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
   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

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Ad    RE:AD   4/1/2004 12:16:10 PM
“France and UK are I believe on par and have historically fought each other to a standstill” Care to make a historical reference? “All the allies helped each other- the U.S provided destroyers, supplies etc. before it even got into the war. So the fact that the Great Britain helped Russia does not diminish their pivotal contribution. Just as the US aid to the UK does not subtract from British and commonwealth heroism” It wasn’t me who questioned this in the first instance, it was Fabio, who claimed Britain were some how “saved” by Russia.
 
Quote    Reply

civvystreet    Historical reference   4/1/2004 12:59:06 PM
Well I think what Fabio was trying to say in his own way, was that Russia or rather the USSR, basically broke the back of the Wehrmacht in Continental Europe. It emerged consequently as the pre-eminent power along with the U.S. I think it is safe (though perhaps not entirely morally justified) to argue that the US and the USSR made the principal contributions during WW11. So they were poised to take on the mantle of superpowers.Both countries had mediocre armies at the start of the war. Both went on to tap their economic base to build war machines that eclipsed those of France and Great Britain. As far as France and GB go, I meant that both powers sort of historically contained each other on along term strategic level. Though in the later part of the 18th century, Great Britain did pull ahead of its contender. Plus yes it did have the industrial revolution first and yes tactically speaking I agree that the GB was superior- Agincourt, Crecy, Waterloo (that Napoleon was a tough nut to crack)... though wasn't 1066, the Norman conquest basically a French invasion? I think I've opened a pandoras box. However, as things stand today, I think one would have to place UK & France on par. Both also have virtually identical GDPs (I don't know the GNP figures).
 
Quote    Reply

Ad    RE:Historical reference   4/1/2004 1:09:30 PM
I wasn’t contending Russia’s contribution to the Second World War. “Agincourt, Crecy, Waterloo (that Napoleon was a tough nut to crack)... though wasn't 1066, the Norman conquest basically a French invasion? I think I've opened a pandoras box.” Don’t forget Blenhiem! The treaty of Utrecht which followed this was really the even which gave the rise of the British Empire (British following the Union with Scotland in 1707 of course). And don’t forget the Seven Years War! And no, it was a Norman invasion, if people in New York can claim that they are half Irish after over one hundred and fifty years of their family living inside America, then I can claim that the Normans were Norsemen, who had settled in Northern France and had been there one hundred and ninety years. Actually, the Norman culture was quite unique and differed greatly to that of the rest of France. It is clearly visible in the architecture of Norman buildings in Normandy and Southern Britain.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Historical reference - civvy - Russia rant   4/1/2004 1:41:43 PM
Russia in WW2 made a huge contribution and no one is denying that but what would have happened if Britain had not won the battle of britain (or the e-boat war or the battle for the atlantic for that matter)? The Luftwaffe would have went on to dominate the skys over Britain and eventualy the Germans would have invaded and conquered Britain. The knock on effect of this is total German dominance in the atlantic, the mediteranean (with the italians), Africa, the middle east (huge supplies at there disposal), this would have also meant German industry would not be hindered by bombing raids and that the German forces could concentrate fully on Russia. Because Britain has been conquered it would be logical to think Hitler would wait untill more forces could be pulled out of Britain to fight Russia so a short amount of time could have been enough to avoid the Russian winter and German forces would have had a much easier time in Russia. There would also be no supplies going to Russia either. So it could be argued that if it wasn't for Britian Russia would be speaking German. Ofcourse that is an insult to Russia because Russia did a hell of a lot in her defence but so did Britain and to say Russia or the US "saved" us is simplistic and insulting to say the least. Rant over
 
Quote    Reply

Ad    RE:Historical reference - civvy - Russia rant   4/1/2004 1:52:41 PM
Just to back up what RM-Nod said. It annoys when some Americans decide to ignore Britain’s role in the Second World War. France would still be German now had it not been for Britain winning the Battle of Britain, as Russia wouldn’t have been supplied with much needed war essentials, Germany wouldn’t of had to keep her forces split between North Africa and Northern France. Not to mention the fact that D-Day would not have occurred if Britain hadn’t of won in 1940. It stands a good chance that India would of fallen had it not been for Britain and the Commonwealth nations; Operation Downtown for instance, by the Chindits set up an excellent counter offensive inside Burma. The Italian front would of never opened up had it not been for the large British force in North Africa, which allowed the Allies to control the Med. Each power, Russia, Britain and the Commonwealth and the US added the essentials for the victory. Whether it was professionalism, sheer man power or industrial might, with out either of the “big” three, victory would not have been achieved.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:This place has gone a little nuts... - and to civvy   4/1/2004 2:29:23 PM
It may have gone a little nuts but since I have been here there have been something like 5 top ten threads and all have the same mistakes in, since the Iraq war they have all had some small minded person come on and talk about how the UK is Americas puppet or some other totally unsubstantiated remark. We've also had the same discussion about Russia a few times in only the past few weeks, so excuse us if a few of the older british members here seem like they're getting at you or someone else, we're just letting off steam. Anyway to get on with the discussion. Russia... Chechnya is a little different from NI yes but not massivley so. However Britain has faced many other apponants that have been more potent than what Russia faces there. Malaya for example, Oman Dhofar, Borneo, etc etc, I posted a list earlier on. "Russia could do a serious job of destroying the RN" How do you mean? If the RN was attacking Russia? Well yes it could but then the RN would destroy anything Russian that came at it if Russia was attacking the UK. You mention TU-160s carrying a combined 144 cruise missiles (I presume anti ship missiles). This sounds good but it doesn't really take into account all the facts. The Sea Harrier FA2 has a range of 185km from the carrier, and is equiped with AMRAAM that has a range of 80km, so the Harrier can intercept the TU-160s when they get withing 265km of the carriers which is before they are close enough to fire there missiles. If the TUs do release any missiles our ships are equiped with either SeaDart (80km range, 2 per ship) or SeaWolf (13km range, 32 vls per ship) missile systems*, added to this all are equiped with anti missile decoys and passive defences aswell as Goalkeeper and Phalanz CIWS. This does not take into account the Harriers. So the RN is very well defended against attack (it was designed specifically to fight the Soviet Union afterall) The Invincibles are equiped with Sea King AEW Helicopters. "Argentina did have submarines in the falklands and they caused the RN a lot of trouble." They had submarines but they caused no problem. One of there boats was hit by a British torpedo and was badly bamaged, it limped into it's home port and after the sinking of The Belgrano the Argentine navy was no problem (it wasn't while it was there anyway). About the losses. Britain was the first country to encounter sea skimming missiles and as a result no tactics or counter systems were in place. This was a serious problem when coming up against the Exocet. The UK also had no AEW aircraft (the carriers were designed for ASW warfare) which is why the RN had the losses it did. Added to these problems the Argentinians had two T42 destroyers which gave them a great insight into how to attack the RN. For the UK this was the opposite, the Argentinians were traditionaly allies and as a result the UK task force had practically no information on the composition of the Argentinian forces. However the UK now has AEW aircraft, the Sea Dart and Sea Wolf have been massivley upgraded since the war, CIWS has been incorporated into ship defences, tactics have now been developed to deal with sea skimming missiles and other air threats. There have also been countless other developments that have added to the effectivness of the RN. It is impossible to compare a force of today to what it was over 20 years ago. Civvy - I think anyone reading this must have a decent knowledge to understand most of what is being talked about. Since that is the case then saying Britain is the second most capable power projector should not seem like we're saying we're anywhere near the level of the US but if the readers here know anything about what they claim to then they should realise this themselves. Despite the large gap the UK and France are still the only other nations capable of serious power projection and so would come in as numbers 2 and 3 (or joint 2 to avoid war ;))
 
Quote    Reply

FABIO    Discussion   4/1/2004 3:04:57 PM
Friends. This is a discussion list , os something that would burn someone with fire? 1st - RMNOD - I like read you explanations - You do with a lot entusiasm and real facts. 2st - French Strategy : I agree with you in 95% of the cases (not considering Japan). 3rd - There are some people , who doesnt know anything about a good discussion. And just think with such nationalism that makes they blind. 4th - I live in America and I am pretty sure, that without US Help, UK would loose the 2nd war, maybe in 5 years, or ten. But would loose. Russia helped UK without the reason to help UK. as a conclusion , I have never written that Russia Saved UK. Russia just accomplished its job. I will show , why I think Russia is still the second. I dont think that USSR exists. OK IDIOT?? I will compare some sectors: NAVY UK/France: 7 Russia: 3 Air Force: UK/France: 6 Russia: 8 Strategical Nuclear forces Russia: 9 UK/ France:5 Army/tanks/artillery - SIZE UK/France: 6 Russia: 8 Army/tanks/artillery - trainament UK/France: 8 Russia: 6 Resources (gas, oil, ore, etc..) Russia: 8 UK/France: 6 Know how: Russia: 7 Uk/France: 8 Spy satellities/ strategical space tools Russia: 8 Uk/France: 6 Dependent of other countries/ Allies UK/France: 5 Russia: 8 Now You take the total, and see that Russia still the second. I am not the owner of the thruth, but is my poit of view. I put UK/France because I consider almost the same (just the royal navy is far superior) I meant: comparing Russia x UK - Russia still better ... Russia x France - Russia still better... Russia x UK and France change the side. The money , in a great war, is in a second level. Russia has Resources (people and material) to produce in large scale , if they really need. They didnt buy almost anything from other countries. I am considering that the grade 10 (the best -maximum)are from US.
 
Quote    Reply

Ad    RE:Discussion   4/1/2004 6:18:44 PM
“I live in America and I am pretty sure, that without US Help, UK would loose the 2nd war, maybe in 5 years, or ten. But would loose. Russia helped UK without the reason to help UK. as a conclusion , I have never written that Russia Saved UK. Russia just accomplished its job” This is somewhat ambiguous and therefore confusing. Are you saying Russia supplied aid to Britain? Which it didn’t, Britain supplied vast amounts of war materials and general aid to the U.S.S.R. Yes the lend-lease programme did help Britain. However it had already been proved that by the late Autumn of 1940, an invasion of Britain was impossible, as the RAF had won the battle of Britain. If for instance, Hitler had attempted to reattempt this massive undertaking in 1943, then he would of faced a much stronger Britain than before, while the Luftwaffe would have been considerably weaker. While at the same time the Royal Navy would have been even larger, because of the lend-lease programme. So Hitler would not have been able to “defeat” Britain. If Hitler had of got his way in 1936, Britain would have been allied with Germany instead of being at war with her 3 years later. This would of given the German armed forces the ideal situation with which to attack Russia, as 100% of the German war machine could have been concentrated on the East, instead of the 70% which was actually devoted. Would Germany have won? That’s questionable. No one has ever debated the Russian contribution to the Second World War. I like your argument style; “NAVY UK/France: 7 Russia: 3” Interesting rankings, which are followed up by; “I put UK/France because I consider almost the same (just the royal navy is far superior)” Its always nice to contradict ones self. I would suggest that you are right in your second point, the Royal Navy is far superior to the FN. How do you come up with your rankings? The fact that you have the Russian Navy at 3 means that the Ivan’s can’t possibly be the second strongest power, as you lack global projection. Its all very well having a large conscript army, yet you couldn’t move them anywhere to fight a war, which makes your Spy satellites irrelevant, as its all well and good having the intelligence, but if you can’t act on it, what’s the point? Size isn’t everything, this is a pissing contest. it’s the application of force at the right moment that counts. It also helps to have highly trained, which the average Ivan squadie isn’t and also to be highly motivated, which the average Ivan squadie isn’t. The Russian defence budget covers £22 billion. What do you think that Britain and France spend their cash on, to come out inferior to Russia?
 
Quote    Reply

Ad    RE:Price of War   4/1/2004 6:50:25 PM
Fabio. You also need to remember that wars like all things, cost money. Russian GDP lags well over $1.2 Trillion behind that of Britain, which approximately has a 2% growth rate. Although Russian growth is 5.5%, it still has some way to go; especially considering that Britain along with the other G7 nations are developing tertiary and Quaternary industries (See Rule Britannia 3/15/2004 5:28:11 AM) http://www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/GDP.pdf
 
Quote    Reply

civvystreet    A Russia-Uk comparison- RM-Nod, Ad, Fabio   4/1/2004 11:54:53 PM
RM-Nod & Ad- I agree. Without any of the "Great Powers": US,UK & Sov Union, the outcome of the war would be called into question. Particularly, given that the nazis were close to developing nukes. Part of the reason why Stalin pushed for Berlin was because the nazi atomic program was based in a suburb of berlin and the Sovs wanted to strip it of its equipment and uranium. So it is conceivable that any delay in the prosecution of the war may have resulted in nazi germany attaining atomic capability. However, I was merely alluding to the sheer scale of warfare on the Eastern Front and the horrendous casaulties (numbering around 15 million was it?) which I believe only the Soviet Union could have borne. They repulsed an attack of 3 million, comprising 3 german army groups during Barborossa. So yes, that made the Normandy landing possible. Anyway I quibble and digress. Fabio- You raise an interesting armchair debate- the UK vs. Russia today. A small, high-tech compact power "with tertiary and quaternary industries" vs. a re-emergent Russia complete with its massed rust buckets. I'll be willing to bet that they can re-forge their armies in short order (6-10yrs). Any timeframe less than that and the Russians will come up come up short. Plus their doctrine is untested today. Yes I know the arabs tried it in '73 but its not the same as if the erstwhile warsaw pact pushed towards the Fulda Gap. I think that would have given new meaning to the term "shock and awe". A perennial debate with wargamers.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics