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
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 m
 
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

chicom_guy    Argentine Military   8/2/2004 1:54:12 AM
Argentina was and still is third world. Their military at the time was far inferior technologically to the British Military. The argentine navy was of WWII vintage. After the brits sunk just one ship, the entire argentine navy wisely withdrew from the theater Their best attack jets were a generation behind in technology to the British, and they only had 27 exocets in their entire military. Additionally their country was in political turmoil with rioting in every city. There was no naval threat whatsoever from the argentines. Now even the brits would be able to "project" their navy 8000 miles when no other ships are shooting at them. Add to all that, the fact that argentine marines on the islands couldn't resupply due to the lack of naval support. The fact that Britain had such trouble subduing such an incredibly weak nation that had to deal with a rioting population shows the "power projection" capabilities of your pathetically impotent military. link My sources about the war is backed by references. Where are your references?
 
Quote    Reply

Nemesis1    RE:Chicom   8/2/2004 2:50:56 AM
?Argentina was and still is third world. Their military at the time was far inferior technologically to the British Military. The argentine navy was of WWII vintage. After the brits sunk just one ship, the entire argentine navy wisely withdrew from the theater Their best attack jets were a generation behind in technology to the British, and they only had 27 exocets in their entire military. Additionally their country was in political turmoil with rioting in every city. There was no naval threat whatsoever from the argentines?. Argentina may be a poorer country but it did have some good military equipment. As I have said before countries such as China and North Korea are classed as third world by many so does that mean they necessarily have very weak military forces. There was a naval threat from the Argentines. There Navy wasn?t the best but it did possess a carrier, a heavy cruiser as well as a number if destroyers and frigates armed with exocet as well as 3 submarines. Argentina could have chose to attack with its fleet but it was unprepared because of the strength of the British fleet. So the Brits were responsible for the Argentine Navy staying in port. ?Now even the brits would be able to "project" their navy 8000 miles when no other ships are shooting at them. Add to all that, the fact that argentine marines on the islands couldn't resupply due to the lack of naval support?. Yes they did project their power successfully and landed on the islands. No ships shot at them due to the fact UK SSN?s were in the area and acted as a deterrent not because the Argentine Navy was useless. Once again you show your lack of knowledge when you talk about the Argentine Marines not being supported. The Argentines had 7 C-130 Hercules transports which continually re-supllied the Argentines. 61 resupply sorties were flown by these aircraft to Stanley with the last arriving one day before the Argentine surrender. ?The fact that Britain had such trouble subduing such an incredibly weak nation that had to deal with a rioting population shows the "power projection" capabilities of your pathetically impotent military? As I have said before you slag off Britain but China would have being unable to take the Falklands or any other islands 8,000 miles away from China THEN or NOW. ?My sources about the war is backed by references. Where are your references? My information comes from my own head (as the Falklands is the part of military history I know best) and from a number of books. I?ll give you the name of one though I doubt you?ve heard of it which is a useful outline to the campaign which is the Falklands military machine by Derek Oakley as well as numerous other books. Once again you have posted a load of nonsense and i have had to waste my time responding to it. Please think next time before you post rather than posting a lot of hate driven nonsense. Nemesis
 
Quote    Reply

chicom_guy    WWII Era Navy   8/2/2004 3:06:26 AM
Do I have to repeat myself? The Argentine warships didn't have missiles mounted to them, since all of those ships were from WWII. Can you fight an ironclad with a wooden canoe? You can't, and the argentine navy couldn't fight the british navy period. As for their soldiers, the argentines didn't have the logistics to supply heavy weapons of anykind, so "digging in" wasn't available available to the Argentine marines unless you mean something resembling the trenches and foxholes of WWI. So Britain in effect had complete naval and land dominance during the course of the war and at least air-superiority, and they just barely pulled it off after losing 7 ships. This is not a sign of power project, it's far more a sign of the lack of one.
 
Quote    Reply

PuckaMan    FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   8/2/2004 3:23:25 AM
This spat between chicom and everyone else is bloody hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!! My 2 cents - the UK has a credible and capable power projection capability, more per capita than the PRC, who, can't even take Taiwan - which is in Tube artillery range (US seventh fleet notwithstanding). The Falklands was a great feat by any stretch of military analysis. Technologically backwards - alright perhaps they were in some areas - still, a bolt action Enfield or Mauser still makes a hole in you, and you SLR in this case may be newer in design, but still has to be used properly. The UK Armed forces performed outstandingly well, and hindsight aside (evrything could have been done better in hindsight) - any aircraft that can fly low enough and lauch Exocets is a threat, even if they air 'old' - Skyhawks can still be a threat. Frankly, this anti UK thing Chicom's got going is either a joke, or he got dumped by a girl from the UK and is still sore...... Pucka
 
Quote    Reply

chicom_guy    RE:FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   8/2/2004 3:44:02 AM
Well, I was dumped by a british girl once, but that has nothing to do with it!!! :P .
 
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