How does one compare one Army to another

S

SNowblind

Active member
It seems that one of the most vague comparisms one can make in general history is judging how capable one army is compared to another. My opinion is that casualty-casualty ratios are the way to go, but what are the opinions of you people.
 
I think before Modern time it was The one that had most Soldiers that would win, Now I Think it is the one with the Best Teknology.
So i would say Look at the one with the most and best Teknology, But of course i don't mean Countrys (Exept Israel) with just a few Millions Against Some one like Iran Or SomeThing. or something.
 
By creating a topic that doesn't have the word "best" in it. :D

Casualty ratio don't really tell the story, though. Vietnam is a prime example of that.
 
The "best" way to compare the "best" army is by comparing "fighting power".
It is balance between moral authority, knowledge base, and physical power.
They need to be balanced and strong, one cannot work without the others. Have a look at many "great" armies of today, and you'll see some massive shortfalls.
 
There are many facets to what makes a good fighting force and as a result there is not one single factor by which one can get an accurate comparison in my limited opinion. Training, equipment, doctrine, experience, will etc all of these are equally important and none is exclusive of the others.
 
If you think about it, there are so many factors to any military, that it's almost impossible to compare them...There are always wild card factors, advantage of terrain, maybe a few spies..I dont think it can be done with even 90% accuracy.
 
The "fighting power" method is the accepted realistic method used by ABCA Corps to rate a units effectivness.


Note: ABCA is Australia, Britain, Canada, The United States and New Zealand.
 
Hmm off the top of my head, I'd say militaries are ranked according to their manpower, technologies, intelligence, morale, global influence, mobility, training, and conscription methods to name a few.
 
Hmm off the top of my head, I'd say militaries are ranked according to their manpower, technologies, intelligence, morale, global influence, mobility, training, and conscription methods to name a few.
Click to expand...

Manpower doesn't mean squat. Big doesn't equal better.
 
AussieNick said:
Manpower doesn't mean squat. Big doesn't equal better.
Click to expand...
Then who will man the artillery? Who will pilot the jet fighters? Who will hold the territories? Machines? Ok then, who will control, pilot, and repair those machines? I agree that having millions of soldiers will not win a war straight up, but having a reasonable force with backup is very necessary.
 
ASTRALdragon said:
Hmm off the top of my head, I'd say militaries are ranked according to their manpower, technologies, intelligence, morale, global influence, mobility, training, and conscription methods to name a few.
Click to expand...

I'd rank technology first. It only takes two keys to unlock an ICBM silo after the President gives the code.
 
The best way to judge is by the wars they have won, nothing else really matters. If lose then you and every one else in country can be deep in the brown stuff, and it ain't chocolate.
 
How do you take into account civil wars or revolutions, where doctrine can change drastically from the old regime to the new one? Take China for example, and their Great Leap Forward, or the Russian Bolsheviks. If the Tsar had prevailed, what would the militaries of today be like without the Cold War?

edit: I agree, history is a significant factor as well; not just wars won, but interactions with other nations, lessons learned, experience, etc.
 
Missileer said:
I'd rank technology first. It only takes two keys to unlock an ICBM silo after the President gives the code.
Click to expand...

What about MAD? I think the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan somewhat proves that advanced technology doesn't necessarily mean problems solved. Even the Israelis high military command recently (like yesterday) admitted that even with their missile strikes from the air and sea might not be enough to stop/destroy Hizbollah, and they be considering a ground invasion. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for technology too (I like toys....), but I think intelligence would be ranked first in my book.
 
Some one mentioned casualty rates as an indicator, well what would China make of this. In Korea they just poured people into the fray many troops ran out bullets but still they came and just swamped the defenders
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top