Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Top Ten Armies of the World
Arditi    3/4/2004 3:54:10 PM
According to the CIA and other Intelligence Services (European, Asian, African) this is the tally - based on a Combination of Manpower, Technology, Firepower, Training, Resources, Available Reserves, and Nuclear Potential (Current or Likely): 1. USA 2. China 3. Germany 4. India 5. France 6. Russia 7. UK 8. Italy 9. Israel 10. Pakistan
 
Quote    Reply

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

martin    RE:France vs UK   4/26/2004 10:50:22 AM
Having read alot the above comments I've noticed that France come out of it unusally well against the UK. Although the size of the Armed Forces are similar (with the exception of the UK having a larger navy) the structure of the UK's armed forces are much better suited to all-arms battle. Over recent years the UK has also had much more expieriance of different types of operations from war fighting to peace keeping and it's also had more expieriance of carrying out large scale operations and the logistics needed to do this. Also due decades of fighting as allies of the US, the UK's equipment is tried and tested and is either amoung the the most sophistacated in the world (Challenger 2, Trident nuke subs) or very close to it). So although parts of France's Armed Forces are of a high quality, they're not consistantly good or able to achieve the same level of all-arms capability as the UK. On a slightly less technical point the UK's armed forces are almost universally accepted as being the best man for man in the world and the training, profesionalism and quality throughout all ranks in the UK is without equal.
 
Quote    Reply

fall out    RE:France vs UK   4/26/2004 11:15:25 AM
oh god, not again... :/
 
Quote    Reply

Ad    RE:France vs UK   4/26/2004 12:31:09 PM
As far as France goes, they have been going through a military revolution, since GW1. (Revolutions being France?s second favourite sport, behind striking) The First Gulf War made it horribly obvious to the French hierarchy that a change was desperately needed, if she was to keep up with her European neighbours. This has been reflected in a change from a conscript army to a professional force. Thus allowing the French to project forces and put them in harms way, something they weren?t previously prepared to do. This on whole, increased the quality of their troops to match a professional NCO corps, previously established.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:France vs UK - Ad   4/26/2004 12:58:20 PM
I didn't see that corporal last tuesday but I'll try and see if he's there tomorrow. My e-mail wasn't working last week so I couldn't get in touch.
 
Quote    Reply

Ad    RE:RM-Nod   4/26/2004 3:38:23 PM
No worries.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy