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
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. Thanks.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT
Herald1234    A Few Conjectures and a Few Facts   11/10/2006 12:40:52 AM

Chinese army? ROTFLMAO.

Japanese navy? A good defendable choice, but Royal Navy is probably better man for man.



French Air Force? Please. The RAF is better.(And don't argue
the bean counter's argument. RAF pilots simply outclass their French
counterparts, as do RAF ground crew, as does RAF doctrine and
battledrill.)




I didn't exactly answer the question I was more making the point
I would take the combination of those 4 outside the US if I was bent on
world domination.



Since the question is who is best, my opinion is:



The JMSDF is well ahead of the Royal Navy today. The Royal Navy is in
that gap period where they have retired quite a few old ships and
haven't brought online their new ones.



The Royal Marines everytime.



The RAF is best with its overall capability and balance between strike
and logistics, but if it is world domination I'll take the extra
logistics the French air force has, after all, I'd need it to support
my army.



I hate to bust your bubble with reality, but the Chinese would
overwhelm the British Army on the battlefield. The Chinese Army has 7
million people, the British army is fewer than 200,000. I'm not saying
the Chinese Army is the best, but head to head, numbers matter.


1. I didn't write anything about the Royal Army, but they have more power projection capability and  a superior  logistics  tail to the PLA. Plus they simply are a much better outfit. The PLA forces that can meet them in the field is actually a lot smaller than you think;. maybe about eight division equivalents trained up and equipped for true mechanized warfare. Plus the PLA isn't that good. Numbers don't count for much if you can't get there. The RA can get there.

In any event let's see what the Russians can do with their professionalization program and their new oil revenues? The Red Army has always gotten a bum rap. Knock them around a little and they do alright.

2. The French air force is a good air force. But as for power projection again? RAF. They have the experience, the logistics tail and the structure for expeditionary warfare, The French air force does not. The French air force is what I call a metropolitan air force, designed like the French navy as a national defense force. Overseas they need allied  logistic support. Britain has the aviation troops to operate independent of allied support, if she has too.

3. JMSDF is as I wrote a defensible choice. It has good modern frigates, a formidable diesel submarine force, that all important naval trains(logistics)n and a fighting tradition that is second to none. I still know that her out of area operations capability is a little suspect. That cannot be said of the RN which continues to be the most formidable man for man and ship for ship force afloat-especially their submarine service. This is me, an American who writes this. I'm fiercely proud of our own USN which has a fighting tradition and technology second to none and takes a back seat to no one. But facts are facts. The British get a hell of a lot out of their clunky ships and it is Jack Tar who is the reason why.     .

4. Most nations have special operations troops who aren't as good as the Royal Marines. Tough hombres.

Herald.




 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       11/10/2006 5:18:10 AM
It's not the Royal Army.... why does everyone think its called the Royal Army?
 
Some regiments within the Army are Royal, but not all.
 
As a side note, my current unit, TA D&D's is attached to the Rifle Volunteers, while there is a seperate regiment called the Royal Rifle Volunteers... I don't suppose anyone knows the history to this?
 
 
Quote    Reply

FAMAS    Herald, thread   11/10/2006 5:42:47 AM
What is your point exactly, except bashing the french in each thread you write in?
 
French military is a reasonably potent military, as the UK has. These two are the two better armies in quality after the US, may you like it or not.
 
Back to the question: the competitors are these: UK, France, ROK, India, China.
 
I don't know well Japanese forces, thay could be first if they go beyond their post1945 selfdefensive doctrine.
France and UK are both professional armies recognized as being top quality and decent projection power. Both have good navies and airforces, both have nukes and specops that are regarded as the best in world. If US  stay totally neutral in the hypothetical crisis, then France rank before UK.
ROK has a good military, numerous and srongly dedicated, with tough discipline and good tech. Plus they're constantly in alert since 50 years.
India and China have the quantity for them. Their technological level rises slowly but surely.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Jawan    Yea RIGHT!!!   11/10/2006 6:38:41 AM

What is your point exactly, except bashing the french in each thread you write in?

 

French military is a reasonably potent military, as the UK has. These two are the two better armies in quality after the US, may you like it or not.

 

Back to the question: the competitors are these: UK, France, ROK, India, China.

 

I don't know well Japanese forces, thay could be first if they go beyond their post1945 selfdefensive doctrine.

France and UK are both professional armies recognized as being top quality and decent projection power. Both have good navies and airforces, both have nukes and specops that are regarded as the best in world. If US  stay totally neutral in the hypothetical crisis, then France rank before UK.

ROK has a good military, numerous and srongly dedicated, with tough discipline and good tech. Plus they're constantly in alert since 50 years.

India and China have the quantity for them. Their technological level rises slowly but surely.

 

 

""French military is a reasonably potent military, as the UK has. These two are the two better armies in quality after the US, may you like it or not. ""

LOL, yea right. Only here I guess. Reality might be wee bit different from ur "better armies in quality" comment. There are lot more militaries around the world which will kick UK and French butt together or combined if it comes to head. India, China, ROK, JSDF come to mind.

Why you fellows talk about India and China in the same breath, same line, and if I may say so in the same "patronizing" attitude. UK, France, and other so called "EUROPEAN POWERS" will be mince meat facing either the Indian Military or the Chinese Military.

WHich planet u live in, man? UK cannot control BASRA effectively with all its so called "best in everything" TROOPS

Guess you fellows never heard of Indian Special Forces, did ya. Better, Ever heard of GURKHAS, SIKHS, JATS, RAJPUTS!!!!

UK AND FRANCE are nowhere after US.

My list:
1.   USA
2.  Russia (yea still).
3.   JSDF
4.   China
5.   India.
6.  South Korea.
7.  UK
8.   France.
9.   Germany
10. Canada
 
Quote    Reply

Padfoot       11/10/2006 7:07:55 AM

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

No? Hmmm. I would say Britain is more capable in 2006 than it was in1982. The reasons are obvious to anyone who knows anything about anything.

 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Be more attentive.   11/10/2006 10:46:11 AM

What is your point exactly, except bashing the french in each thread you write in?

 

French military is a reasonably potent military, as the UK has. These two are the two better armies in quality after the US, may you like it or not.

 

Back to the question: the competitors are these: UK, France, ROK, India, China.

 

I don't know well Japanese forces, thay could be first if they go beyond their post1945 selfdefensive doctrine.

France and UK are both professional armies recognized as being top quality and decent projection power. Both have good navies and airforces, both have nukes and specops that are regarded as the best in world. If US  stay totally neutral in the hypothetical crisis, then France rank before UK.

ROK has a good military, numerous and srongly dedicated, with tough discipline and good tech. Plus they're constantly in alert since 50 years.

India and China have the quantity for them. Their technological level rises slowly but surely.

 

 

 
 
[quoting]
 
Herald1234    FS, Congratulations.   11/10/2006 1:23:27 AM
Few people realize how hard it is to bring a new submarine launched rocket into service. France is to be congratulated.
 
Herald
 
 
Don't be so defensive.
 
The French Army is no match man for man for the US Army or the British Army, an army which is better man for man than the US Army.
 
The French navy is a coast defense navy.
 
The French air force is a metropolitan air force.
 
France has no independent logistics sustainment ability, outside her colonial infrastructure, that is greater than Italy's
 
FACTS are facts.
 
Nationalism has nothing to do with it.

 
Herald

 
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    Yimmy   11/10/2006 12:23:40 PM

It's not the Royal Army.... why does everyone think its called the Royal Army?

 

Some regiments within the Army are Royal, but not all.

 

As a side note, my current unit, TA D&D's is attached to the Rifle Volunteers, while there is a seperate regiment called the Royal Rifle Volunteers... I don't suppose anyone knows the history to this?

 

Wiki has all the answers:

The Rifle Volunteers were formed in 1999 by the amalgamation of the 6th Battalion, The Light Infantry, 4th (V) Battalion, The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment (The 1st Rifle Volunteers) and elements of the 2nd (V) Battalion, The Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment in consequence of the reforms implemented due to the Strategic Defence Review. The HQ is based at Exeter and the Regiment is comprised of 4 fighting companies and a headquarter company.

 

 

 

The Royal Rifle Volunteers t was formed in 1999 by the amalgamation of elements of the 6th/7th (Volunteer) Battalion, The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, 2nd (Volunteer) Battalion, The Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment and the 5th (Volunteer) Battalion, The Royal Green Jackets due to the reforms of the Territorial Army implemented due to the Strategic Defence Review. It is the infantry component of 145 (Home Counties) Brigade. Its HQ is based at Reading, Berkshire and comprises 3 companies

 

On 24th November 2005, the MOD announced that the Royal Rifle Volunteers (minus the Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment company) will be amalgamated along with other regiments into a new large regiment to be called The Rifles by 2007 where it will become the 7th Battalion, The Rifles. This will reunite the regiment with the Royal Green Jackets and the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment.



 
Quote    Reply

mithradates    Herald's ignorance or lies   11/11/2006 2:03:12 AM
"1. I didn't write anything about the Royal Army, but they have more power projection capability and  a superior  logistics  tail to the PLA. Plus they simply are a much better outfit. The PLA forces that can meet them in the field is actually a lot smaller than you think;. maybe about eight division equivalents trained up and equipped for true mechanized warfare. Plus the PLA isn't that good. Numbers don't count for much if you can't get there. The RA can get there."
 
When a poster such as Herald lies so clumsily, it must be pointed out for all to see.
 
The Royal Army(not the marines) has the following in terms of mechanized forces:
 
Modern MBTs (3rd gen and up): 386
Modern IFVs : 667
 
Total Strength(2001):  => 5 Divisions with independent brigades, logistics/support troops ( 4 of which are mechanized )
 
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/9059/BritArmy.html
 
 
It is the OFFICIAL policy of the MOD that the Royal Navy maintains logistical responsibilities for deployed Marines. In the previous 2 Gulf Wars, over 85% of British Army troops were transported to Iraq via international CIVILIAN assets and/or US MILITARY transport assets.  Thus realistically, the Royal Navy does not have the logistical capabilities of even moving 20% of the Royal army along with her Marines, which technically is INFERIOR to the power projection capabilities of France.
 
 
So let's assume that the RN can deploy 20% of the british army into theather where ever they may be.  That's at most a SINGLE mechanized division.
 
Now granted there are places in Western Eurasia and Africa were this division can be deployed successfully and where the PLA cannot be.  But I can effectively say, that whereever the PLA can be deployed in Eurasia, the Royal army will lose and lose very badly.  And the scope of theaters are where the PLA has the logistical assets to rapidly deploy to are:
 
Anywhere in mainland China
The Korean Peninsula
Indo-China
Burma/Continental Malaysia
Pakistan/Iran Border
Sino-Indian Border in Kashmir
Most of Mongolia/Central Asia
 
Unlike the Royal army's logistics limit, any of these areas are quickly accessible by all Rapid Reaction units of the PLA via China's vast rail/highway transport networks that spans not only Mainland China, but also many of our client states/allies.  The ENTIRE purpose of the RRF is to act as the highly mobile spearhead of less mechanized forces that's deployed statically around China.  The rapid reaction force itself contains the following modern mechanized elements:
 
Modern MBTs (3rd gen and up): 2,200
Modern IFVs :  5,700
 
Total Strength(2004):  => 4 Mechanized group armies => 12 Mechanized Divisions with support/logistics personnell
 
 
So in any of the aformentioned theaters, the fundementaly logistical capabilities of both nations will mean that the Royal Army would be OUTNUMBERED 12 to 1 by an adversary with NEAR-EQUIVALENT technology. 
 
Now based on specific battle field tallies between PLA and British Royal Army troops in the Korean War, where British Troops had the advantages of 10X the individual firepower (semi-auto rifles versus bolt-action rifles), heavy artillery, and close air support.  The PLA to RA KIA ratio was 5.5 to 1 in the Chosin Resevoir campaign(PLA offensive), and 3.5 to 1 in Operation Commando (RA offensive).
 
 
Thus, from historical data, and current logistical capabilities of both nations.  If the Royal army was to try to fight the PLA in any region within Eurasia that is accessible by the PLA RRF, the Royal Army would quickly and EASILY be turned into a brown stain on the earth.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

mithradates    Herald's ignorance or lies   11/11/2006 2:04:00 AM
"1. I didn't write anything about the Royal Army, but they have more power projection capability and  a superior  logistics  tail to the PLA. Plus they simply are a much better outfit. The PLA forces that can meet them in the field is actually a lot smaller than you think;. maybe about eight division equivalents trained up and equipped for true mechanized warfare. Plus the PLA isn't that good. Numbers don't count for much if you can't get there. The RA can get there."
 
When a poster such as Herald lies so clumsily, it must be pointed out for all to see.
 
The Royal Army(not the marines) has the following in terms of mechanized forces:
 
Modern MBTs (3rd gen and up): 386
Modern IFVs : 667
 
Total Strength(2001):  => 5 Divisions with independent brigades, logistics/support troops ( 4 of which are mechanized )
 
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/9059/BritArmy.html
 
 
It is the OFFICIAL policy of the MOD that the Royal Navy maintains logistical responsibilities for deployed Marines. In the previous 2 Gulf Wars, over 85% of British Army troops were transported to Iraq via international CIVILIAN assets and/or US MILITARY transport assets.  Thus realistically, the Royal Navy does not have the logistical capabilities of even moving 20% of the Royal army along with her Marines, which technically is INFERIOR to the power projection capabilities of France.
 
 
So let's assume that the RN can deploy 20% of the british army into theather where ever they may be.  That's at most a SINGLE mechanized division.
 
Now granted there are places in Western Eurasia and Africa were this division can be deployed successfully and where the PLA cannot be.  But I can effectively say, that whereever the PLA can be deployed in Eurasia, the Royal army will lose and lose very badly.  And the scope of theaters are where the PLA has the logistical assets to rapidly deploy to are:
 
Anywhere in mainland China
The Korean Peninsula
Indo-China
Burma/Continental Malaysia
Pakistan/Iran Border
Sino-Indian Border in Kashmir
Most of Mongolia/Central Asia
 
Unlike the Royal army's logistics limit, any of these areas are quickly accessible by all Rapid Reaction units of the PLA via China's vast rail/highway transport networks that spans not only Mainland China, but also many of our client states/allies.  The ENTIRE purpose of the RRF is to act as the highly mobile spearhead of less mechanized forces that's deployed statically around China.  The rapid reaction force itself contains the following modern mechanized elements:
 
Modern MBTs (3rd gen and up): 2,200
Modern IFVs :  5,700
 
Total Strength(2004):  => 4 Mechanized group armies => 12 Mechanized Divisions with support/logistics personnell
 
 
So in any of the aformentioned theaters, the fundementaly logistical capabilities of both nations will mean that the Royal Army would be OUTNUMBERED 12 to 1 by an adversary with NEAR-EQUIVALENT technology. 
 
Now based on specific battle field tallies between PLA and British Royal Army troops in the Korean War, where British Troops had the advantages of 10X the individual firepower (semi-auto rifles versus bolt-action rifles), heavy artillery, and close air support.  The PLA to RA KIA ratio was 5.5 to 1 in the Chosin Resevoir campaign(PLA offensive), and 3.5 to 1 in Operation Commando (RA offensive).
 
 
Thus, from historical data, and current logistical capabilities of both nations.  If the Royal army was to try to fight the PLA in any region within Eurasia that is accessible by the PLA RRF, the Royal Army would quickly and EASILY be turned into a brown stain on the earth.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Beancounting, a little comment.   11/11/2006 11:54:38 AM
One of the valid arguments that French Strategy oftenn raises is that you cannot just look at a nation's rated military lift.

You have to look at the total package of the nation's assets as in ability to use civilian to military conversion of lift.

When you do you notice some things.

The ability to hire lift is dependent on how well you can organize contracts, supply war insurance, know what is available to you, and conviince commercial carriers to move equipment under your protection to forward staging areas from when you can forward your assembled foreces into a forcible entry operation.

Some nations can do this.

United States.

United Kingdom.

France.

Japan  

and their allies for which they actually make the commercial lift arrangements and underwrite the insurance.

Depending on the time and the size of the operation, the United States can move corps level forces anywhere by sea and air. That though takes commercial lift. If you think it doesn't, and you write that it does, then you are just flatout  lying.

Britain can move corps level organizations the same way. Smaller country, more proportionally expensive, but she has the shipping, airline, and insurance connections that if she felt a pressing need to move a force of up to six brigades anywhere she could commercially secure the lift. She also has the logistics knowhow and the insurance. She is connected economically. Legacy of empire and all that.

France, for her part, can move, if she had the time, a proportionally equal force. There might be problems with sustainment, but that could be overcome with a modicum of allied support. What France would have trouble accomplishing is guaranteeing the ALOC/SLOC with her own organic forces. She has a good in Europe combat movement capability and a fair West Africa capability. Outside those regions she runs into severe logistical trouble.

To take a favorite example, China?

Presence is not power projection.

Numbers  in China  is no good if the oil tap is cut off at Hormuz.

Numbers in China is no good when the oil in Central Asia is headed for Europe, and you know that France  can rail east  and sustain an Army in the field in the "stans" and China cannot.

Numbers in China is no good when a power like Australia can cut SLOCs and put an end to the Chinese "economic miracle" with a few strokes of the pen and an MEZ. 

Numbers in China is no good when you know her infantry army withn her paltry tanks is no match for her  bordering neighbors much less French or British Armies, not to say the RUSSIAN army, which as I've written always seems to get an undeserved reputation for ineffectuality.

Besides there is that question about power projection. Even within China, she would be hard pressed to sustain an army offensively, for you see she has no sustainable logistics base for modern mechanized warfare. No native base to produce high tech spare parts without importation. She cannot even manufacture good quality steel without the importation BY SEA of needed minerals and metals that she lacks.

And she has no navy that can defend her commerce to assure her access to such resources.

Beancounters rarely check out things like actual rail/roadnets, measure distances, compute fuel  costs, determine morale factors, look at training levels, logistics sustainability as a function range of distance, availability of trained competent replacements, human and machine, battledrill, synergy of systems when used as a whole set, actual national goals, national strengths and vulnerabilities, or check access to markets and strategic resources(oil for example) in wartime.

How can you even project power within your own country when you cannot move due to lack of such a simple commodity as oil? Oh you can haul those tanks using steam locomotives? Should have thought of that before you invested in all those diesel electrics?

How's that synthetic fuel program going, China?

Don't have one? Can they build one? Coal to kerosene shouldn't be that difficult. After all France can do it easy.

Just from a little mapwork, resource research, and a few other paltry bits and pieces, for example, if I was Chinese, as Chinese, I would keep my big fat mouth shut, engage in peaceful trade and engage in a longterm strategy of peaceful assimilation of a wayward province, and not tick off the circle of extremely po
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics