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

TOXICITEE RE:Top Ten Armies of the World 3/13/2004 9:29:25 AM

spain is likely to slow its growth now that there was a terror attack...

Quote Reply

TOXICITEE RE:Top Ten Armies of the World 3/13/2004 2:01:44 PM

Spain's economy is growing, not as fast as Britain's. The EU is not growing and is likley goining into recetion, If you take out France and Germany (I think also Italy) the EU would be growing as fast as the U.S, if not faster. Here is somthing I dug up on spains economy, they are growing but still a poorer nation in the EU. link

Quote Reply

Owen The Brit RE:Top Ten Armies of the World 3/13/2004 2:49:42 PM

u can judge the armys by size but the best trained armys are 1.U.K 2.U.S.A 2.Russia 3.France 4.Germany 5.Canada

Quote Reply

mike_golf Training - Owen the Brit 3/13/2004 2:56:05 PM

Ummmmm, are you judging that "best trained" list by individual soldier training, small unit training, the military as a whole, what? Depending on what your criteria is, that list doesn't work. For example, if you are going by individual soldier training, then I probably agree with number 1 and 2, but certainly not Russia for number 3. I would put ROK or Japan at number 3. Also, this certainly shows a bias towards N. American and European militaries. Where is Australia, ROK and Japan on that list of best trained? On an individual soldier level or small unit level all three rank ahead of Russia. For overall military level of training I think you have to put the US ahead of the UK. The US has a training level for operation at the operational level, brigade and higher, that even the UK can't touch. We are the only country that has conducted wartime operations at higher than division level in the past 20 years. Depending on the sort of war you are fighting, this is a huge thing.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Mike_Golf 3/13/2004 3:22:49 PM

?The US has a training level for operation at the operational level, brigade and higher, that even the UK can't touch. We are the only country that has conducted wartime operations at higher than division level in the past 20 years.? May I ask, what would be the point in Britain training for anything over the size of six Brigades? The US may be better organised at operating a corps level, but simply because Britain?s army isn?t as big and is structured in Rapid Reaction role. Therefore the British army can deploy quicker than any other armed force, in the world because of the three echelon set up. So your point is a correct, in that, yes the US can operate corps and in some circumstances armies. However, when we don?t operate them, its should be better! The US is restructuring to fit the British model of flexible brigades which can be deployed quickly to hot-spots. The fact that the 1st Armoured Division remains, means that we can operate in larger conflicts where the 1st and 3rd divisions can be deployed, however most circumstances don?t have the need for two divisions and as such the 6th or 7th armoured can be deployed with the 16th AA in a week, with full Naval, Air, logistical and special forces support. Something that the 7th Corps for instance couldn?t do. To summarise, the US is the best trained for operating in large ?conventional? units, containing multiple divisions. On the other hand I would suggest that the British Army is the most highly trained force at operating on a small scale, as I said before, possibly one division, with two or three supporting Mechanized and Light Brigades. Something the British army pioneered in the second world war to combat the Japanese, the Chindits brigades were much better suited to perform rapid deployment and rapid attacks. Operation downtown in Burma being a clear example. I would also have to speak out that a British squadie probably does revive the best training in the world. You may disagree with this point, as it mainly comes down to personal patriotic bias, yet were all entitled to an opinion. Up the Para?s

Quote Reply

fall out Spain eco v UK eco 3/13/2004 8:06:55 PM

to answer this question if it hasnt already as i cannot be bothered reading all the other posts, spain's economy will NOT surpass the UK's economy. around the year 2050, UK's economy will be the largest one in Europe and the 7th largest one in the world, behind, in order, China, the US, India, Japan, Brazil, Russia (russia is both european and asian so i didnt include it when stating the UK will be te biggest in europe). France is predicted to have an economy (in US$GDP), of $3.148T, Italy, $2.061T, Germany, $3.603 and the UK, $3.782. wondering where im getting these figures from, go2: link as you can see, the report is done by Goldman Sach's, a very respected economic/financial firm. if you manage to read the report in detail, it outlines not just the figures it has predicted, but the reasons for and the exact method they are using. they predicted back in the 1960s that a number of developing economies at that time would come around and have GDP and GDP per capita levels of western nations, some of these were Japan, and the Tigers. As you can see, Spain doesnt even get a mention, im not sure exactly what Spain's economy is predicted to do, but obviously it isn't going to surpass the UK's economy at all. im sure if you wanted to find a source, it wouldnt be very hard. Regards, Fall Out

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:Mike_Golf 3/13/2004 9:03:08 PM

Ad, did you read the part where I said if Owen is talking about individual soldier and small unit training I would agree with his number 1 and 2 choices (i.e. UK #1 and USA #2) but that I didn't agree with his choice of Russia for #3 and felt that should be ROK or Japan? Of course Britain doesn't really operate units above the brigade level or generally need to. However, there are plenty of armies in the world, including the US, Russia, China, Germany, DPRK, and ROK that do. We need to be comparing apples to apples. By the way, I happen to think that the UK really stands out at the small unit level. I also happen to think that the US really stands out at the brigade level and above. It's a difference in focus. In no way, shape or form was it meant to say either the UK should focus on division and corps operations or that it was some sort of failing. I believe the British military has focused on appropriate levels of training.

Quote Reply

civvystreet Its a ratings game gentlemen 3/14/2004 7:44:18 AM

There is apparently another "Top Ten armies" discussion board going- which is confusing- here is a previous post of my mine . Arbitrarily listing armies is pointless unless we have some evaluatory criteria. So, say we define "top ten" as the most powerful, CONVENTIONAL (nukes would be a equalising factor) COMBINED ARMED Forces (not just army) based upon factors such as:- 1. Numerical superiority & general mass mobilisation capability, including time required to mobilise 2. Quality of military hardware and weaponry in terms of operational effectiveness & reliability (general technological level: fire control systems, avionics etc. and service record in harsh conditions) 3. Level of "MECHANIZATION" of divisions (including use of force mutipliers such as gunships/helicopters) and specific mobility (i.e rapid deployment capability in-country and to overseas theatres) 4. Logistical/supply capability (Is the logistics efficient or cumbersome?/ does it hold up during intense conflict situations in adverse climatic conditions?) 5. Communications and electronic warfare capability (Does if provide adequate command and control during the "fog of war"?, early warning systems) Maybe ratings in each area are more appropriate and "arguable" rather than blind rankings. Ofcourse we don't necessarily have to get so structured- but lets just give some reasons rather than coming up with personal 5 top ten lists or whatever. Furthermore, I think GDP size will already be reflected in the above criteria to some extent- unless we are discussing future possibilities such as Germany, which constitutionally has restricted the role of the armed forces. Purchasing Price Parity (PPP) however is not as misleading as suggested because alot of forces, like China/ India, can maintain larger standing armies within a given budget. Furthermore, the input costs for manufacturing a tank, for example, would be lower due to cheaper labour etc. So PPP is relevant if discussing GDP. Moreover training standards, though critical would be really hard to assess objectively, so I omitted them.

Quote Reply

Rule Britannia RE:Spain eco v UK eco 3/15/2004 5:28:11 AM

"China, the US, India, Japan, Brazil, Russia (russia is both european and asian so i didnt include it when stating the UK will be te biggest in europe). France is predicted to have an economy (in US$GDP), of $3.148T, Italy, $2.061T, Germany, $3.603 and the UK, $3.782." -I would agree with your findings but the only reason that the illusion of the BRIC economies surpassing those of today in GDP terms is because as the west (US&UK) further base their economies on Tertiary and Quaternary Industries like Bio-Technology and Finance, the basis of Primary and Secondary Industries will continue to dwindle, leaving the Developind BRIC economies with this market that GDP is based on calculating only, making it look like the Chinese economy has surpased the US when in fact only the economic base has shifted to more evolved sectors which only the likes of GNI(P) has incorporated.

Quote Reply

fullamongo Heres my go at a top ten 3/26/2004 7:17:49 AM

This list is not definitive. I'm not entirely happy with it myself. 1 USA 2 Russia 3 China (Dubious) 4 Republic of Korea 5 India 6 Germany 7 UK 8 France 9 Israel 10 Sweden Special mention goes to vietnam who've beaten France, USA and China in the past 50 years.

Quote Reply

RM-Nod RE:Heres my go at a top ten 3/26/2004 9:52:05 AM

Mind telling us why you've put them in that order? it makes it a bit more interesting than just the usual list. cheers.

Quote Reply

Arditi RE:Heres my go at a top ten 3/26/2004 8:16:53 PM

Sweden? You jest............... Russia? Currently a Thirld World Country with the Conventional Force Punch of a Portugal. Israel? They have never really faced a Modern Army.

Quote Reply

Arditi RE:Heres my go at a top ten 3/26/2004 8:30:23 PM

Vietnam???????????????????????????????????????? Were you there????????????????????????????????? I know - the only war lost by the US or so I've read!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote Reply

fullamongo RE:Heres my go at a top ten 3/27/2004 5:29:50 AM

I can only go on what i hear but last i heard, public opinion in US shifted against war in vietnam due to casualty rate etc. so US withdrew. i'd say that was a victory for the little guy. 15 years ago russia had the worlds biggest army. the situation hasn't deteriorated as much over as people think. eg. russian air force last year increased their availability rate from very low (60% i think to 80%). I also took into account countries military industrial complexes and assumed that countries would have a year to gear up for war. Russia would beat China cos China imports their arms from russia. su 27 isn't much good if you can't get spare parts for it. more later.

Quote Reply

sooner RE:Top Ten Armies of the World-to Ad 3/27/2004 7:36:24 AM

Wonderful point. I strongly agree with the statement and the sarcasm.

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