I can agree that numbers are not everything, but I think its not a valid statement to say that they mean absolutely nothing. One platoon of soldiers with the very best possible equipment cannot beat an entire army, and I'm sure most of us realize it.

No, but a company can defeat a regiment.
The battle of Long Tan for example, Viet Cong 275 Regiment (strength 2,500) in battle against D Coy, 6 Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (strength 120).

245 VC dead - 18 Australian dead, 24 wounded.

Just goes to show that overwhelming numbers doesn't mean anything.



Also take an example of military expenditure compared to numbers in the armed forces.

(All in US Dollars)
Spending in Australia - $11,390,000,000.00
Military Personnel in Australia - 51,000

Spending in India - $11,520,000,000.00
Military Personnel in India - 1,303,000*

So you see, you can have many people, but if you don't train, pay or equip them well, it doesn't mean much.

what are we talking bout...?? yer confusin me..

hmmmm wait..

India) -spending= 14.7 billion dollars
-personnel= 1,263,000 active plus 535,000 reserves

Australia) -spending= 7.1 billion dollars
personnel= 50,700 active plus 21, 340 reserves..

I saw north korea and china.. over 3 million active members plus the reserves..

China radically changed their philosophy of military strength after they proved the "number ain't everything" concept to be 100% true. Korea was the first bit of proof, but the PLA seems to have a massive denial issues about that encounter AND number did work for them somewhat. Vietnam in 1980-ish was the clincher and started a greater push in China for Quality instead of Quantity. China has been fortunate in a way. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR made huge stores of premade, relatively high quality equipemnt available for bargain prices.

I'm not sure there is a way to really list a 'Top 10' of Armies in the world and for it to make any real sense. Oh, I think we can safely stick the USA at the top of the pile in military power but that doesn't automatically mean to say it has the best trained troops or the best equipment, although we know it has amongst the best in the world in just about every area. And the USA is still the only country that can truly project its military power globally.

But outside of the USA what do such lists mean if you can't project the power you have? Take China for example. I've read a few people stating the manpower advantage China has. And yes it's true. In wartime, China can call up territorial reserves of 115 million men, a staggering amount. But the thing is, aside from the obvious question of how well trained or equipped these reservists would be, is how do you get them to where they're needed? Chiina has no means to really get them anywhere other than to a country it shares a land border with.

Israel is another popular choice, and yes, for desert and urban warfare the Israelis have great practical experience. But no large scale operational experience for some years, not since 1982 in fact. And although they have a strong arms industry and have well-equipped and well-trained armed forces, they are behind the tech tree of the USA and EU Armies. But certainly a top 10 military power nevertheless.

Anyway if I had to rank a top 10 it would be like this:

1 USA
2 China
3 Russia
4 France
5 UK
6 India
7 Israel
8 Germany
9 Japan
10 North Korea

I'm really not too sure about the order of some of these - quite frankly I don't have anything like the knowledge required. Also the order of this list would change dramatically if nuclear capability were taken out. In this age of terrorism one has to remember that armies need to be more flexible and be able to respond far quicker than before. If I were to remove nuclear capability and make training, equipment and the ability to project power and respond rapidly as paramount then my list would be:

1. USA
2. Germany*
3. France
4. UK
5. Japan

* Only if Germany increases its GDP military budget spend to match that of UK/France. If not, it drops to 4.

Here is my ranking
1. UK, they have the best tactics in the world, and everything is powerful and strong enough in every angle.
2. Ofcourse USA in everything but except their army ****s although they have a good pay and very high technology combat equipments there army can't fight well in foreign land, and also have to send their troops to diff countries for training like India.
3. Russia, they are still capable of fighting US and kick their ass, just that they are running out of money but still they have started developing stealth bombers in much cheaper price than the one US has.
4. China, their forces are getting better each and everyday, and their nuclear arsenal is powerful too, the only thing is that there technology for Airforce, Navy and Army is kinda dull.
5. Israel, have the best army and they are experts, they have good technology.
6. India, they are ordering new aircrafts and ships. Army is very well trained and able to fight at different kinda of territories,and whoever is saying that if army is not well payed than they ****, is totally wrong, because the amount is converted in dollars thats it looks like its less, otherwise the pay is good enough to live a happy life in India, they have special forces monitoring Borders, their air personnels so highly trained, that they have showed it in India=Pak wars.

I dont think the uk would be num one..

maybe 4 or after usa china france . I read somewhere that France is second..

Yes I think the UK would be no.1.

A short msg, maybe the yanks can back me up on experiance. The Irish troops are one of the best trainned in the world and have been recommend.

Me myself am a private, ive been in 8months and still trainning. 4months recruit trainning, 3months frist class trainning,3months support weapons trainning, 2 months overseas trainning and then 6months over seas, thats my plans for next few months, no choice thats trainning everyone does it starting 2years ago. The aim of this to makee our troops more advanced than US and british troops, I dont think it can be beatn.

Well i don't think that France is even in top 5, maybe after India, all European Countries are not that powerful.

The whole European countries can't even compete with the US military might.

Yep, European Countries, except UK, if they are taken in bases of their own potential (alone), they are way behind than asian countries like china India, Russia.