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
TDidier       11/14/2006 10:33:23 AM
just a reminder,

 Hi FS, but didn't you forgot the Bougainville LPD and the 4 Champlain class LST (formerly 5).

 
Quote    Reply

Galrahn       11/14/2006 11:02:50 AM
 
Herald,
 
It was not my intention to start a France vs UK pissing contest.
 
I'd simply take the French over the British because if I need to take a beach, the British Marines can do it, and the French air force could then move my chinese army to an airfield built for recieving.
 
Although I will admit, the delay of the Airbus A-380 hurts my case, but again, the British do not have the ability to build the Airbus A-380, and the French not only can build it, but they can take it from the private sector and utilize it for military purpose.
 
People who think Air Forces are all about fighters and bombers fail to see the big picture. The US is successful in power projection because of 3 platforms, the C-17, the KC-135, and the C-130.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Galrahn   11/14/2006 2:51:44 PM
I think I've been fair and equitable and factual in my discussions.
 
 
 
Where I am wrong I subtend and amend. As I wrote, I try to go where the facts lead.
 
I am no France basher, Sir!
 
Herald 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Galrahn   11/14/2006 2:51:49 PM
I think I've been fair and equitable and factual in my discussions.
 
 
 
Where I am wrong I subtend and amend. As I wrote, I try to go where the facts lead.
 
I am no France basher, Sir!
 
Herald 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Galrahn   11/14/2006 2:51:56 PM
I think I've been fair and equitable and factual in my discussions.
 
 
 
Where I am wrong I subtend and amend. As I wrote, I try to go where the facts lead.
 
I am no France basher, Sir!
 
Herald 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Triple posting again.   11/14/2006 2:54:31 PM
Apologies. Hit the submit HS too hard too often.
 
Herald 
 
Quote    Reply

tweetybird    About "Lists"-Herald   11/14/2006 7:29:51 PM


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.

Presence is not power projection.
 

 
Not much a fan of lists. However, if you must make one, then assuming strategic lift is the gut component of power projection, then you might mention Russia- remember Aeroflot- the largest dual use aviation outfit in the world during the heydey of the USSR.
 
And "prescence" is one up on power projection. If you can pre-position your expeditionary assets at ww logistics bases then you don't just have "reach"- you have a visible "footprint"-tends to scare the liliputians away.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Tweety   11/14/2006 7:50:12 PM
What good is presence without sustainment?

Russia has a good power projection presence on land.

To give you the Cold War reference, how long would Russian garrisons in Cuba survive? Better yet how long would Russian overseas client states survive?

Not long.

Seapower.

As opposed to landpower.

One thing overlooked in most power equations like this one is who has access to what. Infrastructure accounts for a lot of military potential and capability.

Trucks as opposed to ships as opposed to aircraft?

Ships have only one land competitor for sustainment and cargo movement on a cost basis in a logistic sense. That is trains.

How is Russia's railroad network?

Suggested reading;

"http://www.austhink.org/monk/CHINA.doc "

Russia should be very worried.

Much of what China lacks, she can find in Siberia.

Herald




 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       11/14/2006 7:56:43 PM

What good is presence without sustainment?

Russia has a good power projection presence on land.

To give you the Cold War reference, how long would Russian garrisons in Cuba survive? Better yet how long would Russian overseas client states survive?

Not long.

Seapower.

As opposed to landpower.

One thing overlooked in most power equations like this one is who has access to what. Infrastructure accounts for a lot of military potential and capability.

Trucks as opposed to ships as opposed to aircraft?

Ships have only one land competitor for sustainment and cargo movement on a cost basis in a logistic sense. That is trains.

How is Russia's railroad network?

Suggested reading;

"http://www.austhink.org/monk/CHINA.doc
"

Russia should be very worried.

Much of what China lacks, she can find in Siberia.

Herald





I'm not so sure if the Russians would have starved on Cuba. Remember that the Seige of Leningrad went on for years.... and the food supply ran out after only 6 months....! I think the Russians would be fine in Cuba.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Cuban missile crisis ring a bell?   11/14/2006 8:04:21 PM
That is if we allowed them to be there, Galrahn.

Remember American history.

We don't just let threats wither on the vine that close to us when we are at war. We eliminate them throughn dieect action.

Panama, Grenada, being the most recent examples.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics