Top Ten Armies of The World -
|November 30th, 2005||#1|
Top Ten Armies of The World info
Judgement should be based on a Combination of:
1.Manpower (number of active troops , not the number of people living in the country, which is listed in the CIA numbers.)
4.Equipment :quality and quantity
9.Nuclear Potential (Current or Likely)
10.Logistics (being able to move troops, and their supplies, long distances and in a timely manner)
11. Maintenance (keeping things in repair and running under all conditions.)
12.Intangibles: such as like leadership
13. Military Tradition.
Which means top ten armies in terms of "Combat Power".
Exclude patriotism , and be objective.
You must name a specific country.
List should be ranked from the weakest army to the strongest , as in 10th place is the weakest and the 1st place is the strongest army in the world.
And as mentioned already , the complete list is listing the strongest armies in the world - TODAY (of course).
Detail your choices as much as you possibly can and back yourselves with facts and sources ONLY, and not personal believes or opinions.
Please keep it as rational as you can , avoid basing your list on matters such as courage or national pride.
Be polite and don't flame , follow the strict rules of this forums.
Private messages to moderators will be sent in case of violation.
Thank you so much.
|November 30th, 2005||#2|
Well i doubt this thread will last long but oh well, im going assume you mean combined forces not just the army. So....
1. US of A - Light years ahead of anyone else in many areas, high population, good nuclear areasonal, dominant airforce, unchallenged navy. I think the number one slot is pretty well obvious. Still the only naiton to project power on a global scale in large numbers. Vast natural resources and a strong warrior history.
2. Tough but probally Russia. Huge nuke aresonal (effectiveness and readiness is arguable.) Still a huge fleet with many diffrent kinds of vesselts, however the tech is ageing and theres not enough funds for maintence. Still have powerful R&D firms without the money to produce what they desighn in significant numbers. Sizeable population, vast natural resources and huge poretial for growth make this my #2 choice.
3. China. one word numbers, huge amounts of antiquated equipment most of which doesnt work, and enough troops to bridge the pacfic by standing head to toe. (this is a fact) Starting to get some to date tech, decent nuclear aresonal. Growing economy and modernizing military and HUGE manpower mixed with nationalism make this a regional power.
4-9 EU Can be compared to well rounded pebel not excelling in any one particlar area but can do it all with some effectiveness. Decent amount of manpower, decent tech but wihout the funds to produce high tech weapons in substtional numbers. Liberal culture is rather anti-military and donesnt support military operations very often. Ablity to project power on a smaller scale than the USA, but still has a sizeable nuclear aresnal.
10. India, basically same as china but on a smaller scale.
|November 30th, 2005||#3|
Re: Top Ten Armies of The World info
2.) Technology: You could make a solid case for any NATO/NATO affiliated country for Technicological superiority and fight it out based on opinions. USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Israel, Japan, S Korea all have good tech. USA, UK, France and Israel are strong in tech across the board. The USA obviously has the numbers to go along with the technology, so for that reason, you'd have to give it to the USA in that category.
3.) Firepower: Depends on what you're measuring. Total destructive power? Does precision matter? Versatility?
4.) Quality+Quantity of Gear: USA obviously.
5.) Training: Israel with the United States as the most likely second place.
6.) Resources: For abundance of all types of resources, the USA has everybody beat. For Iron+Oil+Manpower combination, that would be Russia. For pure manpower, China and India have the greatest resources.
7.) Experience: Israel w/ the USA coming in as a close second.
8.) Available Reserves: Nobody can touch China's numbers on this one. India could come close but hasn't got it organized quite as well as China.
9.) Leadership: Only the USA has had very recent chances to prove itself, but the UK and Israel are exceptions to that. Very difficult to determine because you never know where and when the next military genius will show up from.
For shear military might, USA and China are almost tied, but the USA likely has a slight edge.
"It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it."
- General Robert E. Lee
Warning, critical pebkac error in the iD10t!! pebkac\wtflolurpwnzd\snafuroflmao.exe called iD10t, iD10t failed to respond!! System in danger!!
"It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I am NOT a big man." -Chevy Chase
|December 1st, 2005||#6|
BTW, I did forget to answer one: Nuclear Potential/Power. That would be the USA by sheer numbers w/ Russia as a close second and the rest of the world being WAY bellow the big 2. All that courtesy of the Cold War. China is the only other nation worth seriously considering outside of the USA and Russia in terms of numbers.
|December 1st, 2005||#7|
North Korea has more man power than USA and they have a one milion men armed services which is like China.
man power is not a major factor in the modern warfare, for instance 3000-4000 British troops defeated 12000 Argentinians in Falkland (malvinas) Island conflict in early 80s.
Or Israelis defeated a united arab army (Syrians, Iraqis, Egyptians, Jordanian.... etc) in less than a week.
I doubt Russia can be any where near the top 5. The discipline of the red era is gone. Bribery is playing a major role in their armed forces and they dont have money to maintain their equipments.
but my personal ranking is:
|December 1st, 2005||#8|
Numbers mean nothing.
To this day China closely guards the real number of casualties it suffered in the Korean Pennisula. I've got some insight into this but can't broach it.
In 1979 China sent over 400,000 troops over the border into Vietnam and could not make good on a bid to punish Hanoi. I have met and dined with a high level former PLA officer who told me the only thing he remembers from that conflict is the numbers of bodies stacked roadside as he rode to the front.
I would say that as long as you have a disciplined well trained unit with reliable weapons, high rates of fire and plenty of ammo the numbers of opposing forces means jack .
"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental." - John Steinbeck
|December 1st, 2005||#9|
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.
One category that could be added is influence and that for simple reasons: China, for example, has not engendered sufficient international trust and cooperation to deploy wherever and whenever. Neither has the USA or UK or anyone else, but there are degrees of trust and power of influence that make a tremendous inpact upon how powerful your military is capable of being. Diplomacy still rates.
|December 1st, 2005||#10|
Wait, if I were to google that, what should I put in ?
I had a history teacher (social studies) that brought a document showing the top armies.. they were bassed on many stuff but thats what I can remember.
i dont remember the last ones...
~when a man does his best, what else is there? Gen.George S.Patton