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
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 Léon 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 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. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/nuke/index.html.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics