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

bigtasty RE:non stratege! 4/23/2004 3:20:53 PM

british naval superiority negates french airpower.and the british army would thrash the french army,by the way jst out of interest,is the amx frances current mbt?

Quote Reply

french stratege Come back on reality. 4/23/2004 3:35:45 PM

"british naval superiority negates french airpower": in a ground war does UK ship have tracks? ".and the british army would thrash the french army," with 50 % power less with less C4ISR (see Orchidee JSTAR like system)? Come back on reality. The only thing I would like to get from UK is their fleet of 12 SSN.But there is not a lot of blue water navy to fight were this superiority will be usefull. " by the way jst out of interest,is the amx frances current mbt?": no it is the Leclerc.AMX 30 B2 are becoming reserve force.

Quote Reply

fullamongo RE: EU etc 4/23/2004 3:53:06 PM

The �3000 figure refers to Britain being in the EU not being in the Euro, just to make that clear. The positives of being in the EU far outweigh the negatives at present for the UK. This may sound offensive but anti-EU sentiment in the UK seems to stem from Imperial pride of another era. Much of the criticisms of the EU that i see in the Star etc. seem to be emotional rather than rational.

Quote Reply

bigtasty RE:Come back on reality. 4/23/2004 4:05:48 PM

ahh so its now only a ground war? how would your ground forces get said ground? magic carpet perhaps? leclerc is unproven cr2 is.same goes with your entire army.the same cannot be said for the british army. Even when we get typhoons,you would still post these wild claims of french military superiority,`ohh but we have c4isr!` etc etc..... i dont mean to come across as completely dismissing the french armed forces,i dont,but they are not superior to britains,and everyone knows this

Quote Reply

fullamongo RE:Come back on reality. 4/23/2004 4:23:08 PM

Just to piss you Brits off im going to side with the French. The have a carrier capable of operating the Rafele M. You boys have three anti-submarine carriers operating the truly inferior harrier. Ye won't be able to address this defficiency for another 5 years. France actually has a capital ship and is building another, the RN has tradition and a parrot that says "show us your tits" when women walk past it. The french airforce is better than the RAF. Can you imagine a Tornado trying to dogfight with a Rafele? Sure the LeClerc is unproven but the Challenger has been 'proven' against a crap, poorly motivated army with poorly maintained, crap tanks.

Quote Reply

RM-Nod RE:Come back on reality. 4/23/2004 5:20:17 PM

Fullamongo, the Rafale is only in service in small numbers. Though ofcourse the FAF is better than the RAF at the minute. However we do have a far better navy, France's area air defence consists of one ship (not including CDeG). And the number of major combatants in the RN is double that of the FN. What do you mean France has a capitol ship and is building another? Strat, can you post some details on France's C4ISR and why it is better than the UK's. Thanks.

Quote Reply

fullamongo RE:Come back on reality. 4/23/2004 5:38:12 PM

k. The french have the Foch, which is a capital ship. The French were thinking about going in with the UK and building one Future air carrier but have decided to build another Foch type. France has one capital ship and is planning to build another. France's carrier bourne planes outrange the UK's and carry the stealth ASMP missile which the type-42's wouldn't have a chance of dealing with. The French have E-2c's. The UK doesn't. The UK should never have gotten rid of the old Ark Royal.

Quote Reply

RM-Nod RE:Come back on reality. 4/23/2004 6:21:43 PM

The Foch was retired, they have the CDG now and are negotiating with the MoD to procure a second of the BAE/Thales UK CVF type. A capitol ships is simply a ship that is important to the fleet, sometimes defined as a large ship but this is a pointless way of gauging things. A better way of looking at a navy's capabilities is looking at how many flagships they have. A flagship is defined as a ship with command facilities. I'm not sure how many the French have. The ASMP missile is a nuclear cruise missile. The ASMP-A is a largley classified stealth version that is under going R&D. I'm sure a Type 42 would have a hard time against this but I'm also sure a Rafale would have a hard time against a Trident D-5. The French carrier carries better planes but there is only one carrier, if that is disabled then the entire naval fighter force is taken out of action. Also the FN is left without any carriers when the CDG goes into refit, the UK always has naval air power. Are you trying to suggest that the French navy is more powerful than the RN?

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:Come back on reality.-Fullamongo 4/23/2004 10:28:34 PM

Oh usually so sensible Fullamongo my friend, what's all this? I presume you've had a bad day? Even French Stratege on these boards says he wishes the FN were up to UK standards. Part of the French problem is their large army and air force; and that they've put a lot in one carrier. RMNOD answered these points. You may want to bear in mind that somewhere off the shores of the Emerald Isle the Brits have 12 nuke subs with Tomahawk while the French have six. I wont bore with the disparity of platforms except to say it may be better to have 3 flat-tops and 1 LPH and 2-6 LPD's than one full size carrier. Or was this just a wind up of the Brits? In which case I'll say no more.

Quote Reply

fullamongo RE:Come back on reality.-Fullamongo 4/25/2004 10:30:23 AM

"Just to piss you Brits off im going to side with the French." First line of my argument. Seriously, anyone interested in the UK's defence should read this: link You'll have to regester.

Quote Reply

RM-Nod RE:Come back on reality.-Fullamongo 4/25/2004 2:17:03 PM

I presume you mean the "How to lose the battle for Britain" article. If so I would point out that it is on the whole complete nonesense. For example it say's we should dramatically cut the size of the RAF; it states that the T45 destroyers are not needed and we shouldn't bother with them; it thinks eurofighters have absolutely no role; it actaully say's the RAF agrees with this (which it does not); it say's that Hoon wants to get rid of training grounds in canada when in fact the MoD is actually negotiating a base to allow the RAF to operate in canada so the army can train with the RAF. One of the best bits is where the writter says. "The logistics organisation, which was run down in the 1990s by both the Major and the Blair governments, is now creaking at the seams, and almost collapsed altogether in the Gulf (notwithstanding my earlier remarks about equipment quality)" Earlier he said that the forces in the recent Gulf war were kept equiped and supplied better than any war we have fought in yet now he says there logistics were about to collapse. And he even tells us to ignore what he said before. Generaly this man has no idea what he is talking about.

Quote Reply

fullamongo RE:Come back on reality.-Fullamongo 4/25/2004 2:56:02 PM

Fair 'nuff so. I suppose you don't aggree with the thrust of his argument that more emphasis should be placed on the army than the RAF/RN?

Quote Reply

RM-Nod RE:Come back on reality.-Fullamongo 4/25/2004 5:27:25 PM

I don't agree with the degree in which he would do so. He suggests that the T45 is not needed, this would leave the entire navy without any sort of area defence with which to protect the carriers and amphibious ships which he rightly says we need. He also says that the Typhoon is a pointless aircraft and that, again, we don't need it. He seems to be sure that we can do without air defence aircraft, ofcourse there peopel who were sure that we could do without carriers but then the falklands happened. He is refering to the fact that Tranche one of the Typhoons will not have much air to ground ability however he does not take into account (I'd be surprised if he even knew) that Tranche one only consists of 55 aircraft which are intended to replace our F3 fighters (of which we have 90), for those who don't know tranche one will have paveway LGBs as there ground attack ability. The further 177 will have full ground attack capability, not to mention that Tranche one will probably be the one to go into storage when Tranches 2 and 3 are delivered. BTW this was always the plan. Personally I generally agree with the procurment plan of the MoD, though I would like to see the budget increase (as could happen in July) and more emphasice put on recruitment. What the author seems not to realize is that the RAF and RN need to be as strong as possible in order to get the army to where it's going and to support it when it was there.

Quote Reply

fullamongo RE:Come back on reality.-Fullamongo 4/25/2004 5:40:58 PM

yeah. I know you'll hate this question but what's your top ten. Go on, put your head on the chopping block and stimulate some debate. My top ten is so old that you can't even access it anymore.

Quote Reply

RM-Nod RE:Come back on reality.-Fullamongo 4/25/2004 5:50:28 PM

You're right I do hate that question lol I don't have a top ten, I don't know ten armed forces in enough detail to be able to judge them. The ones I know the most about are the British, Israeli, German, French and American, in that order. Out of those I would say US UK France Germany Israel Ofcourse this changes depending on what you want to use them for. However I personaly think a military should be able to do as much as possible. With that in mind I rank them on there level of ability to both defend and attack. So I put the UK above Germany because Germany may have a larger military than the UK but the UK can use theres to do more than the German military. If you think a military should be judged purley on it's ability to defend then the order would change.

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