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

RE:Polar 4/8/2004 9:29:01 AM

Also, how do you guys come up with just U.K vs china, china couldnt even get out of its backyard if it wanted too.U.K wouldnt fight alone, Common Wealthe & US on there side any maybe some E.U nations.

Quote Reply

ArrowGuns Ad: question 4/8/2004 10:57:15 PM

This whole scenario of China vs. UK or for that matter UK vs. anybody is ridiculous. Why would any country except Islamic terrorists dream of attacking UK? What for? Now the question: The clear and present danger for UK (that I read somewhere) was the negative population growth observed in most ethnic groups. With the exception of Moslems. Is the prediction that UK (and maybe France) will be majority Islamic by 2030? Is there truth in it? Could you check for demographic and census reports within your country and confirm? Apart from this, IMHO, UK has no enemies in the world today. It sure has several die-hard patriots who sometimes get blinded by nationalism and complacency. The East is catching up with you faster than you would like to believe.

Quote Reply

dudley RE:Price of War: Ad, Yodha 4/9/2004 12:24:13 AM

in an air battle or sea i can see.but not on the ground near india or china but in a far off place things being equal you bet.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Yodah 4/9/2004 8:01:57 AM

Arrows, I think that the Muslim population growth is scare mongering, at the moment there are approximately one million Muslims inside Britain and three million other non-Anglo-Saxons. It would take some extreme population decrease in the Anglo Saxon population for this to occur. The Muslim population of 2030 stands a far better chance of being British anyway; apathy towards religion, roast beef, pint of Carling, going to the football, wearing Western style fashion etc, I would assume that the assimilation process would have happened and that many Muslims would consider themselves to be English (if their born in England of course) and British second. Obviously Islam may still play a part, but not to the same degree as it may do now. I think the younger generations are only bound by it due to their parents. I know that the China question was a totally improbable situation. However, I was trying to make it obvious to Yodah that Britain has ?Power Projection?, which means that Britain, if it so did wish could attack China. He doesn?t seem to be able to comprehend the strength of Britain?s Naval forces or Britain?s stand off capabilities, such as TLAM coming from any of Britain?s 11 SSN?s. Or the possibility of TLAM coming from T-45 on the second batch onwards. Britain is the more capable military power in both offence and defence. This is down in part to Britain having a very high-tech armed forces. An example being that in Kosavo, 80% of all munitions dropped by Britain were Paveway II smart weapons. While the USAF used a smaller number, just 73% of all bombs dropped were smart. It is also down to Britain?s Royal Navy, which is the worlds second largest, and the benefits this creates. The modernisation of the fleet is only going to strengthen this, and it will increase the number of hull?s. As a pure example, a T45 using the PAAMS system would be able to cope with several PLAAF air-attacks, as the PLAAF would be unable to ?swamp? a British taskforce, containing three or four of these vessels, as this system can control many Aster-15 and 30 missile at the same time. I?m not for one minute suggesting that Britain would ever fight China, however, the fact that Britain could pick and choose its battles makes it a far more flexible force, as Dudley said ?a battle fought somewhere neutral?? this would be impossible, as China could not move anything and sustain anything bigger than Brigade size. While Britain could move all of its forces to fight that battle. If for some reason British and Chinese troops did clash, then superior British equipment, training and experience would give the British troops the edge over the PLA troops. Yodah doesn?t seem capable of realising any of this, as his military knowledge appears to be extremely limited. He can only see 2.5 million PLA servicemen and how this would instantly make China a viable military machine. Discounting, quality of equipment, quality of opposition, quality of training and the huge technology gap.

Quote Reply

RM-Nod RE:Yodah 4/9/2004 9:10:24 AM

Yodah, you don't seem to understand that you don't have to be able to invade and beat a county one on one to claim your force is "better". You are right that we probably couldn't invade China but could China invade Britain, even it it somehow magically got it's entire force to France? The answer is no, so now is Britain better? According to your logic then yes we are but then you say that China is better because it could defend against a British attack. I'm afraid your method is highly confused. What Ad is pointing out to you is that Britain fully capable of defending itself but it can also move it's force to take the fight to the enemy, protect out interests, protect our allies interests etc etc. That is something the Chinese military or any other (apart from France and the UK) can't do. How does that make China a better force than the British one? PS I see that when your assertion that UK projection could only be achieved with US help was proved wrong you now try to claim that all of the UK's friends around the world are only Friends with Britiain because of the US, this is the most desperate attempt to keep yourself in teh argument I have seen, Britain has not only the commonwealth but many dependancies, allies, trading partners etc etc that have been friends with Britain for a very long time and has nothing to do with the US. You obviously have something against the UK or something because you keep making these claims and have absolutley nothing to back them up. Either put up or shut up, it's up to you.

Quote Reply

PuckaMan No Nukes 4/9/2004 9:40:25 AM

Nuclear weapons are a completely different ballgame than conventional military or, in this case armies. Nukes cannot be taken into account on this thread, if they were, the thread would be titled something along the lines of 'Top Ten Strategic Powers' or similar. There is an enormous difference between sending an expeditionary force to somewhere than threatening or actually using nukes. Nuclear weapons are a strategic weapon only, not multilevel like armies. These threads are largely pointless anyway. Pucka

Quote Reply

Advocate Of REason RE:No Nukes-pucka 4/9/2004 11:49:32 AM

What I'm saying that if we dont count nukes, then the comparison is unfair. To use my last example, if the UK had no nukes then their army would be much bigger, because the whole point of them getting nukes was to discourege the soviets from invading western europe, so if nukes were not developed the UK army would have to be much bigger to provide the same detterent. Now if we look at India for example, they only got nukes very recently, and they have been building a giant army for a long time to provide a good war detterent to Pakistan and China. So in the near future as India gets more nukes its army will be somewhat reduced. So the comparison with no nukes is unfair because nukes make up a different portion of overall defence for different countries, so by taking away nukes you unbalance the equation.

Quote Reply

french stratege RE:britain and france 4/18/2004 5:57:28 PM

France is the first European nation after US to get the command of Nato Response Force (NFR5) with level 2 before UK which is scheduled to get it in 2006.Who said that France is less trained than UK and has its capacity below in planning large scale operation? Only France now and UK after are scheduled among NATO nation to plan large scale NATO air force operation without US means at US quality level. A confirmation of what I mentioned about French superiority in C4ISR over UK. France is testing for improved Mica the new guidance system dual mode IR/radar.Improved mica will be a thousand year more advanced than updated Amraam.Also French command ordered last week 336 new generation sight helmet for Rafale.A good indication about french governement commitment for Rafale.

Quote Reply

PuckaMan RE:No Nukes-Advocate Of REason 4/18/2004 6:10:32 PM

You miss my point. I was saying Nukes are a Strategic weapon, under control of Nations, NOT armies. Whatever jurisdiction they fall under in various countires doesn't change the fact that they require political and governmental permission to be used. It doesn't unbalance the equation at all. As I said, nukes are very different from armies. The Size of armies is a relection of the Strategic position of the country, and undoubtedly nukes have an impact on that. I assume that this thread is talking about the nuts and bolts of specific armies, as opposed to the srategic strengths of a nation. If that were the case, the thread would be about the 'Top Ten Stragically powerful nations' or similar. Pucka

Quote Reply

fullamongo RE:No Nukes-Advocate Of REason 4/19/2004 8:57:45 AM

Probably the best way to see which army is better is to do a thought experiment in which the countries border each other or at least close to each other and see who would beat who. If you take into account other outside factors you begin to stray away from the core issue. EG: Ireland has a small army cos realisticly its only possible enemy is the UK. We'd never have a chance of beating the UK in an all out war. Conversly the UK would back us against anyone else 'cos it wouldn't be in their interest to have another world power on their doorstep. An increase in the size of irelands army wouldn't make it any more or less safe so the army is kept small. For the purpose of this thread all these points are irrelevent! I havn't addressed weather Ireland's army is any good or not. I hope you see my point. We should focus on actual military strength folks not on how many overseas staging posts you have or if your in a military alliance etc.

Quote Reply

Salvo RE:No Nukes-Advocate Of REason 4/19/2004 10:28:06 AM

You can't take into account Nukes especially for Euro countries (and especially especially UK) because most of these weapons can't be fired unless the US says so. In terms of military projection, the EU countries are just Vassal states directly under the countrol of the US.

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:britain and france 4/19/2004 10:40:41 AM

And the UK has commanded the larger and more important NATO Allied Rapid Reaction Corps since 1999 - including Bosnia and Kosovo. It is formed around the UK's Air Assault Brigade with an integrated aviation component unmatched by any other European country. The new NATO Reaction Forces are designed to let Europeans do more in peacemaking - the Dutch have their own "Force" and the Spanish have their own "Force". No criticism of the French army, but try to put this in perspective; when France gets some heavy lift helicopters and strategic airlift and a few dozen attack helicopters it may come close; until then it is not the same as the ARRC. Please don't pretend it is.

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:britain and france 4/19/2004 10:42:52 AM

And the UK as our ally is currently engaged in more pratice than mere paper theory.

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:No Nukes-Advocate Of REason - Salvo 4/19/2004 10:53:42 AM

Your politics do not concur with reality. Both the UK and France have always maintianed independent deterrents - made more urgent by France leaving NATO command in 1953. If the UK and France had ever been convinced that the US was 100% certain to engage in nuclear war to protect western Europe, then the UK and France wouldn't have gone to the trouble and cost of acquiring nukes. In fact the reverse is true; US nuclear weapons on US bases in the UK have always been under "dual key" control - i.e. they could and cannot be launched from the UK without UK permission. One of the features of the nuclear "trip wire" was to ensure that the US could not be separated from Europe. This is why the Soviet deployment of SS-20 missiles in the 1980's - which could only hit western Europe - was received by the deployment of US cruise missiles in the UK and Italy, precisely to keep the US engaged in any conflict. And by the old jokes that the Royal Navy orders were for 12 ICBM's to go for Moscow and 4 for New York.

Quote Reply

trib RE:No Nukes-Advocate Of REason - Salvo 4/20/2004 1:42:38 AM

salvo, UK got nukes they can fire without US agreement and it's more true about french nukes which is NOT under US control like you said. On the power projection, please tell me one thing since when UK and France (The 2 EU country with power projection capability) takes orders from US for their military deployment? The Falkland was a US idea? Deplying French troops in Chad, and ivory coast was a US idea? Your vision of the world is somewhat limited, it's true no one can disagree US is the Main military power at this present time, but please, It's not the only military power in the world and EU army are not under strict leadership of the White house. UK enter the Irak Conflict because they want to, not because US ordered them to go.

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