MoD announcing a further increase this year. I?m unaware if the French budget has grown in five years (I assume it has) but this too was higher, as it was 48.6 billion dollars, a figure from 1999 also. Around eight billion is spent on personnel per year.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Accurate Defence Budgets 4/7/2004 10:05:01 AM

Here is a far more accurate depiction of defence spending. These are figures taken from 2003 taken from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institution. link

Quote Reply

RM-Nod Yohda - Power Projection 4/7/2004 10:41:17 AM

Where to start, lets see... The UK's projection capabilitis currently stand at :- 480 Logistical and Support Ships 129 Naval Ships (33 major surface combatants, 15 SSN/SSBNs) 83 Large Transport Aircraft 370 Transport Helicopters We also have many bases and friendly nations who can provide bases around the world. So in theory we could transport our entire military force if we needed. This consists of around 386,468 Personnel + 170,000 liable to recall 5000 Armoured vehicles 1000 Artillery pieces (approx) 300 Air defence systems (approx) 400 Attack helicopters 362 Combat aircraft 111 Training aircraft w/ combat capability 81 Minor surface combatant ships 33 Major surface combatant ships 11 SSNs 28 Maritime, fixed wing combat aircraft 11 AEW Helicopters 7 Fixed wing AEW/AWACS 4 SSBNs With this comes significant stand off weaponry allowing the UK to strike targets out of reach of counter attacks. So if it came to the crunch the UK is very capable of taking on large or equal apponants if needed. However in the modern world this does not happen very often (it hasn't happened since Korea) and is never likley to happen where one nation goes it alone. On the other hand if something catastrophic did happen then only the US, UK and France would have any capability to do anything about it. Just to reiterate ad's question, how is China able to attack the UK without nuclear weapons?

Quote Reply

RM-Nod RE:Accurate Defence Budgets 4/7/2004 10:43:51 AM

Ad, the UK defence budget is around $50bn. It's on the MoD web site but it's hard to find.

Quote Reply

Polar RE:Polar, RE: Ad 4/8/2004 6:22:04 AM

Well, I'm no friend of alternative history as well (sounds like a contradiction...). But: I'm no economist with degree, but a distinct amount of german scientists, officers and commercial leaders as well as the heavy industry as a whole was able to field an army that declassed Europe. Same can and will happen again somewhere else. If you've got the right (or wrong, IMHO) people and a grudge or a goal. Query: Well, maybe I do not understand your last comments because of my language deficies ( as I am not a native english speaker), but what is the difference of PPP and GDP in that context?

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Polar 4/8/2004 9:03:56 AM

PPP tends to grossly over estimate a certain nations GDP, while the traditional MER way of working things tends to be the most accurate. Take a look at this explanation of defence spending. link

Quote Reply

RE:Polar 4/8/2004 9:23:09 AM

China isnt really anything without the US, most of the toy/dvs/ps2s compaines are moving to china for cheap labor if war ever happend US wouldnt import all those toys and china would fall back too the dark age 10 fold.Also keep in mind that 10 billion a year the US gives to keep china from straving would be gone too.

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