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 top ten explained.   3/27/2004 4:35:18 PM
"russias standing armed forces havn't deteriarated as much as many claim" Or so you claim. The fact is that Russia cannot keep the military it has on budget it gives them. $50bn is not enough to keep there airforce at good enough standards never mind there entire armed forces and that is taking my number into mind if RB is right with the $22bn then that is even worse, that is economical fact. The condition of most of there equipment means it could not be brought up to standard quickly if total war broke out, if you think otherwise I would like to see something to back that up because everything that I have read says otherwise and almost everyone who I've talked to on the subject share similar or the same views as me on this. If Russia had to go into a full scale war there economy would collapse. "they have 1000 mig-23's in warehouses!!!" How many of them actually work? Like I've said before there budget cannot support that many aircraft even in storage. It's seems you've ranked these on the hypothetical basis of them going to war against the one below them on the list. You also seem to have based the list largley on numbers. Russia for example may have huge numbers but much of what they use is either obsolete, in poor condition, simple doesn't work. Similarly there training is very poor and morale is even worse. Conscripts have historically been proven to be of little use unless in the defencive role. Going deeper into military capability and power you must take into account logistics, without this an armed forces is useless except in a pre-prepared defencive fight. An armed forces is only a tool of the government and what use is a tool if you can't use it for gain. Russia, China, ROK, India, Germany, Israel, Sweden, all have no ability to project a sizeable force for anything other than minor operations. You also talk about the ability to wage a protracted war but most militaries these days are not geared for that, the reason is because technology today means a war of attrition is very unlikley. For example if the UK and Germany went to war the UK could begin attack immediatley and seriously disrupt German industry before the Germans can strike back, so what use is there industry now? The ability to get the first punch in is far more important in modern war than it is to out produce your enemy. "Stalins armies invaded Finland but stopped on the Swedish border! They could have taken sweden but they would have paid dearly. Sweden: Pop. 8,000,000, tax rate 70%, military: first class." They stopped because Sweden was a neutral countried that had been agreed by both the Germans and Russians, it had nothing to do with there capability to repulse an attack.
 
Quote    Reply

Rule Britannia    RE:My top ten explained.   3/27/2004 4:49:16 PM
-The $22bn figure was taken from the Ministry of Defence Website.
 
Quote    Reply

fullamongo    RE:My top ten explained.   3/27/2004 4:56:37 PM
"They stopped because Sweden was a neutral countried that had been agreed by both the Germans and Russians, it had nothing to do with there capability to repulse an attack" Really? i didn't know that. However, they also agreed to share poland. You're going to laugh at this. The russian budget for 2004 is 13.7 billian dollars (391 billion rubles). 60% of the budget will be spent on maintaining equipment the other 40% on everything else. i admit that i focused more on a country's ability to defent itself. " Russia, China, ROK, India, Germany, Israel, Sweden, all have no ability to project a sizeable force for anything other than minor operations." Fine but what nation not in my top ten can project power in force? Whats your top ten?
 
Quote    Reply

fullamongo    RE:My top ten explained.   3/27/2004 4:58:22 PM
check this page out for the budget. i converted the currency a few minutes ago. link
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:My top ten explained.   3/27/2004 5:51:09 PM
I don't really have a top ten because I think there are too many variables. However I do have my opinions on what makes a good military. Generally I think any military that matters to world affairs should be a world class military, they can't be world class militaries unless they can project significant power, so the only real militaries that matter are the US, UK and France. If I ever was to make a list these would be the top 3. If you make a list based on who can beat who then you have to take into account all the terms of the war and that can really only be done on a 1 vs 1 basis and takes a lot of time to make an educated guess (which is all it will ever be) and even then anything could change the whole situation.
 
Quote    Reply

fullamongo    RE:My top ten explained.   3/28/2004 8:07:08 AM
how much power could the uk and france project without outside help? whats their amphibious capabilities? (i don't have a clue but those 2 new carriers should greatly increase the uk's capabilities) i hope the uk has made improvements in this respect since the Falklands. i suppose a good barometer of projection of power would be how big a country could uk/france conquer on their own? any ideas?
 
Quote    Reply

Rule Britannia    RE:Top Ten Armies of the World   3/28/2004 11:59:01 AM
This website should provide all the information you could possibly want to know about the Royal Navy, including it's amphibious capabilities. link
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Top Ten Armies of the World   3/28/2004 1:45:42 PM
Projection power is a bit difficult to judge. However I'll try and give you an outline and some basics of it. There is no military on earth that would attempt an apposed large scale amphibious landing, not even if they had the landing craft to do it. Because of this only one country (the US) has got any sort of provision to do it and even then only if it needed to. The UK and to a lesser extent France are fully capable of put large amounts of troops into friendly territory, which is the usual thing to do. Britain's merchant fleet consists of around 3-400 ships plus 22 RFA ships and our RN logistics ships, so we have the ability to move. However to move forces anywhere near an enemy you must have escorts, in that respect the UK is also capable of moving huge amounts of troops and in theory could probably transport enough troops to do most sorts of operations including full scale wars. However currne UK commitments mean we would not do this unless 100% nessisary. RB how many transport ships do you think the RN could escort at once?
 
Quote    Reply

fullamongo    RE:Top Ten Armies of the World   3/28/2004 3:27:54 PM
depends on how many tyre 45's they decide to buy. they seem to be cutting that amount by the day. it would also depend on what they're up against. against a country like Iraq, re-supply ships would only need escorts for the last few hundred miles cos Iraq hadn't got a navy worth talking about
 
Quote    Reply

fullamongo    RE:Top Ten Armies of the World   3/28/2004 3:32:02 PM
I think you should judge an army by its ability to defend its country as thats any army's primary objective. my top ten doesn't really take into account power projection.
 
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