Worlds most powerful militaries

[Jambo_100]

i was hoping that someone would make a thread like this, i was going to make one but someone got there first! ok then this is my top ten.

1-USA (obviously)

2-CHINA (an army of 2million and on the verge of becoming a superpower)

3-UK (2nd most powerful navy in the NATO and a power projection 2nd only to the USA, argued to have the best trained forces in the world {just look at the falklands war})

4-RUSSIA (still a fairly powerful county)

5-FRANCE (a modern military power, compairable to the UK but they dont have the training to defeat any of the nations mentioned above, {just my opinion})

6-ISRAEL (lots of technology, a fairly large army, also very good training)

7-GERMANY (a modern europian power, but dont have the firepower to be compaired with the likes of the UK, USA {once again just my opinion})

8-SAUDI ARABIA (a fairly large airforce with europian aircraft)

9-AUSTRALIA (very good training again, military not that big but still a regional power)

10-SWEDEN (a fairly powerful nation capable of making its own ships and aircraft, other countries that could be in the 9th or 10th place include spain, italy, canada?)

countries such as india, pakistan could be in the top ten, they have large militarys and nuclear weapons but im not sure if they have the power projection. i think its a very close call with all of these countries. for example, the UK wouldnt be able to invade india because india has an army of around 1million. but then india wouldnt be able to invade the UK because they dont have the power projection

 

[Rich]

an imperial standing and pride on a par with other european powers (when russian diplomats were taken hostage in lebanon, Alpha special forces killed relatives of the hostage takers , obtained the liberation of the diplomats and no other russian diplomat has been taken hostage in the middle east since the 1980)

The reason they dont take Russians is because the Russians will murder them and their families, and wont care if the BBC is filming. There are other reasons but the fact remains there is really no payoff for taking Russians and military prowess has nothing to do with it.

I do however agree that Russia is 2'nd only to America in reach as far as Europe or Asia goes. However there is a glaring weakness in Russia's capability beyond that, insofar as she has no carriers and a very small amphib capability. Simply put the Russian military is a continental force.

Yes Russia has a nice air mobile and parachute force, but again these troops are limited to OPs where a supply tether can be maintained over land. So its hard to imagine the Russians maintaining a force projection scenario on the order of the Falklands.

They have some nice bomber/submarine/cruise missile assets that have some global reach, but again, not many. And while they might be able to pull off a successful blockade by sea they probably wouldn't be able to sustain it.

However I see Russia's armed forces making some nice gains in the next 20 years. We will see how serious they are about global relevance when we start seeing, or not seeing, fleet aircraft carriers coming off their quays.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Before anyone else posts - a clear pointer to remember.

We don't have top 10 lists as they are absolutely meaningless when trying to encourage useful debate.

try and debate issues on real capability, training, logistics, development and technology issues.

Its also why we lock up "x" vs "y" type posts - they just collapse under the weight of whatever nationality has the majority input at the time,

 

[XEROX]

I notice many people have forgotton Japan, they have a strong navy, air force and bag loads of money. i would put them in the top 10.

 

[ren0312]

I notice many people have forgotton Japan, they have a strong navy, air force and bag loads of money. i would put them in the top 10.

Well maybe that is bacause Japan has near zero capability to project its power beyond its shores.

 

[hovercraft]

USA
UK
Russia
France
Israel
Japan
Germany
China
India
Italy
Australia
Saudi Arabia
South Korea

Israel is on 4rth? Even he is beaten by a small party Hezbollah and their generals and even prime minister too accept their defeat on media. And they did not have enough air force and navy even military too. And they are not enough high tech.

And china is on No. 8. It means your knowledge about Chinese military weaponry is very low. I think by facts top ten world’s most strong forces are,

1- USA (Best air force, navy, army)
2- Russia (Due to huge nuclear and missile arsenal, fighters and bombers)
3- China (china is grows too much faster and have high tech tanks, fighters, spy planes, missiles, ships, etc.)
4- UK good (air force, navy, average army)
5- France (Good air force, navy, army)
6- India (Due to nuclear and missile arsenal)
7- Pakistan (Due to nuclear and missile arsenal)
8- Germany (good army, air force)
9- Australia (average army, air force, navy)
10- Sweden (good air force, average army, navy)

But actually by reality world most strong armed forces are,


1- Al-Qaida
2- Hezbollah
3- Taliban
4- Mehdi militia (Iraqi)
5- Tamil tigers (Sri Lankan)
Because other world’s most strong armed forces are failed against them.nfloorl:

 

[webmaster]

Before anyone else posts - a clear pointer to remember.

We don't have top 10 lists as they are absolutely meaningless when trying to encourage useful debate.

try and debate issues on real capability, training, logistics, development and technology issues.

Its also why we lock up "x" vs "y" type posts - they just collapse under the weight of whatever nationality has the majority input at the time,

Thanks Gary.

Hovercraft and others, please try to understand the above and stick to the meat and potatoes of the subject rather than childish top 10 lists.

 

[Jambo_100]

webmaster i need your help, how do a make a signature appear after each message? i cant contact you because it wont let me, it says i have to have over 50 posts for you contact information and i have 52 posts! its really bugging me.

 

[bymmer328]

I think any country that has nuclear weapons is a regional or global power.

 

[bymmer328]

Israel is on 4rth? Even he is beaten by a small party Hezbollah and their generals and even prime minister too accept their defeat on media. And they did not have enough air force and navy even military too. And they are not enough high tech.

And china is on No. 8. It means your knowledge about Chinese military weaponry is very low. I think by facts top ten world’s most strong forces are,

1- USA (Best air force, navy, army)
2- Russia (Due to huge nuclear and missile arsenal, fighters and bombers)
3- China (china is grows too much faster and have high tech tanks, fighters, spy planes, missiles, ships, etc.)
4- UK good (air force, navy, average army)
5- France (Good air force, navy, army)
6- India (Due to nuclear and missile arsenal)
7- Pakistan (Due to nuclear and missile arsenal)
8- Germany (good army, air force)
9- Australia (average army, air force, navy)
10- Sweden (good air force, average army, navy)

But actually by reality world most strong armed forces are,


1- Al-Qaida
2- Hezbollah
3- Taliban
4- Mehdi militia (Iraqi)
5- Tamil tigers (Sri Lankan)
Because other world’s most strong armed forces are failed against them.nfloorl:

Howercraft, this is you opinion of course right? Well i respect that, but I think that Israel lost because Hezbollah is not a real enemy, because they are always hitting and running, so you can't really "win" against a enemy like that. Just like US can't beat al-Quieda, and Russia cant beat the Chechen terrorists compleatly. Even tough both US and Russia do lot's of damage, they can never(at least for now) defeat them 100%

 

[regstrup]

Sweden, why Sweden ???

Sweden have a military of 34.000 men of which 15.000 is conscripts doing 7-15 months of service.

They have a navy of 4 stealt-corvettes and 4 large missile boats and 8 small missile boats plus 7 active submarines.

They have a very modern fighterforce of 156 Gripen fighters, but only 8 Hercules transportairplanes.

Why I dont think, that Sweden belongs among the topteen militaries:

1. Army of mostly conscipts trained for homedefence
2. Small navy with mostly coastal capabillities and with no bluwater transportcapability
3. Fighterforce af Gripen with limited range developed for defence of Sweden and very limited transportcapability

Even the swedish soldiers joke about, that the best defence of Sweden is a strong finnish defence

What about countries like Turkey, Spain and Italy ?

 

[Rich]

It would be sad if this thread degenerated into a "win/lose/better/worse" tangent. Every military power has its limitations and each is usually modeled after national security interests and geographical limitations.

Even a superbly constructed military like America's runs into problems when drawn into asymmetrical, low tech, guerrilla type warfare. We could learn from others who have more experience fighting such battles but sadly much of our limitations are due to unrealistic rules of warfare partially controlled by the court of public opinion which is easily manipulated by the International media collective. For instance, to even think that we have laws against assassination is lunacy. Do you think Putin, and whatever he's calling their KGB, have such laws? Or the Israelis?

To beat America an enemy has to draw us into a fight on their terms. Nobody is going to beat us in conventional warfare.

I admire many Euro-machines. The French, Brits, Italians, and Spain has done some good things. Whats sets them apart is they have constructed forces that are mobile and capable of projecting force a long ways off in support of their national interests. That's why I think its so important for the Aussies to base F-35b's off their new LHDs. Unless you can bring along your own air power to support amphib OPs then your reach is awfully short.

These are serious limitations even for large and capable militaries like India, Russia, China...ect To their credit all 3 know it and have plans to change it. The Israelis have geographical limitations, which limits their basing, their navy is small, and they don't have much reach past regional. And even that is limited to missiles and limited air strikes.

Quality-wise, and that term is both loose and all encompassing, I would rate NATO standard highest. On that same level I would include the Pac-Rim countries of Australia, Japan, South Korea, and even Singapore. Israel would probably rate next to South Korea. Right under them would be India, China, Russia...ect

I certainly wouldn't say one would beat the other, or we would beat anyone. Each nation has both strengths and weaknesses and each, including us, could get drawn into the wrong kind of battle and lose.

Overall I'd say the key to seeing who is "good" or not is to not only look at systems but also how those systems are used in the particular security needs of the particular nation. For instance when I look at the big picture of the Australian military machine I see a wise use of $$ for the defense needs of the Australian nation. They have the right systems used in the right way, at the right time, for the maximum benefit.

Singapore too. The Singaporeans are at both a geographical disadvantage and a numbers one. They have made up for it with both highly tech'ed and maneuverable forces as well as taking the "best of the best" of other nations military complexes in systems, training, and doctrine. Turning the entire shebang into their own lethal hybrid.

So, if there is a criteria for calling a military "superior" or not that criteria should be how the machine is constructed and how well it performs in the envelope of the particular nations own defense needs.