Country with best conventional armed forces (army, air force, navy)

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: Country with best conventional armed forces (army, air force, navy)
dba 11/3/2006 3:46:57 PM

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Nanheyangrouchuan 11/5/2006 6:10:29 PM

What about winning of a war of attrition?

A country has to be willing to lose a large amount of troops, if Myth is hinting at China, a large amount of PAP troops is expendible, but after investing large amounts of money and time in bringing the PLA up snuff technologically and making low ranking field officers and NCOs capable combat leaders, PLA generals might not be willing to just throw bodies at an adversary. Cannon fodder is easily replaced (a people's war) but professional soldiers and sailors are not, especially in a high-tech war.

What about winning a total war?
Define a total war? Trying to win strategic or political objectives or trying to completely destroy a nation/society? I think any country pushed to the brink of collapse may threaten to use widespread NBC warfare against the potential victor.

What about waging a national defensive war?
Thanks to widespread off the shelf technology and very porous borders, any country defending itself from land invasion has a potentially lethal civilian army. Iraq proves that to a T and every other professional army in the world needs to consider the potential of such a population. Defending against air and sea blockade or supression is much more difficult.

Quote Reply

french stratege 11/5/2006 6:34:08 PM

Which country would be ranked #1 in an all-out conventional war involvng all armed forces like WW2? Obviously I would exclude US & Russia in this ranking. And no nukes. And I would say size matters also. So even if UK army was really good its small size would make it inferior to say China.
Obvioulsy it is USA for the first position by far.
Then we can suppose such a war is between majors powers i.e France, UK, Germany, Russia, China, India , Japan then Italy which are the only powers with ability to field large army with indigenous equipement.All of these powers are separated by sea or several countries except Germany vs France,France vs Italy (LOL), Germany vs Russia (via Baltic or Poland), Russia vs China, India vs China.
All these powers can build by their own almost full conventional equipement except carrier and air complement and SSN (only France, UK and Russia can).
On pure conventional equipement, industrial might speaks and rank of industrial defense base power is clear:
Japan first, then Germany, then France and Russia, then UK, then China/Italy, then India on air land battle capacity.
However China and India are low tech and they need several time more equipement to equal other armies or navy on battlefield.So they would be out quickly.
France, Russia then UK have a more comprehensive set of existing weapon design to mass produce so they would compensate for a part with Japan or Germany industrial might.
On sea, France, Russia, and then UK (by warship manufacturing capacities) dominates by their ability to make silent SSN and carriers to fight very long range then Japan and germany then Italy for SSK in a more regional war.
Italy is the weakest power as they are not more numerous than France or UK with a weaker military technology and aerospace base and no SSN capacities.

In real life nuclear weapons matters.

I would note that industrial defense base is make of manufacturing capacities in industry relevant for weapons: materials and quality materials (aluminium, steel, titanium, carbon fiber, superalloys, chemistry..), electronic (semiconductor manufacturing, passive components, PCB integration, optics..), automotive base, aerospace base, naval construction, heavy machinery construction, oil industries, machine tooling, and existing defense industry capacities.Biotech, food transformation or computer software services , retail or banking services (a part from holdings and assets), or luxury product do not matter.

Quote Reply

stbretnco 11/5/2006 7:23:48 PM

FS,

I will disagree with you on one issue in your post.

Software development capabilities in a modern industrial base are hugely important, as software controls almost every weapon currently on the battlefield. If a country is relying on another to write the software for their weapons they are at a major disadvantage.

Quote Reply

french stratege 11/5/2006 8:14:09 PM

Of course weapon software industry is important to make weapons but the main bulk of software industry is for consumer or corporate needs and this kind of industry do not make any contribution for war potential while it contribute a lot to GDP in peacetime.You don't make weapons with an internet or SAP programmer.Moreover most software industry programers/"engineers" are unaware of real time system used in weapons and can not even program for weapon design.

To establish war potential you have to agregate % of PPP GDP of selected industry and software industry (apart the small part involved in real time system) if of no use for weapon mass production potential.

Quote Reply

french stratege 11/5/2006 8:16:27 PM

sorry read:

To establish war industrial potential you have to agregate % of PPP GDP of selected industries and software industry (apart the small part involved in real time system) is no use for weapon mass production potential.

You can not rely only on GDP even in PPP to establish war potential.

Quote Reply

mithradates 11/5/2006 8:54:06 PM

sorry read:

You can not rely only on GDP even in PPP to establish war potential.

What about software pertaining to systems integration or supply tracking/inventory software. These would certainly be async non-realtime systems, but certainly very useful for almost every industry(military ones included).

Quote Reply

mithradates 11/5/2006 8:55:41 PM

sorry read:

You can not rely only on GDP even in PPP to establish war potential.

Quote Reply

Herald1234 FS, the data is against you. 11/5/2006 9:35:03 PM

France claims it, though I suspect their power projection capability is much like Iran's-mythical.

I did not know that Itan has any projection forces! LOL

BTW for your information, see what think the BRITISH governement:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo031027/debtext/31027-21.htm

" href_cetemp=">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo031027/debtext/31027-21.htm

">link

Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) was slightly critical of the role of France. I refer him to the interview given in Newsweek by General Jones, the US four-star general who is currently Supreme Allied Commander Europe. He went out of his way to praise the quality of the French army, describing it as probably the finest expeditionary force in Europe

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmdfence/93/93ap06.htm " href_cetemp=">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmdfence/93/93ap06.htm ">link

Memorandum submitted by Professor Malcolm Chalmers (October 2002)

Playing to the UK's strengths
The proposals in the New Chapter are designed to play to the UK's strengths, focusing military energies in areas where it has capabilities which few others possess. The UK is one of only three powers (along with the US and France) with a capability for rapidly projecting military power over long distances

House of Commons - Defence - Minutes of Evidence - 27 November 2002
"

They are not very large elements.

(Mr Hoon) I disagree with you. I think if you check the numbers you will find that they have significant professional forces as well. France has only recently abandoned conscription and no one suggests that France does not have a highly professional and some very sharp-end forces that would readily satisfy the terms of the NATO response force."

You want more evidence?

-Bases around the world including asia with full readiness,

-30 ground elint station in the world,

-35 000 troops abroad on 5 continents

- ability to project 60 000 men of ground army and up to 120 000 in a national commitment including navy and air force

-permanent training in deserts, moutain and jungle warfare for all projection force

-a surface task force which is able to crush any other surface force in the world (except USA of course) thank to a nuclear carrier with Rafales, air buddy refueling and up to 3E2C on board and ability to strike with antiship missile 800 miles away

-a 6 well trained and silent SSN force supplemented by a well trained modern ASW forces (frigates and 35 ASW planes)

-only army with USA to have digital brigades (UK not yet ready on this side)

-an air force similar to israeli air force with 100 transport/airrefueling aircraft and 7 E3F/E2C awacs....

-600 cruise missiles available

................

For sure I want much more but it is not a mythical force except for its proficiency and romantism of fighting in remote deserts or jungles..

............

French air forces; army navy and air; Trooplift is how shall I describe it? PATHETIC..

Quote Reply

mithradates 11/5/2006 9:44:22 PM

Can Britain pull off the Falklands campaign today? The answer is no.

Quote Reply

Yimmy 11/5/2006 10:23:08 PM

Can Britain pull off the Falklands campaign today? The answer is no.

I would argue that.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT