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

chicom_guy RE:raslin 7/31/2004 11:53:42 PM

Can't compare defeat of the French to the Holocaust. In one case, it was a well armed nation soundly defeating a very well armed nation through superior training and tactics, the other involves a well armed nation committing genocide on it's own people.

Quote Reply

chicom_guy top 10 8/1/2004 12:08:26 AM

We can't overlook the importance of nuclear weapons in any nation's arsenal. Additionally, power projection counts as well. Big countrys naturally have greater power projections, but small countries can compensate with strong navies/air force. So in my opinion the top ten would be: USA Russia China France Israel UK India Pakistan Japan North Korea Russia is ahead of China due to sheer number of nukes and delivery systems. Unlike those who question the reliability of those weapons. I happen to think that if only 10% of the Russian nukes worked, their arsenal would still dwarf all the lesser nuclear powers(France, UK, India) and still equal that of China. And I'm assuming that their arsenal is still at least 50% functional. The Israelis trounce the Brits due to having an equivalent number of nukes and a superior army/air force. Also counting in the fact that a surface fleet matters little in an all out nuke war. India over Pakistan due to India's bigger population, economy, and air force. Though both their nuclear arsenals are about the same. Japan and NK should be a tie. If NK strikes first with their nukes and bio-agents, they could kill 50-70% of the Japanese population in a couple of days. But then again, Japan can build a WMD arsenal the size of NK's in a few days if they wanted to. So I'm not sure on that one. Germany/Italy is off the list. No power projection and no nukes. Australia/Canada is off for having no nukes and stamina(low population).

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust India - Pakistan - chicom 8/1/2004 12:25:35 AM

I think you'll find that Indias nuke stockpile is usually listed as being at least double that of Pakistans - and sometimes up to 4 times in size. In addition, India has the extra leveraged ability of being able to deliver N tips via subs and aircraft. Pakistan IIRC has not been able to demonstrate miniaturisation for delivery on aircraft. In a futuristic sense, India will have a sub launched ballistic capability well before Paskistan does. It laready has an N tip cruise capability with the help of Israel. All the more reason for both sides to get over their differences ASAP.

Quote Reply

Zhukov RE:IAFbestinworld-Zhukov 8/1/2004 12:42:51 AM

"RE:IAFbestinworld-Zhukov 7/31/2004 4:33:22 PM Wow, thats what they teach you in school? A. France took 6 weeks to fall, not 4 days. B. France was just entering its depression in 1936, Germany was leaving it in mid 30's. C. In 1938 or so, france nationalized its air force companies. They had little time, by 1940, to catch up. Some french pilots only got 3 days of training with their Detwoine 520's before going into battle. D. French tanks were stronger, not nessecairaly better. Having a one man turret severly reduced capability. E. French air force was smaller than the German one, and even with british planes which were promised, were only close to even. F.Over 400,000 French died fighting the germans, and 1.9m French soldiers were taken prisoners of war. They didn't run away, they stood and fought, and lost. Don't post things that clearly show no intelligence. It not only shows how uninformed you are, but someone else uninformed might almost think you're telling the truth, and it will spread " 1.Paul Rayaud ,the French Prime Minister telephoned Winston Churchill on the morning of the 5th day of the German attack saying "The battle is lost" because the Germans had made a wide breech in the French main defenive line at Sedan.When Churchill said to plug the breeech by counterattacking with reserves,Raynaud (who was a fighter) said there were no reserves. The rest of the war was essentially the Germans "mopping up". There were no counterattacks by the French. William S Shire who was in a unique position to observe the war as a correspondent for CBS of the then neutral USA wrote a book about his observations of the 1940 German invasion. Even he said that traveling with Germans columns along the French roads it was remarkable that there was no evidence that the French had even tried to slow down the German columns by blocking the roads (let alone standing and fighting). The French did not have 400,000 soldiers killed. The French ,unlike other countries invaded by the Germans,had the option of coutinuing to fight the war from their nearby colonies of Morroco and Algeria.However,when some brave French leaders boarded a ship to Morroco to do just that ,the ship was was stopped by French collaborators and the cabinet minister Georges Mandel was arrested and eventually died in a German Concentration camp (he was Jewish). The French preferred to have others such as the Americans and the British do the dying. The French did make a great effort at helping the Germans. Vichy France even offfered troops to the Germans to fight Britain. I am more informed than you :Surrentder Monkey.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Chicom 8/1/2004 7:56:13 AM

?Big countrys naturally have greater power projections? The only nations which can project any sizeable force on the planet are these and in this order; USA, UK, France. Of which only the US and the UK have any experience within the last twenty years of deploying divisional sized forces. This gives both of these nations a great advantage in experience, as the logistical nightmare of say supporting the 25,000 1st UK Armoured in Iraq (with all its logistical support units) and being able to supply it, is of significant advantage. Not to mention the general war fighting with a large unit, albeit the US have controlled Corps levels recently (VII Corps), yet even just commanding and controlling a single division on a rapid advance is an extremely difficult task. You show your total lack of military knowledge, and you can thank me later for exposing it here. ?The Israelis trounce the Brits due to having an equivalent number of nukes and a superior army/air force. Also counting in the fact that a surface fleet matters little in an all out nuke war.? Rubbish. In terms of single unit quality, then the overall high quality training, professional status and greater experience in ALL types of warfare, means that the British Squadie is largely regarded as one of the best if not the best in the world. In terms of mission, then any comparison is pointless. The IDF is a solely defensive organisation, while the British Army is a solely expeditionary one, with the possible exception of the 1st UK Armoured being a permanent unit in the NATO ARRAC (along with 1st US Armoured). Therefore the force structure is total different. So any comparison would have to run along the lines of, how well can they defend and attack respectively? Britain can attack anybody globally. Israel can project within a specific ark in its region. In defensive terms, the large number of Israeli interceptors, and the IAF in particular act as its deterrent. While the Royal Navy is Britain?s. Both are impregnable. In terms of Nuclear terms, the British delivery vehicle far exceeds that of the Israeli. Any sub launched Jericho from a Dolphin SSK has a limited range, due to the necessity of its enemies. The Trident II, located on the Royal Navy Vanguard class (third largest SSBN) has a strike range of up to 12,000km, while the MIRV its self has a 16 war head capacity. However, Israel could have produced enough plutonium for a 100 nuclear weapons, yet not 200. Therefore, Britain has the larger stockpile. link China its self has a very small nuclear arsenal. Possibly 200-300, a total that?s dwarfed by NATO or the Russian Federation. China?s largest ICBM, has a similar range, however, this particular ICMB was tested in 1980, and thus lacks the decoy technology of say the current SLBM of equal range. Not to forget the NATO MIRV spread of warheads. Without blabbering on, China holds no advantage over US, UK, Russia and when the M51 comes into service, France. ?Germany/Italy is off the list. No power projection and no nukes.? By that logic China is off the list. Pakistan is off the list. India is off the list. Russia is off the list. Israel is off the list. ?Australia/Canada is off for having no nukes and stamina(low population).? North Korea is off the list; as I?d call not being able to feed your people in ?relative? peace time, lacking stamina.

Quote Reply

Goths RE:-Zhukov 8/1/2004 10:35:14 AM

thank you for pointing out the truth. These french and pro french posters here are either uninformed or just dont want to hear the truth because it hurts their pride to much.

Quote Reply

chicom_guy RE:Chicom 8/1/2004 11:06:28 AM

The UK can't project power worth a damn. Standard British tactic is to tag along behind Americans during wars. This makes the situation look as if they have real militar power and influence. For a clearer demonstration of the real state of the british military, look to their crappy performance in the Falklands. They lost 7 ships to an under-trained and ill-equipped 3rd World country. What is power projection, it's the ability to get your troops into the theater of war and to win. Britian barely had that capability in the Falklands, and by now they absolutely don't have it. How many times have Britain independently attacked another country without U.S military support in the last 20 yeas? Zero. How many times did Israel do it? Three times. The Israeli army clearly isn't a defensive force. Their nation does not have the strategic depth for defense. They have had to attack and invade their enemies to end every war that they fought rather than defend their own territory. Though to be fair, Israel's enemies started most of these wars the end conclusion is invasion of those countries by Israel. Thus, the Israeli army is purely an offensive military force(ad's delusions aside). By that measure Russia, and on a smaller scale, China has better power projection than Britain due to their long land borders abutting dozens of countries. Why can they project their power? If you have a land/maritime border abutting say 40-50 countries you can pour your armies/navy into any of those countries, you don't need a huge blue-water navy for a war. And as to the logistics side of it, a war 200 miles from your border is a hell of alot easier to maintain than one that is 2000 miles from your shores. Ad, your ignorance to this subject is really showing. No one really knows how many nukes China has. But newspapers here put it at 2000-3000 warheads. While that falls far short of the American and Russian stockpile, that's still 10x what Britain has. As for delivery systems, the DF-31 is already deployed and it has mirv technology(6 warheads per missile)

Quote Reply

vincent RE:IAFbestinworld-Zhukov 8/1/2004 11:23:23 AM

Alittle reply to "mistakes" in your post, ZUKOV. Casualties of the French army between 10 of may to 25 of june 1940 : most autors estimate 120.000 KIA, for a campaign of 46 days. (and a popumations of 40 millions at this time) Just compare to casualties of any american army to any front of this war. 1.5 million men wer prisonner of war. An american journalist travelling with an army can't be considered to be a good origin for information : manipulated, far away from the hot spots, ignorant of warfare... You explain yourself why he saw not many evidences of fighting in French landscape : when the German troops passed the Front in the Ardennes they made a large movements to circle Fench mobile divisions and BEF in north of France and Belgium (these troops were finally encircled in Dunkerque) Destructions of war were in the frontline : Ardennes, Nord... When an army just surrender it don't have 120.000 killed in 46 days!!! Just watch photos of these campaign instaed of saying bulls. For sure the german were'nt going to show to this journalist bombed cities and villages , civilians killed on the roads by airplanes.... There were tentatives of counter attack's, (village of Stonne, Montcornet, on the river Somme close to Abbeville...)

Quote Reply

vincent RE:IAFbestinworld-Zhukov 8/1/2004 11:35:34 AM

Last big mistake : about G. Mandel's death : he don't died in a concentration camp. After having been declared guilty by the colllaborationnist court he was sent in jail and later in a concentration camp with L�on Blum. After he was transferred back in France in a jail. It was impossible for the collaborationnists to execute him, even according their "special laws". So one day millicians (paramilitary fascists) take him into his jail, officially to transfer him to another jail. He was shot in the back in a forest, murdered by milicians. Your knowledge about France in 1940-1945 need to be improved. I'm happy if I improved your knowledge on these points. VINCENT P.S. : were you really, REALLY, trusting what your CBS journalist wrote under control of the german nazi army?

Quote Reply

chicom_guy 8/1/2004 12:36:23 PM

& what makes you think france can do it aswell? they ran from battle in 1993 in africa.They didnt go into the balkings w/o US help & same thing in 1991 they went behind the US divions. Now israel is small & doesnt have a sea between it & its targets..

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Chicom- LOL! 8/1/2004 12:45:45 PM

?The UK can't project power worth a damn? The UK sent a large heavy armoured division and two light infantry brigades, supplied them on the advance and delivered them very quickly to the theatre. If this projection isn?t worth a damn. Then what does that say about the PLA? Stop clutching at straws. ?They lost 7 ships to an under-trained and ill-equipped 3rd World country.? The Argentineans were not a 3rd World Country and in some instances far better equipped than British troops. Considering the speed of the Task Force (something China can?t do) in moving down to the Falklands and the speed in which they were re-taken from well dug in Argentine positions is testament to the skill of the British solider. ?How many times have Britain independently attacked another country without U.S military support in the last 20 yeas?? Britain is the last Western power to fight a war like this independently. ?How many times did Israel do it? Three times. The Israeli army clearly isn't a defensive force? Since 1984? Don?t talk rubbish, the last Israeli major action was taken against Lebanon. Hardly a well equipped, dug in and highly motivated force is it? And no the Israeli Defence Force isn?t a defensive organisation is it? Your lack of knowledge is quite astounding; of course the Israelis have the capacity to attack using large armoured formations and multiple stage attacks; air, artillery, armour etc, but then this is the staple of any army, even a solely defensive one. If you can?t counter attack or pre-empt a strike with one of your own, then the Israelis might has well not have bothered in 1948, if their Army (IDF) couldn?t do the above roles. ?China has better power projection than Britain due to their long land borders abutting dozens of countries? What a complete load of rubbish. Are you really that thick? Germany can project forces to the French boarder, the Polish boarder, the Austrian boarder etc. The Germans have equal force projection by your logic. Britain can send a force to any region on earth. China can?t. it?s a logistical impossibility and you don?t have the surface vessels to provide adequate support/ protection. ?Ad, your ignorance to this subject is really showing? LOL! Your military thinking is nearly as hilarious as your irony! ?But newspapers here put it at 2000-3000 warheads? I provided a link from a very reliable website, based on the history of Chinese nuclear development. You have pulled something out of your arse, from an oh so free press.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Chicom 8/1/2004 12:54:34 PM

?China has better power projection than Britain due to their long land borders abutting dozens of countries? That?s called being able to defend your boarders, that?s not projecting anything. As for the DF-31, it still lacks the range and MIRV capability of a D-5 Trident II. 8000km and 6 MRV in comparison to 12,000km and 16 MIRV (START-1 limits warhead placements, yet the capacity is still there if such a situation should arise once again)

Quote Reply

Nemesis1 RE:Chicom 8/1/2004 1:34:35 PM

Right Chicom I am surprised you have not being booted for your constant stupidity and ignorance but again ill destroy your rubbish. ?The UK can't project power worth a damn. Standard British tactic is to tag along behind Americans during wars. This makes the situation look as if they have real militar power and influence. For a clearer demonstration of the real state of the british military, look to their crappy performance in the Falklands. They lost 7 ships to an under-trained and ill-equipped 3rd World country. What is power projection; it's the ability to get your troops into the theater of war and to win. Britian barely had that capability in the Falklands, and by now they absolutely don't have it? How many times have Britain independently attacked another country without U.S military support in the last 20 yeas? Zero You talk about the Falklands and try to downplay this successful British campaign. First let?s look at the difficulties of this campaign. 1. The Argentines had 243 attack aircraft available. 76 Skyhawks, 24 Daggers, 18 Mirage IIIEA?s, 5 Super Etendards and 6 Canberra?s as well as 114 smaller fighters such as Pucaras, Aermacchi MB-339A?s and T-34c Mentors all of which could operate from airfields in Argentina from which the Falkland isles where in range. The UK had 28 sea harriers supplemented by 8 RAF Harrier GR3s so a total of 36 aircraft. So in terms of number of aircraft they were massively outnumbered. The Argentines also possessed Exocets which could be launched from the Super-Etendards. Also you?re assumption the Argentines were under-trained really shows your lack of knowledge. The Argentine pilots were very capable and well trained and able to fly extremely low below the radar screen only rising up to lock onto a target. The Argentines were also able to carry out air to air refuelling of aircraft allowing them to approach the task force from various approach angles and allowing them to avoid the Type 42 missile defence shield west of the Falklands. 2. The Falklands were 8,000 miles away from the UK. Literally on the other side of the world. The UK managed to assemble and send a fleet as well as requisition and modify merchant vessels. The UK also managed to logistically supply the task force with all the materials they required including ammunition, food and medical equipment. 3. The Argentines also had time to prepare. Argentine troops heavily outnumbered the number of British troops and were able to dig in on the island and mine areas of the Falklands as they waited for the arrival of the British troops. The Argentines also had the advantage of being the defending force. The Argentine troops were highly motivated and much better trained than you might believe. The Argentines were able to modify and launch Exocets from a ground based vehicle ? something which demanded a great deal of expertise. 4. The Argentine Navy was also a threat. They had the carrier 25 de mayo and its aircraft as well as the General Belgrano armed with 15 6 inch guns as well as numerous destroyers and frigates armed with the Exocet missiles. So although Argentina was not a particularly wealthy country it did possess the advantage in the Falklands campaign and had a pretty strong military for retain the Falklands. Also you talk about third world countries. Many would regard China as a Third world country given the poverty of the majority of its citizens and very low GDP per capita / head. However you continue to babble on about how strong the Chinese military are. This seems hypocritical. I would also like to add the UK managed to recapture the islands while STILL maintaining its contribution/ part to the NATO alliance. Also you talk about Chinese ability of power projection. As has been said before the only countries with real ability to project power are the USA, UK and France (to some extent but this will be greatly increased with new ships coming into service according to FS). China may be able to move thousands of troops across a border but would it be able to supply them with food and ammunition ? I doubt it as unlike the British they have no recent experience of supporting soldiers abroad unlike the UK which has done it in the Falklands, GW1, Afghanistan and Iraq. China cannot project power over a considerable distance. It cannot simply march troops through neutral countries to the other side of the world as you seem to think- it has to move them and protect them via sea. China cannot do this. You slag off the UK in the Falklands. But would China have been able (or to this day) to move troops and supply them and recapture islands 8,000 miles away against a well trained, highly motivated enemy with a numerical superiority. The answer is NO. Britain?s power projection ability is far in excess of that of Chinas. You also ask how many times Britain has attacked a country on its own. Well we did in the Falklands but in the last 20 years Chicom we may not have but how many countries have attacked a country on there own. The answer is hardly any and none o the developed countries. This is due to the fact when military action is taken it is usually in a situation where the reason for invasion violates UN law or resolutions so a number of countries all take action. How many times has China attacked and won a war on its own in last 20 years. The answer is zero. Your rant about the UK only tagging along behind Americans shows how stupid, arrogant and ignorant you really are. The UK supports it allies when the cause is just! How many allies does China have? None. Also if you knew anything about the recent Gulf Wars you would know the UK has been able to successfully support its thousands of troops in Iraq thousands of miles from home while winning significant victories. An example of the UK? ability to project power. The UK has also led the way in both Gulf Wars with UK leaders in charge of the armoured assaults and our allies the US even putting their faith in UK leaders to command US troops in the past. ?How many times did Israel do it? Three times. The Israeli army clearly isn't a defensive force. Their nation does not have the strategic depth for defense. They have had to attack and invade their enemies to end every war that they fought rather than defend their own territory. Though to be fair, Israel's enemies started most of these wars the end conclusion is invasion of those countries by Israel. Thus, the Israeli army is purely an offensive military force(ad's delusions aside)?. By denying the IDF are not a defensive force you really are showing your foolishness. The whole basis of the IDF is defence. Look how many air superiority fighters they have. Look how many anti-missile and air defence systems they have. Look at the design of the Merkava 4, a tank designed for a defensive urban battle. Yes they can repel invasions off their soil and advance outwards as even a defensive army has to have some offensive capability in order to defend. That however does not make the army a offensive one. But the Israelis cannot move soldiers thousands nor even hundreds of miles outside their borders as they simply do not have the logistical support necessary to do it and have no real amphibious capability to support troops thousands of miles away. This is simply because they do not need it. With regards to your number of nuclear weapons Ad has already dealt with that point and provided a link from a reliable website, not the mad ravings of a communist lunatic. As for the rest of the nonsense such as China having a greater ability to project power because it has a longer border (hahahahahahaha), I do not need to counter that as it so incredibly stupid. I will leave others to destroy the rest of your nonsense. In future please think before you post or simply do not post at all Nemesis

Quote Reply

chicom_guy RE:Chicom- LOL! 8/2/2004 1:28:05 AM

Check the FAS site again. I read it. They estimated the number of warheads at 2000

Quote Reply

chicom_guy Chinese Nuke aresnal 8/2/2004 1:41:45 AM

200 was the FAS estimate for the Brit arsenal. 200 is the number of nukes estimated for the brits. Now for the chinese arsenal it's estimated at 2000 warheads. We can turn your ENTIRE country into a glass crater and still have extra warheads to spare. link

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