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:My point still stands - misunderstanding   3/7/2004 6:49:50 PM
I didn't say that, that's what Gray thinks arditi was talking about (armies alone) and then someone said that the list makes more sense that way which I totaly disagree with. I know it's pointless saying Germany wouldn't have a chance against the indian army without air force assets but that's what arditis list was about so that's what I took into account. I was just pointing out that if only armies were taken into account then Germanies place would be much lower and India's much higher, do you agree with that? Anyway no matter how you look at it the list is wrong. PS the 990,000 figure is ONLY non-conscripts it has over a million with them.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:My point still stands   3/7/2004 6:57:02 PM
"Come on mate, i mean if their was a hypo war between germany and britain and british forces landed in France and both didnt have the support of their respective airforces then what do you think would happen?" I never said Britain's land components alone could defeat Germany's. Infact I said that if armies were only to be considered Germany would be above us. I then went on to illustrate the point with a comparison of numbers in which Germany isn't that far ahead of Britain, hence it would have no chance against a million man army (not including reserves)
 
Quote    Reply

Nasty German Idiot    RE:My point still stands   3/8/2004 6:49:05 AM
"The 400,000 figure as I understood was liable for recall troops (ie ex regulars who are still under contract to be called up) and as such not counted as reserves " That is correct.They are mainly ex-Soldiers, but many sign up for forein missions and they have to train regulary that is why we have 2500 Training grounds in Germany. In my understanding that is Reserves, what do you understand under "reserves" ?
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:My point still stands   3/8/2004 8:17:34 AM
Over here we have a very complicated system. We have the TA which are volunteer reserves (civvies and ex regs)of which we have 79,192, we also have the regular reserves who have finished there service but sign up to the reg reserves of which we have 75,367. We then have the liable fore recall number who are still under contract to serve when ordered to, we have about 64,814. Anyway the point is that list still doesn't make any sense no matter how you look at it.
 
Quote    Reply

Arditi    RE:Top Ten List   3/10/2004 2:32:51 PM
Very good Gray - I was only talking about ARMY - not Air, Naval, or whatever. I suspect that the controlling issue is "Economics" i.e. the ability to wage long term warfare. Most of the countries on the list are members of the G-7. These are the countries that control the world economy and therefore have the ability to wage long, protracted war. I made no inference as to effectiveness. Of course, most of the arguments that I have seen on this page regarding effectiveness are based on pure conjecture. Few of these countries have been tested since WWII. The Germans have always had an effective military, but that does not suggest that in the next war they will be equally effective.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Top Ten Armies of the World   3/10/2004 7:24:29 PM
The list still doesn't make sense for various reasons I've already said. Would you mind putting a discription next to each nation as to why you put them where you did (you don't have to do the US I think we all agree with that one)
 
Quote    Reply

fall out    RE:My point still stands - misunderstanding   3/10/2004 7:37:11 PM
im not sure that i would agree with india's army beating germany's army with no air assets around. too many factors to take into accoutn such as location, build up, finance, political pressure, stability and "free reigns" for the military. eg, if India 'came over' to Germany and fought the German army then i believe the Indian's would lose, reverse the place and then reverse the outcome aswell. ;)
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:My point still stands - misunderstanding   3/10/2004 8:10:30 PM
Just another reason why the list doesn't work. But if you want to suspend reality and put both armies on a neutral island with no advantages then I think the Indians would come out on top. But that's complete balls because that'll never happen but that seems to be what the lists about.
 
Quote    Reply

clarkey188    RE:Top Ten Armies of the World - mistake   3/11/2004 3:05:09 AM
Have you counted the long term reserve in that, That's what I'm in now you still have to report anually and are asked if you want to switch to the regular reserve for service abroad. The long term reserve would boost the numbers substantially.
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:Top Ten Armies of the World - mistake   3/11/2004 4:00:03 AM
Im confused, how can the german army be growing in the next few years as nasty german said if there miltary buget just got cut by 30% ( i think its 30% but i dont know for sure)..
 
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