NationStates Jolt Archive

i ask you now who do you think the 10 best militaries in the world today, and which 10 militaries are the largest?

Both questions are separate from each other.

i shall place what i think when i have more time

nothing against you personally, but what is with all this listing 10 things, anyway, to humor you I will come up with a list tomorrow

USA
China
Britian
Australia
Israel
Germany
Russia
Canada
Poland (Yep, Poland, GROM anyone?)
Japan


Based on my prior experience that would be my list of the BEST militaries out there.

I only put China at 2nd because they have a very very very large army.

Best Militaries

1. African Zulu Nations
2. France
3. United Arab Emirates
4. Taliban
5. Mexico
6. Canada
7. Sri Lanka
8. Poland
9. Italy
10. Iraq!

I'm too lazy to list 10. Had you asked me for the top 5, I might have given you 3. But 10 is just out of the realm or reality.

I only put China at 2nd because they have a very very very large army.

Quantity has a quality all its own.

I'm waaaay too lazy to list ten, but I'll do three:

Best: (in terms of efficiency)
Israel
United States
Britain

Most Powerful:
China
United States
Britain

(I give Britain a place because of all the alliances that they have formed over the centuries, with dozens of former colonies supporting her and her armies.)

I only put China at 2nd because they have a very very very large army.

China is also developing a smaller force of better equipped and better trained troops. Also, China is watching how we are handling Iraq and Afghanistan and taking notes.

China may not be able to project their power, but within their ability to project, they can do quite a bit.

As to what I "think" the top 10 largest militaries are, it's right here on the Wiki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces)

And I'd be inclined to say that the top 10 militaries by capability would roughly follow this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures).

Most powerful are, Russian, Chinese, US, and if the EU got together. and mongolia! bitch.

The best would be, Isreal, Britain, parts of US military, and the Russian Spetznatz.

I do not think that China belongs above the USA in terms of Power. They may have mroe troops, but we have much more sophisticated equipment.
Plus, China does not have the Logistical Capability to sustain a long war. There Navy is somewhat outdated, same with their AF.

However, their power is growing, and an alliance between USA and China would be the most powerful ever.



The countries with the best Special Operations units are as follows.

1.USA- Special Forces (AKA Green Berets) SEALs, PJs
2.Britain- RMC, SAS, SBS
3.Australia- SASR
4.Poland- GROM
5.Canada- JTF2

Nowbody else compares to them in terms of SOF.

However, I do think people underestimate China totally, They are updating thier military to the extreme. Not only with new technology, but better training, and better strategy. The extreme numbers do help though if things backfire.

And, I beleive everyone is putting technology a little to far. Technology can only go so far, but it can fail, and it can malfunction, and it does. Can your soldiers operate with out it? and just because you have better technology, doesnt mean you automaticly win as some nerds think. The US had 100x the technology of the Vietnamese and were bloodgened real good in vietnam, same story in Iraq wether US wins or not, the insurgents still made us bleed with bieng the underdog in technology.

I do not think that China belongs above the USA in terms of Power. They may have mroe troops, but we have much more sophisticated equipment.
Plus, China does not have the Logistical Capability to sustain a long war. There Navy is somewhat outdated, same with their AF.

However, their power is growing, and an alliance between USA and China would be the most powerful ever.



The countries with the best Special Operations units are as follows.

1.USA- Special Forces (AKA Green Berets) SEALs, PJs
2.Britain- RMC, SAS, SBS
3.Australia- SASR
4.Poland- GROM
5.Canada- JTF2

Nowbody else compares to them in terms of SOF.

China has a large army.. the largest in fact.

Yet they can not project their force.

Also their large army is their biggest problem.. in terms of logistics and supply, they are bound and limited.

Best:
US
UK
Isreal
GE
FR


Largest:
China
India
I think the US is 3rd...
etc...

Germany and France should not be in top 5. Australia and Poland or Russia should be.

no way shoud russia even be considered as a gret army they rely on everbody else.

no way shoud russia even be considered as a gret army they rely on everbody else.


Wow, you know nothing.

The Russian military has potential, however they are low-funded. Also, they need to clean up the internal problems before they can mvoe forward.

The United States Military is by far the best military in the world, when one compares the ability to project force, total force and force multiplication agency. The US can reach out and touch any point in the world within the space of a few hours. No other country can do that without using long range nuclear weapons.

The militaries of the United Kingdom and France come in second and third respectively. Because of their aircraft carriers and quality of forces.

Russia comes in fourth, on the basis of their massive nuclear arsenal.

China is a large regional power, but it's ability to threaten far beyond it's borders is limited. It can send millions of infantry charging towards emplaced positions in Korea, Russia, India, Mongolia and Vietnam, but not much anywhere else.

India comes in after that.

1: Israel.
2: U.S.A.
3: China.
4: South Korea.
5: North Korea.
6: Russia.
7: Germany.
8: U.K.
9: India.
10: Australia?

These are my opinion of the top ten. As for the largest...

1: China
2: United States
3: India
4: Korea, North
5: Russia
6: Korea, South
7: Pakistan
8: Israel
9: Turkey
10: Iran

Pound for pound....

I'd go with the Swiss.

My reason for puting Israel up there is sheer speed. They deal with the Middle-Easterners MUCH faster then America. They whipped several Middle-Eastern countries in "The-Seven-Day-War", and we're still fighting insurgents.

My reason for puting Israel up there is sheer speed. They deal with the Middle-Easterners MUCH faster then America. They whipped several Middle-Eastern countries in "The-Seven-Day-War", and we're still fighting insurgents.
They've been fighting insurgents for decades.

oh yeah, I'd add Vietnam in for one of the best. My reason for this actually has little to do with their war with america, more actually, a very little known war that was fought between Vietnam and China. it was fought in 1979. China invaded Vietnam and got thier asses whooped. They invaded because Vietnam invaded cambodia and believed they should overthrow the Vietnamese government. The Chinese sent in a huge ground force and only got 40KM into to vietnam until being permanently bogged down for a month then they pulled out suffering 100,000 casualties.

They've been fighting insurgents for decades.
True, over individual wars. But how long did it take us to beat this one country (Iraq)? Compared with "The-Seven-Day-War".

Wow, you know nothing.

What's russia?

:p

China has a large army.. the largest in fact.

Yet they can not project their force.

Also their large army is their biggest problem.. in terms of logistics and supply, they are bound and limited.

Best:
US
UK
Isreal
GE
FR


Largest:
China
India
I think the US is 3rd...
etc...

France doesn't deserve to be on that list.

The US I think has around 1.5 mil once you factor in reserves. We DO have the most highly trained troops and the best motivated. My buddy from college dropped out and joined the army to be an artillery guy. I am going up to Ft sill this tuesday and spending the next few days up there to support him and do some crazy stuff before he goes off to airbourne school at Ft Benning in Jawjuh

What's russia?

:p
That condition of a state in the east, named thus after the Soviet Union broke-up.

The size of the military is an easy enough question...enough people have already answered it.

As for effectiveness, well, it depends on what nation you speak of. Overall, it's quite clearly still the U.S., but it also depends on each nation's particular strategic needs and desires...

---

1. Israel - They've been preparing for another war with their neighbors for decades. Nobody else comes close.

2. Switzerland - The government claims they can mobilize their entire population for warfare within 12 hours. They may not be about to attack anyone (they are Swiss, after all :p ), but they have a solid claim for the nation best able to carry out a defensive war.

3. United States - Naval dominance, the worlds most experienced air-force, and a military-industrial complex dependent upon continued innovation to remain politically influential, ensure that the U.S. will remain the world's foremost military for a long time to come.

4. China - The numbers speak for themselves, although the country is moving towards a more modern and technological force that moves away from such a large standing army.

5. Russia - They have a lot of problems, but that many nukes makes up for it. Their special forces in particular are world class.

6. United Kingdom - While no longer a world-spanning powerhouse, the UK still maintains one of the most well equipped armed forces in the world, with the training and expertise to go along with it.

7. North Korea - They can barely feed their populace, but their military is nothing to take lightly. Numbers again play an important part here.

8. Japan - It may be a "defense force", but it's also one of the world's largest navies, and maintains a technological edge through it's own innovation and a close strategic partnership with the U.S.

9. India - Numbers are again the key factor here, but geography also ensures that a defensive war favors India from almost any direction.

10. TIE - France/South Korea - France has the nukes, while South Korea casts a wary eye northwards. In either case, these nations cannot be discounted militarily.

Notable Mentions
Taiwan
Germany
Iran
Italy
Pakistan

USA
China
Britian
Germany
Indonesia
Russia
India
Canada
Australia
Japan

USA
China
Britian
Germany
Indonesia
Russia
India
Canada
Australia
Japan

:confused:

Germany and France should not be in top 5. Australia and Poland or Russia should be.Australia is too Small...same with Poland. Russians are a little outdated...

:confused:

Ditto the :confused: . Indonesia's armed forces are undisciplined crap.

being British, you can guess where my vote is gonna go for the top spot...

but, I have reasons! :eek:

First of all, I think the UK military is better equiped for urban fighting, as well as long range, open area stuff too. The US army has still got the M4A1 rifle, which is a long gun, meaning that hiding round a corner is difficult without being spotted. The British SA80 rifle uses the same NATO ammunition, but the barrel is further back, and therefor only sticks out a few inches over the grip, making it shorter; being of the "bullpup" design it has a scope as well; but it isn't customizable like the M4A1. Also, our tank drivers are pretty much the only drivers in the world that can ride a horse...tis just the way it works over here: to drive a tank you have to be a royal guard person (those people you see on the horses when there is a parade).

Saying that, our force isn't that big.....compared to most....

France doesn't deserve to be on that list.

The US I think has around 1.5 mil once you factor in reserves. We DO have the most highly trained troops and the best motivated. My buddy from college dropped out and joined the army to be an artillery guy. I am going up to Ft sill this tuesday and spending the next few days up there to support him and do some crazy stuff before he goes off to airbourne school at Ft Benning in Jawjuh

0 evidence for the first claim, and one piece of anedoctal evidence for the second. I really didn't even need to read user name to realize who posted this.

My list of 10 "best':

1. United states
2. Russia
3. France
4. Britain
5. India
6. China
7. Japan
8. Germany
9. South Korea
10. Greece

I'll even explain

1. US is a fairly obvious number 1. Not best at any one thing, but it has large numbers of well trained and well equipped troops. The combination of these three gives it the win in almost any situation, where the ground is fairly equal(invasions/occupations seem to be getting exponentially harder as time goes on... I counter anything like "US lost vietnam" with "How much worse would vietnam do trying to invade the US?")

2. Russia also has the trinity, except much less so now. It has large numbers, that are fairly well equipped and trained. While the later two defidentally arent up to european or even US standards, they are still better than many places. I don't believe there are many equal ground battles any nation but the US could win against the russians(except aerial warfare, where their numbers simply don't do much for them... but excellent SAM's somewhat make up for this... somewhat)

3. I really do give britain and France a tie, but since its a top 10, I just put france above on personal preference. They both have relatively small armies, but some of the best trained and equipped troops in the world. If I had to choose, France would still be first, because of more troops, more military spending, and less dependance on other nations(a number of its air ordinance, helicopters, etc...). I also prefer a number of french equipment to british.

4. Britain does have a lot going for it, most of it already covered in 3.

5. India is rapidly growing as an economic and military power. Ground forces could use more updating, but its airforce is growing quite powerful with french, russian, and american aircraft, as well as a slowly empowering navy.

6. China, lower than most other people's lists it seems. China has a large army, with a small force with the trinity. However, that force isn't really much different than what SOCOM is for US, Spetsnaz for Russia, SAS, FFL... the list goes on. The majority of its forces aren't that great, but it has the numbers to take on most nations in the world, if it can actually get to them to fight.

7. Japan has a very low profile, yet powerful military. The second highest official military spender(china and russia assumed higher), It has very well trained troops, and quite well equipped too. It has a very powerful navy that is overlooked often, as well. It doesn't have much combat experience though, not the living portions.

8. Germany has a larger, and arguably better army than france and britain, but has no navy to really speak of, and its airforce isn't much better. However, with effective use of its airforce and Air defense capabilities, its a scary opponent indeed.

9. South korea is a well equipped, well trained military, with decent numbers. Also often overlooked, it lacks the projection ability to really fight other nations, however, if placed in the right scenario, it could do incredible work(such as a korean conflict, with NK artillery disabled somehow)

10. Greece is a very overlooked nation, overshadowed by the larger european militaries. However, it has a well equipped and trained army, and a very good airforce. Often holding contests with the top equipment makers in the world, it has some of the best technology that hasn't been held by the makers exclusively.

Edit: Tomorrow, I will post of a list of certain nations who didn't get put up and why, including israel, poland, australia, sweden, etc(I feel sweden is 11 or 12 tho).

1: USA
2: India
3: UK
4: France
5: Israel
6: China
7: Germany
8: Turkey
9: South Korea
10: Japan

The US army has still got the M4A1 rifle, which is a long gun

M4A1 length

838 mm (33 in) (stock extended)

757 mm (29.8 in) (stock retracted)

SA80 length

785 mm;

900 mm (LSW)


With the stock retracted the M4 is actually shorter.

Saying that, our force isn't that big.....compared to most....
Thanks Mrs. Thatcher for that.

The M4 with SOPMOD is a much better weapon than the SA80. And its got much better features/ assecories.

Most powerful are, Russian, Chinese, US, and if the EU got together. and mongolia! bitch.

The best would be, Isreal, Britain, parts of US military, and the Russian Spetznatz.

SPETSNAZ* If you are going to list my countries SF then spell it right.:headbang:

The most powerful, IMO:

USA
Great Britain
China
Russia (A shadow of their former power, but how many nations can go toe-to-toe with the Russians even in this day and age?)
France (France, unlike Russia and China, enjoys global power projection, which, while not on par with the US or UK, is still impressive. Screw any petty anti-French sentiment)
India
South Korea
North Korea
Germany (primarily technological, rather than their size or projection power)
Israel

After that, Pakistan, some European minors and Taiwan. Japan isn't entirely weak, either.

Australia's military is too small to be featured in these lists, and much of its equipment is ancient. The Navy is decent, and some of its air force is okay, but F-111s, ancient helicopters they got out of American museums and Leopard 1 tanks are probably not going to scare anyone.

The German Navy is still in transformation, away from its previous role which was to defend the Baltic from Soviet submarines. They're developing a new class of frigate that will be able to do pretty much everything in terms of support a likely Bundeswehr involvement overseas will need. For the rest, they can rely on their good mates at NATO.

And the Luftwaffe is getting plenty of Eurofighters and new support- and transport planes. That should get them up to any given international standard.

Finally, regarding special forces, the best units are usually those people have never heard of. That's obviously the KSK, which therefore gets an honourable mention.

Vive le legion etranger!

Well while we are on the topic of Special Operations Forces I will list mine agian.


1. USA- Special Forces (AKA Green Berets), SEALs, PJ's, Rangers
2.UK- SAS, SBS
3.Australia- SASR
4.Poland- GROM
5.Canada-JTF2
6. Russia- SPETSNAZ

I think Israel is being underestimated. After all, Israel has many times in the past taken on greater numbers of forces and emerged victorious. One of the greatest natural laws of combat (a ratio of at least 3:1 is neccessary to take out a defending force) is regularly broken as they send in forces of equal strength to obliterate enemy forces. Also, they are highly trained, and use quality weapons. Plus, each and every soldier is extremely motivated to fight hard. Personally, If an equal sized group of IDF and Delta Force went head to head, my money would be on Israel.

Well while we are on the topic of Special Operations Forces I will list mine agian.
So...why does GROM make it on the list, but the KSK doesn't? What about the North Korean special forces, those are pretty hard-core?

Well, I judged this list on a friend of mines experience. I am in the 75 Ranger Battalion. He is in the 3rd Special Forces Group, 1st Battalion. He said that GROM has been kicking ass in Iraq, he also said that he loved working with Aussie SASR. This is just based on my friends and mines opinions/experience. He has worked with all of them except JTF2. North Korean Special Forces are good at killing their own citizens, not other soldiers.

Well, I judged this list on a friend of mines experience.
But that would be a slightly limited sample, right? Apparently the US Special Operations people in Afghanistan have had nothing but great things to say about the KSK (much to the embarrassment of certain German politicians who didnÄt even know KSK was there...)

North Korean Special Forces are good at killing their own citizens, not other soldiers.
Well, we don't know that yet, do we. It's the largest special forces unit in the world, and judging by the type of indoctrination common in North Korea, I wouldn't be surprised if they fought the Monty Python way (http://browndailysqueal.com/archives/Monty%20python%20black%20knight.jpg)...

But that would be a slightly limited sample, right? Apparently the US Special Operations people in Afghanistan have had nothing but great things to say about the KSK (much to the embarrassment of certain German politicians who didnÄt even know KSK was there...)


Well, we don't know that yet, do we. It's the largest special forces unit in the world, and judging by the type of indoctrination common in North Korea, I wouldn't be surprised if they fought the Monty Python way (http://browndailysqueal.com/archives/Monty%20python%20black%20knight.jpg)...

Wait, Black Knight or King Arthur

Wait, Black Knight or King Arthur
As in you shoot them and chop them apart and they just get back up and keep fighting...;)

Well how large is it? Have some evidence? The KSK have done a good job, nothing outstanding though, the truth is, the "Big Boys" on the SOF block are the US UK and Australlia. Believe it or not, the Aussies have a kick ass SAS regiment. My friends said he would trust his life with them over any other SOF unit.

Well how large is it? Have some evidence?
http://www.specwarnet.com/asia/NKSF.htm

Believe it or not, the Aussies have a kick ass SAS regiment. My friends said he would trust his life with them over any other SOF unit.
Probably do. They've been pretty busy too, first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq.

I just believe that the units that you never heard about are the units that did their job without causing much of a ruckus, which is what you want from them. And to be honest, I think comparisons are meaningless anyways. These days they all do the same things, they all train together and they all have the same sort of equipment.

BTW Neu, this is my new nations name. But you prolly figured that out already, me and LBI are the same.

And I completely agree, there are some very good SOF units know one has heard of, however, many of them are not battle testes. The US, UK, and AUS, have battle tested, and well trained, and sophisticated SOF units. Many other countries just lack the funding to turn there SOF units up tp par with them. Plus, US Special Forces "Q" course is the hardest in the world, along with SAS training.

However, I do think people underestimate China totally, They are updating thier military to the extreme. Not only with new technology, but better training, and better strategy. The extreme numbers do help though if things backfire.

And, I beleive everyone is putting technology a little to far. Technology can only go so far, but it can fail, and it can malfunction, and it does. Can your soldiers operate with out it? and just because you have better technology, doesnt mean you automaticly win as some nerds think. The US had 100x the technology of the Vietnamese and were bloodgened real good in vietnam, same story in Iraq wether US wins or not, the insurgents still made us bleed with bieng the underdog in technology.
Good point, however, China's military is large enough to fight us head-on, unlike the Vietnamese. Not to mention they can forceably draft people. Thus, it in a contest between US and China, US would win due to more advanced technology.

However China will never be able to fight a foreign war, do to its lack of logistical capability.

1.USA- Special Forces (AKA Green Berets) SEALs, PJs
2.Britain- RMC, SAS, SBS
3.Australia- SASR
4.Poland- GROM
5.Canada- JTF2

Germany- Kommando Spezial Kräfte (KSK), Kampfschwimmer, Fernspah, GSG-9
France- Foreign Legion, Commando Hubert

8. Germany has a larger army than france and britain.

They do? Realy?

Germany- Kommando Spezial Kräfte (KSK), Kampfschwimmer, Fernspah, GSG-9
France- Foreign Legion, Commando Hubert

Can the french Foregin Legion actually be considered a special forces group? I'm not trying to be a prick I'm just genuinly curious, I always thought they were more akin to a MEU but for France.

They do? Realy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces
Bigger than the British one, yes. With the French, I'm not sure. I think they count the Gendarmerie as military as well, although they do domestic policing, and not much else. But if you just count the army alone, then Germany is definitely the biggest (and best equipped) in Europe.

But the French and British spend more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

FullMetalJacket']Can the french Foregin Legion actually be considered a special forces group? I'm not trying to be a prick I'm just genuinly curious, I always thought they were more akin to a MEU but for France.
Well, I think they can be. They are a relativly small force. And well, they do stuff the general public generally doesn't know/hear about. All the trades of special forces I would think.:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces
Bigger than the British one, yes. With the French, I'm not sure. I think they count the Gendarmerie as military as well, although they do domestic policing, and not much else. But if you just count the army alone, then Germany is definitely the biggest (and best equipped) in Europe.
It says 296,000 active. But unless I'm mistaking it was recently brought down to 225,000. And isn't the BGS like the Gendarmerie also counted as 'troops'? My old Meyers taschenlexikon, 1989 edition, counts them as a paramilitary unit which in case of war will be placed at the BW's dispposal.

Well, I think they can be. They are a relativly small force. And well, they do stuff the general public generally doesn't know/hear about. All the trades of special forces I would think.:D

Heh well I know it usually depends on training and what not, but I think it also has to do with the history of the unit. It's a certain pride and swagger that sets them up there with the Ghurkas and what not I suppose. It's like the Marines say "Does the Marine Corp have special forces? Of course, we're all special."

FullMetalJacket'] "Does the Marine Corp have special forces? Of course, we're all special."
Special olympics. Watch out. Here come the special marines to take home the gold!!!!

Special olympics. Watch out. Here come the special marines to take home the gold!!!!

:p Oh very nice, see what I get for sticking up for you Foregin Legion, the best thing about them is that most of them arn't french! Lol...then again i've met some very "special" Marines in my time...

FullMetalJacket']:p Oh very nice, see what I get for sticking up for you Foregin Legion,You made it easy.:D

the best thing about them is that most of them arn't french!
They are once they finish their 5 year tour.

You made it easy.:D


They are once they finish their 5 year tour.

What a horrible speech that must be "Congratulations, you've survived 5 years of training, combat, and dodging several STD's...now we're making you a french citizen!"..."Man I knew I should have dove on that grenade...."

Isreal and France do not have good armies. We are terrorizing the Middle East for Nukes, yet France has like a lot. IT'S TRUE. I'M SMART

It says 296,000 active. But unless I'm mistaking it was recently brought down to 225,000.
Yeah, I heard something like that.

Not that it matters, NATO is doing the fighting anyways, so individual countries aren't that important.

But I think the initial statement was "bigger army", and that's true. Especially when you compare the tank forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army#Current_Army

Yeah, I heard something like that.

Not that it matters, NATO is doing the fighting anyways, so individual countries aren't that important.

But I think the initial statement was "bigger army", and that's true. Especially when you compare the tank forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army#Current_Army
They are also cutting into that.

The Germans, Ottomans, and Prussia would have won WWI if the US didn't help.

FullMetalJacket']What a horrible speech that must be "Congratulations, you've survived 5 years of training, combat, and dodging several STD's...now we're making you a french citizen!"..."Man I knew I should have dove on that grenade...."
:D

The Germans, Ottomans, and Prussia would have won WWI if the US didn't help.
Go back to your school and demand a refund. You obviously haven't learned shit.

The Germans, Ottomans, and Prussia would have won WWI if the US didn't help.

Your parents need to beat you more.

O really. Look at Prussia. THey owend France before WWI even started Sherlock. Wilhelm I almost captured Paris. The Ottomans owned in the Medditeranean. DUhhhhhh

Who hasn't captured paris? That's like celebrating you banged a prostitute...or almost in dear Wilhelms case...not much educational value on the subject but I figured it needed to be said.

lol. nice one

FullMetalJacket']What a horrible speech that must be "Congratulations, you've survived 5 years of training, combat, and dodging several STD's...now we're making you a french citizen!"..."Man I knew I should have dove on that grenade...."

I had actually briefly considered joining the Legion, but when I read that if you have less than 5 years in service you can't own a car, wear civilian clothes, or a bunch of other things I decided against it.

O really. Look at Prussia. THey owend France before WWI even started Sherlock. Wilhelm I almost captured Paris. The Ottomans owned in the Medditeranean. DUhhhhhh
You realy should demand that refund from your school. Or were you just born 'special'?

People like to ignore France, but they have a very strong navy, airforce, and army. Unlike a lot of nations, the French have a full sized aircraft carrier and are in the process of modernizing their navy again after the Cold War. The Exocet continues to be upgraded and modernized as one of the best anti-shipping missiles around. They have a good air force stocked with Mirage 2000’s. Their regular force soldiers aren’t that impressive man versus man, because it’s a conscription force, although man to man most superpowers except the UK don’t have good soldiers either. The French Foreign Legionaires are also about the toughest soldiers on the planet and there are around 8500 of them. A lot of the Foreign Legion are French. Gurkhas and Russians also join in droves. I don’t think any regular force unit could match them. The record on the jungle survival platoon obstacle course is 45 minutes. The only US Marines to attempt it took 8 hours. It’s absolutely brutal training in the Legion and they fully expect to lose 10% of their forces just from the training and it’s not from stupidity, like some nations high training casualty incidents. The French Paras and other special forces are very well trained.

Spain is also a world power. They have aircraft carriers and are in the process of modernizing their submarine fleet. Their airforce is a mix of F-18’s, Mirage, and Eurofighter Typhoons coming off the assembly line. Their army is around the size of the Australians and except for the number of infantry fighting vehicles and aging tanks, aren’t anywhere close.

People ignoring the Aussies as a military force shouldn’t write them off for their small size. People who did that with the Swiss also made a mistake. Australia has very well trained troops and they have the latest tech. Their tanks are old but are being upgraded to Abrams. The Aussies have their own SAS regiment, the 4 RAR, and the 1st Commando Regiment. The Australian Navy isn’t that impressive, but they can defend their own waters and are looking to upgrade with STOVL jets and proposed pocket carriers in the future. The airforce has a bunch of aging F-18’s but so does the US.

The Charles De Gualle is, in displacement and aircraft complement, between the Invincible Class and the American Supercarriers. I believe it's complement is around 45, including helicopters.

People ignoring the Aussies as a military force shouldn’t write them off for their small size. People who did that with the Swiss also made a mistake. Australia has very well trained troops and they have the latest tech.
No they don't. That's the point - they have their priorities, and in many areas they have been caught out by politics demanding they buy second-rate stuff from the US.
An example was the thing about the sea helicopters. Their old ones kept crashing, so they bought a set of retired ones from the US, wanting to upgrade the electronics. Unfortunately electronics don't keep artifacts in the air, so they shelved that now (after spending heaps on it) and are instead buying a new European naval helicopter, but whether that one will do the job they can't be sure either.

Their tanks are old but are being upgraded to Abrams.
Yeah...all 59 of them. And they're not the latest version either, so they'd get their arse kicked by Challenger IIs, Leopard IIs, Leclercs and modern Abrams.

The Australian Navy isn’t that impressive, but they can defend their own waters and are looking to upgrade with STOVL jets and proposed pocket carriers in the future. The airforce has a bunch of aging F-18’s but so does the US.
Except that the US can upgrade theirs to Super Hornets, and Australia can't afford it.
Also, the Navy is the best thing about the Australian military. Their army is basically a few regiments, their air force is only in the process of becoming acceptable, the F-18s are the most modern jets they have. But they'll be getting the F-35s which will be decent.
The Navy has some decent frigates and other patrol units, and their submarines are good, although problematic as far as reliability is concerned.

My point is that the Australian military is okay for what it's supposed to do, which is small contributions to overseas operations, and the occasional holiday in East Timor, the Solomons etc. It's not good enough to stand up to other full-sized militaries on its own, not even Indonesia's (although the Indonesian soldiers would have to swim to get here, so that's settled...)

As for Spain, their ground force would absolutely pwn Australia's. They've got about ten times as many tanks, including more than 200 Leopard 2A6 (in the "E" version with uprated armour).

Well, I think they can be. They are a relativly small force. And well, they do stuff the general public generally doesn't know/hear about. All the trades of special forces I would think.:D

They are not SOF per say, they are a French Mercenary force. They used to be very good, but now they have lost their touch. However, they are still romantasized in movies.

The Charles De Gualle is, in displacement and aircraft complement, between the Invincible Class and the American Supercarriers. I believe it's complement is around 45, including helicopters.
And already too expensive for them to run. They've made the right decision to shelve the second one, and they should definitely take part in the British CVF program (hell, Germany should try that too). The more standardised you can do this, the better.

What the French do have is the Rafale, which IMHO is the best carrier-based jet around at the moment, at least until the F-35 shows up.

And already too expensive for them to run. They've made the right decision to shelve the second one, and they should definitely take part in the British CVF program (hell, Germany should try that too). The more standardised you can do this, the better.

What the French do have is the Rafale, which IMHO is the best carrier-based jet around at the moment, at least until the F-35 shows up.

Can you say F-22, currently, it is not in full usage, but it is taking over the Hornets on all of the USN Carriers

I think the US has the best military.

It has the best navy, best air force, and best trained/equipped soldiers in the world. Yes, I know some British SAS fanboys will disagree with me, but in terms of special forces, I think the American Special Activities Division (SAD) and SEAL Team SIX take the cake.

However, that's not to say that other nations have bad militaries. I think the Germans have the best artillery piece at the moment, the Panzerhaubitze 2000. In terms of tanks, I think it's all up in the air. But in general, the US is at the top.

Can you say F-22, currently, it is not in full usage, but it is taking over the Hornets on all of the USN Carriers
No it's not...it can't start or land on carriers. The squadrons are all based in the continental US at this point.

Actually there are plans for a carrier based F-22 for the near future.

And BTW, SEALs are not the best SOF unit we have to offer, Army Special Forces would be (Green Berets)


You know what they say about SEALs, big watch, little dick.

Actually there are plans for a carrier based F-22 for the near future.
Have you got any links on that? As far as I know they dropped the idea pretty soon when they had a look at how much it would cost.

The thing is that a plane needs to be changed in very fundamental ways to be able to stand the strain of starting and landing on a carrier. That's why they can't really convert the Eurofighter either.

All that of course quite aside the fact that the F-35 is supposed to take over for the US Navy as the main carrier-based jet.

"As far as I know they dropped the idea pretty soon when they had a look at how much it would cost."---Neu Leonstein


"The thing is that a plane needs to be changed in very fundamental ways to be able to stand the strain of starting and landing on a carrier."---Neu Leonstein


"All that of course quite aside the fact that the F-35 is supposed to take over for the US Navy as the main carrier-based jet."---Neu Leonstein


nope, plans for carrier-based f-22s are still in full swing

the plane does not really need to be changed in any fundamental ways since they already have the carrier versions designed.....just not built.

and the f-35 is not THE main carrier-based jets but one of three airframes: f-35, f-22, and f-18 superhornet. once they are operational, the united states will have more f-22s on carriers than any other nation has any sort of fighter/attack jets on carriers

Well, said, I knew that I read they were looking to make a carrier basd F-22.

nope, plans for carrier-based f-22s are still in full swing
Again, I'd like to see a link or something.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2006111121.asp
Another reason is carrier suitability. The F-22’s naval variant never got past the design stage. The F-35 has two variants suitable for carrier operations – the F-35B is a V/STOL aircraft capable of operating from smaller carriers like the Italian Giuseppe Garibaldi or amphibious vessels like the Tarawa and Wasp classes. The F-35C can operate from conventional carriers like the American Nimitz-class vessels and the British Queen Elizabeth-class.

http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/9-932.asp
The Navy actually funded $165 million in R&D in the early 1990s to investigate development of a navalized F-22, but the project never went beyond the research phase. The biggest problem is that the F-22's landing speed is too high for landing on aircraft carriers, and solving this would pretty much require turning it into a swing-wing fighter. Doing that and keeping the F-22's stealthy characteristics wasn't considered reasonable or affordable, as you'd wind up designing basically an entirely new aircraft.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-4272.html

I dont feel like gettin in the middle of this, seeing as I knoledgable about Ground Forces, not particularly knowledgable (SP) about Naval Air.

I dont feel like gettin in the middle of this, seeing as I knoledgable about Ground Forces, not particularly knowledgable (SP) about Naval Air.
Hey, that's cool. This isn't a debate. I know for a fact that there is no navalised F-22, and that the only meaningful competitors to the Rafale actually in service at the moment are the Su-33 and Super Hornet.

Hey, you heard of the US Armies new Land Warrior system?

Saw somethin about it, let me tell you, haveing all those computers on my gun, i wont like, to much shit to go wrong, Im content with good ole ironsights.

Hey, you heard of the US Armies new Land Warrior system?
Yeah (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/land_warrior/), looks complicated, doesn't it.

But ultimately they need to do something. These days you need to know exactly where every single soldier is, what they're doing and so on. So many countries are building these packages...FELIN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FELIN), FIST (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fist/), IdZ (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/idz/) and so on.

The trick, I suppose, is to make these things not overcomplicated and to keep them reliable. But since we're talking about the Pentagon here, and US Defence Contractors...I wouldn't count on it. :p

HAHA, yeah, but still, if you get a bullet through the thermal imager, or the whatever-the-hell-else-techno-shit they put on there, then it becomes useless. Im sure people will get used to it, however, the whole thing ways about 80 pounds, (that is okay for Rangers like myself) but I doubt the average grunt would like to carry around an extra 80 pounds. Plus, I dont know how they will get some of the hard-ass oldtime NCO's to give in and try it out.

Hell, my NCO wont even use the laserguided scope, he still uses the good ole ironsights.

i'd love to help you on the navalized version of the f-22, but none of my knowledge on the subject is internet based.

"Hey, that's cool. This isn't a debate. I know for a fact that there is no navalised F-22, and that the only meaningful competitors to the Rafale actually in service at the moment are the Su-33 and Super Hornet."---Neu Leonstein

well, it depends on exactly what you mean by in service. the first operational squadron of air force f-22s is already complete.....and it sure knocks the socks off of everything else

The Land Warrior IMFS is intended to be a force multiplier as well as an step up in command and control systems. The goal is to extend and enhance the capabilities of each soldier to enable a leaner, faster, more responsive force. With an all volunteer force, and the political implications of a Draft, this becomes a virtual necessity.

Hey Eut, you are Army also right? What do you think of this Land Warrior?

Who do you think the best special forces in the world are?
Theres soo many, and quite often many are just overlooked.

Who do you think the best special forces in the world are?
Theres soo many, and quite often many are just overlooked.

I don't really think you can prove whose the best without dropping them in a jungle and having them hunt each other down, but personal favorites are Marine Force Recon (Ok so I loved Tears of the Sun...) and 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment - Delta (Yeah I know I'm gonna get flammed for being a Delta lover). Seal Team Six is also an amazing unit. I havn't named any foregin teams because outside of SAS, Spetznas, and GSG-9 I don't know much about the others...

The USA has the best current military hands down.

The Russians are a clear number 2 IMHO. Between a huge nuclear arsenal, swarms of fairly decent fighters (MiG 29 and Su-27...which are both getting upgrade kits) very good armour (t-80 and t-90..with the t-80 in good quantity) A good subsurface fleet (Who needs surface fleets if you can deny the enemy the use of theirs?) and a massive standing army of mechanized infantry, who have no qualms about ordering 203mm divisional artillery fire and 220mm fuel air explosive filled rockets on occupied cities, I say they can hands down thoroughly route anyone but the USA.

France and GB tied for #3

China for number four.

North Korea for 5, just from sheer numbers and being half insane and prolly willing to go on suicide missions and step on a land mine and drag them selves with their arms to get a few more shots off.

Israel for #6..they are pretty bad ass in desert land combat and Ariel combat.

Italy for #7. Getting Euro fighters, well trained, well funded army with good numbers.

Japan for #8. They may have a good technical army, and would be up at #6 instead of Israel, but when their military planners issue ROE and orders that prohibit carrying rifles in A'stan, I say there is something wrong.

Aussies for #9.

Canada for #10. Due to very skilled and disciplined troops, even they lack all the fancy goodies, who seem to get the job done with very high effectiveness.

From what I understand, one of the most promising emerging special forces is the jordanian special forces, particularly the 71st Commando Brigade, also know as The Riders of Justice.
Jordan is investing huge amounts into special forces technology.

Here are some interesting links.
www.kaddb.com
www.sofex.com.jo
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1173
(this is an interesting article on Jordanian special forces involved in the killing of Zarqawi)

well, it depends on exactly what you mean by in service. the first operational squadron of air force f-22s is already complete.....and it sure knocks the socks off of everything else
I mean a plane currently based on an aircraft carrier. Regardless of where you learned the news from that there is a carrier-based F-22, the info should be on the web...all info is on the web, plus a lot extra.
Fact is that it makes sense. The US Military complex has had this problem for a long time, with the different services competing or just plain ignoring each other when it comes to procurement. The F-22 was developed for the air force, and the Navy bowed out early. Ergo, the plane was never designed to deal with carriers.
To simply change this now is impossible and unnecessary, given that the F-35 is almost ready and will certainly do a great job for the Navy (if perhaps less so for the Marine Corps...they'll be missing their A-10s).

USA
China
Britian
Australia
Israel
Germany
Russia
Canada
Poland (Yep, Poland, GROM anyone?)
Japan


Based on my prior experience that would be my list of the BEST militaries out there.

I only put China at 2nd because they have a very very very large army.

So you are saying that the British Army, Australian Army and Israeli Army are better and stronger than the Russian Army? Come on, you only need to look at their Nuclear stockpile for an answer.

nuclear stockpile doesn't nessacarily mean the best army, plus the fact that most of russia's nukes probably don't work anymore :)

Best army: USA. even without going into the special forces, which are very good, the basic grunt receives good training and good equipment. I wish the PJ's would receive more attention (most people don't even know the AF has special forces) but what ya gonna do :)

Next is a toss-up between Russia and China. Both are huge although imo China's much further along technology-wise than Russia. As history has shown time and time again, no one wins a land war in Russia. They are used to losing millions upon millions of soldiers/war, I don't think that any country can even compare to the losses they have suffered. They aren't that good at anything but defending though. Imo, the only country that would put up a good fight (and by that I mean I don't know who would win) against the US is China.

Next comes the Aussies for all the reasons in the past 6 pages.

Israel has a very good army, highly motivated and very lethal but my problem with them is everything they use comes from the US. Take away our support and what are they left with? They may as well wear American uniforms ;)

as for the rest of the list, I don't know enough about France (although seriously, it can't be good, its france!), UK, Germany etc to make any kind of statement about them.

As to what I "think" the top 10 largest militaries are, it's right here on the Wiki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces)

And I'd be inclined to say that the top 10 militaries by capability would roughly follow this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures).
that's interesting. if you divide spending by the number of active troops (in thousands)... and then times by 1000 so its not such a weeny number why not (its still good for comparison), you get this:

USA 233
Britain 168
Japan 155
France 146
Italy 112
Germany 106
Saudi Arabia106
Israel 48
Spain 47
Russia 41


which i guess is some kind of relative expenditure per x-something units of troops, but i don't have the mad maths-skillz to work out what it is. still interesting for comparison though :)

india is way down at number 21 on my list (with a paltry score of 8), and China is number 19 (with a score of 13)



edit: this started off as US$ billions, but it doesn't take into account purchasing power parities, does it? so China's 13 may actually buy the same quality or amount of equimpment in China as the US's 233 does for them. obviously that's not going to be the case, just saying that a flat comparison like this is interesting but not at all conclusive

So you are saying that the British Army, Australian Army and Israeli Army are better and stronger than the Russian Army? Come on, you only need to look at their Nuclear stockpile for an answer.


Considering we are talking about ARMIES not nuclear stockpiles, Russias Army is plagued with hazing, rape, murder, and poor leadership.

They are not SOF per say, they are a French Mercenary force.
Oh please. Not this again. The Legion is a professional army. Not mercs. Unless you consider all pro-soldiers to be mercs. You can't hire a battalion of legionairs to invade Kuwait in your name. What they do after their tour is a completley different issue.

They used to be very good, but now they have lost their touch.
And you know they lost their touch how?

Next comes the Aussies for all the reasons in the past 6 pages.
You mean this one:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11329209&postcount=79

"Regardless of where you learned the news from that there is a carrier-based F-22, the info should be on the web...all info is on the web, plus a lot extra."---Neu Leonstein

i didn't learn it on the news. as for the web.....i never said it wasn't on the web, i said my information came elsewhere. if i really thought my googling ability was going to be very much superior to yours, i would look it up and send you a link, but i imagine that you could do that just as well

...i imagine that you could do that just as well
So did I. So I spent half an hour yesterday to make sure I was right. The only references I could find to navalized versions of the F-22 were the ones I posted.

First the Navy didn't want to get involved with the F-22. Then, when initial designs came out they had a look and asked for a feasibility study into a navalized version (spend $165 million on it too). Turns out that the only way they could get the landing speed sufficiently down for it to land on a carrier would have been to equip it with swing-wings like the F-14.

Unfortunately that would have been a huge change to the design, basically meaning the whole plane would have to be redeveloped. So the Navy didn't bother, and instead participated in the F-35 project. And if you think about it, that's a much better option for them - a true multi-role jet (not air-superiority with a bit of marketing addendum), vertical landing and take-off, sufficiently stealthy and not nearly as expensive.

swing wings were not needed or indeed, included in the design. the jet does have a stronger frame and larger wings. although i have found no up-to-date plans on carrier-based f-22s (at least that some guy like me could get around to :) ). from what i gather, there is no real news going either way on the subject, which i suspect means that you are probably right, the navy will probably not be fielding them

the f-22 would have been used in smaller numbers aboard carriers than f-18 super hornets and f-35s.......which you are right, it isn't needed for a carrier fleet anyway......carrier assets are designed around strike roles with missiles for defense from air threats. the super hornet and f-35 are both supposed to be excellent strike fighters. as for the vtol f-35s.....those aren't going to be on carriers. the carriers are going to have the carrier version, the marines will have the jump jet version, and the air force will have the air force version(although there has been some speculation on potentially purchasing some vtols also)(although in my opinion.......not likely with the way the budgets for these new airframes are going)

Oh please. Not this again. The Legion is a professional army. Not mercs. Unless you consider all pro-soldiers to be mercs. You can't hire a battalion of legionairs to invade Kuwait in your name. What they do after their tour is a completley different issue.


And you know they lost their touch how?

Well, technically speaking they ARE a mercinary force.

The Mercenary Question

"Is a French Foreign Legionnaire a mercenary? By definition, yes. By what he knows to be true, no. A Legionnaire is merely a soldier who happens to be serving in another country. Is that somehow wrong just because it's in a military capacity?"

http://www.foreignlegionlife.com/chapter5.htm#top5

And they now do only Peacekeeping missions.

Well, technically speaking they ARE a mercinary force.

The Mercenary Question

"Is a French Foreign Legionnaire a mercenary? By definition, yes. By what he knows to be true, no. A Legionnaire is merely a soldier who happens to be serving in another country. Is that somehow wrong just because it's in a military capacity?"

http://www.foreignlegionlife.com/chapter5.htm#top5

And they now do only Peacekeeping missions.

Technically yes, but in the same way that technically the Ghurkas are a mercenary force. The difference is that both Legionnaires and Ghurkas are an integral part of their respective armies, not independently for hire to the highest bidder.

EDIT - And they only do peacekeeping because France isn't involved in any conflicts. The last major conflict the French were involved in was the first Gulf War, in which the Legion played a major role.

Also, our tank drivers are pretty much the only drivers in the world that can ride a horse
Dont mess with the UK

The best military is one that does not exist.

The best military is one that is not necessary.

Fixed.

EDIT - And they only do peacekeeping because France isn't involved in any conflicts. The last major conflict the French were involved in was the first Gulf War, in which the Legion played a major role.
Didn't they actually race into Iraq and went so far unhindered that they ended up in Al-Nasyirah, when they were told the mandate didn't extend into Iraq-proper?

I read that somewhere.....

swing wings were not needed or indeed, included in the design. the jet does have a stronger frame and larger wings.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0132.shtml
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0021a.shtml
Although this effort yielded a far superior design in the end, the final concepts leading up to the YF-22 were still unable to meet the Air Force requirements for both short takeoff and landing and supercruise simultaneously. Once the Air Force dropped the STOL requirement, the aft portion of the aircraft was redesigned allowing significant reductions in drag and making supercruising possible.
It's never going to take off or land on a carrier. Just like the Eurofighter.

although i have found no up-to-date plans on carrier-based f-22s (at least that some guy like me could get around to :) ).
If there were any, you could. It's expensive enough to require all sorts of debates in congress and stuff.

from what i gather, there is no real news going either way on the subject, which i suspect means that you are probably right, the navy will probably not be fielding them
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/hi-lo/hi-lo.jpg

as for the vtol f-35s.....those aren't going to be on carriers. the carriers are going to have the carrier version, the marines will have the jump jet version, and the air force will have the air force version...
True.
The Brits will get the STOVL version though.

Didn't they actually race into Iraq and went so far unhindered that they ended up in Al-Nasyirah, when they were told the mandate didn't extend into Iraq-proper?

I read that somewhere.....

They were the spearhead unit of the 9th Light Division which protected the left flank of the US armoured advance into southern Iraq.

Didn't they actually race into Iraq and went so far unhindered that they ended up in Al-Nasyirah, when they were told the mandate didn't extend into Iraq-proper?

I read that somewhere.....
I sort of remember that peace broke out shortly before they reached Bagdad.
Heard that once.

http://www.foreignlegionlife.com/chapter5.htm#top5

Holy crap, I just read on that link that they have to do a 160km road march before they can graduate basic training. Not just no, but hell no.

(I feel sweden is 11 or 12 tho).
Damn right we are :p We might not have been to war in the last 250 years, but our fighters are used by several countries, and we've got some of the very first stealth ships (I think Norway and Sweden were the first two nations to include it in the fleet). I don't know about 11 or 12, but I do think many underestimate our armed forces...

Damn right we are :p We might not have been to war in the last 250 years, but our fighters are used by several countries, and we've got some of the very first stealth ships (I think Norway and Sweden were the first two nations to include it in the fleet). I don't know about 11 or 12, but I do think many underestimate our armed forces...

Well trained troops, good equipment, nice navy, quite nice armour, etc etc.

I dont think there's anyone other than my top ten list who could beat them in conventional warfare.

[now onto other matters]

Israel: Strong, but I try to factor in the ability to maintain war. With very little military manufacturing ability of its own, a prolonged war, especially if blockaded, would pretty much mean it couldn't replenish most of its forces.

Also, in the gulf war, it was the French 6th light armoured division(The Daguet Division) that covered the left flank, with the foreign legion taking the lead. They crushed the soviet forces, despite using AMX-30's :P

1.United States
2.Britain
3.Russia
4.China
5.Germany
I'm too lazy to list any more

Also, in the gulf war...they crushed the soviet forces, despite using AMX-30's :P
I'm not surprised. I'd be pretty sure the Russian commanders would've been disadvantaged by a sudden lack of orientation...

I'm not surprised. I'd be pretty sure the Russian commanders would've been disadvantaged by a sudden lack of orientation...

:P

I was thinking soviet equipment very vaguely, and somehow that came out.

The best military is a country who doesn't need a military. A country that doesn't get attacked, who is smart enough to be good/no terms with other countries. These countries who have no need for a military, are the smart ones.

The best military is a country who doesn't need a military. A country that doesn't get attacked, who is smart enough to be good/no terms with other countries. These countries who have no need for a military, are the smart ones.

Militaries aren't countries.

Militaries aren't countries.
I never thought I'd see anyone actually have to type that :p

I recently watched a documentary about Armies and who has the best, they had all kinds of important military people on there, Generals and Politicians and experts on things like that, and ALL of them said that Britain has the BEST army, Best Trained, best quality special forces etc. But that America has the best EQUIPED and the best logistical support and so is able to get lots of personnel and equipment to places quickly, the American guys ALL said that the UK military was superior in training and the quality of its army, but that the US army was WAY better equipped all round. (One general said that the US forces leave behind more stuff than the UK forces get issued with, BUT that in his opinion the huge amount of equipment was to make up for the lesser trained and less able personnel)

I recently watched a documentary...
Which channel and which country? It makes a difference, you know, especially with things like this, where you can't easily make objective judgements.

I am English, and I think it shown was on the BBC (but may have been on the documentary channel) but it was an American programe.

USA
China
Russia
Israel
South Korea
France
Britian
India
Pakistain
Taiwan

1.Israel
2.USA
3.EU
4.North Korea
5.China
6.Russia




I only put North Korea because they are in fact moving up in the world. i mean no one knows wat goes on over there

I notice I haven't really put forward a list yet. But I won't make a "best" list, I'll make a "best suited to what it is supposed to do for its government" list.

1. Israel
2. Canada
3. Britain
4. France
5. USA
6. Australia
7. North Korea
8. Any given number or EU countries, including Germany
9. Turkey
10. China

Russia doesn't make the cut because it's a pointless ruin that can't keep the country together like it's supposed to (Chechnya), and India will make it on the list but hasn't quite reached it. They're in the process of acquiring a lot of decent stuff though.

I notice I haven't really put forward a list yet. But I won't make a "best" list, I'll make a "best suited to what it is supposed to do for its government" list.

1. Israel
2. Canada
3. Britain
4. France
5. USA
6. Australia
7. North Korea
8. Any given number or EU countries, including Germany
9. Turkey
10. China

Russia doesn't make the cut because it's a pointless ruin that can't keep the country together like it's supposed to (Chechnya), and India will make it on the list but hasn't quite reached it. They're in the process of acquiring a lot of decent stuff though.

Quite agreed... Except I''d probably put greece over turkey. But meh.

I just wanted to mention, as I think you realized by putting israel first on this list, that israel isn't really that powerful, military wise. Its very small, no navy to speak of, nearly no projection ability, etc. What it has is a very well trained and equiped army and airforce, and nuclear bombs. It won't be using those nukes any time soon, so that leaves it with a well equipped army and airforce... Yes, quite good, but once some of the planes and tanks start to get taken down, how fast do you think israel can create more? It hardly has an industry to really create much military equipment. In any prolonged war, it would be in a lot of trouble. It has to have the best equipment, so it can lose the least.

Australia? Pffft, their army gets trained by england for gods sake.

I notice I haven't really put forward a list yet. But I won't make a "best" list, I'll make a "best suited to what it is supposed to do for its government" list.

1. Israel
2. Canada
3. Britain
4. France
5. USA
6. Australia
7. North Korea
8. Any given number or EU countries, including Germany
9. Turkey
10. China

Russia doesn't make the cut because it's a pointless ruin that can't keep the country together like it's supposed to (Chechnya), and India will make it on the list but hasn't quite reached it. They're in the process of acquiring a lot of decent stuff though.


Sorry but no other military can strike anywhere in the world at a moments notice with the force the US military can . No other military power on earth can fight wars all over the earth with different nations at different levels of tactical or strategic force at the same time ..and is actually trained to do so .
The US military can not only supply logistics but overwhelming force where and when needed anywhere on the globe.
Now since the US has global commitments and treaty agreements with not only NATO but also in Asia and Soth America and the Middle East...I would have to Rank them first. they are tarined and equiped to anhilate any possible opposing force or forces currently on the planet .
Canada couldnt protect itself from a boatload of soccer hooligans from france..of course I am joking ..a little ..but you would have to really try hard to justify even ranking them .
Israel for such a small force with little or no strategic resourses has to rely on others to keep them supplied and would be in a world of hurt in a prolonged conflict . Just ask them . if you are ranking Quality I give them a top 5 spot .
China for what they need an Army for ..belongs in and deserves second pplace only because Russia has slowly left its armed forces rot on the vine ..but even though they are still formidible enough to rate third..and they have more ability to project force than China...so its a really close third.
The UK is fourth ..they just do not spend the money to be any better than what they are and because of the US and Nato ..need not .
France I rate over NK because France has the ability to fight NK and win ..but the NK army cant do squat but run around in Asia .
Six I give to Vietnam..they kicked China's ass and have to defend against three border countries..not to mention the hard time those tough buggers gave the US.
seven has to belong to India..a well equiped and large military
eight is Pakistan ..they have India to spar with.
ninth place is Iran ..large but not well equiped but they held more than their own against Iraq with little help .
tenth would be the Republic of South Korea..they are still there despite NK being there neighbors .

Also rans are NK and the rest of the EU nations ...Australia has quality but is under strength and underfunded for what they have to do .

I just wanted to mention, as I think you realized by putting israel first on this list, that israel isn't really that powerful, military wise.
Yes, if it was an all-out war one vs the other, that would matter. But Israel has some pretty decent "missile boats", and some extremely decent submarines (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dolphin/) (I know because they're German built...:D ), which is enough to protect its coastline and disrupt any trade or transport in the Eastern Mediterranean. And I hear they're getting those subs upgraded to run on hydrogen fuel cells rather than diesel. Which is completely quiet, and can run two weeks submerged without trouble (the German Navy did that recently (http://www.marine.de/01DB070000000001/CurrentBaseLink/W26P8EDN307INFODE) with theirs).

Sorry but no other military can strike anywhere in the world at a moments notice with the force the US military can .
Note how most countries don't need their militaries to do that. But what the US needs their military to do is to be able to operate in foreign countries without bringing up the entire population against them, which they fail at dismally.

Yes, if it was an all-out war one vs the other, that would matter. But Israel has some pretty decent "missile boats", and some extremely decent submarines (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dolphin/) (I know because they're German built...:D ), which is enough to protect its coastline and disrupt any trade or transport in the Eastern Mediterranean. And I hear they're getting those subs upgraded to run on hydrogen fuel cells rather than diesel. Which is completely quiet, and can run two weeks submerged without trouble (the German Navy did that recently (http://www.marine.de/01DB070000000001/CurrentBaseLink/W26P8EDN307INFODE) with theirs).


Note how most countries don't need their militaries to do that. But what the US needs their military to do is to be able to operate in foreign countries without bringing up the entire population against them, which they fail at dismally.


really now...how do you explain only 150,000 troops in Iraq ? POP 26 MILLION plus..and maybe 20,000 in Afghanistan ?

You seem to be short a few bolts .

You seem to be short a few bolts .
You've never heard of hyperbole, have you.

Fact of the matter is that the US military is great at fighting wars, and very bad at dealing with civilians. I don't think that is sustainable in the modern world.

And besides, I'm not sure there is a less cost-effective military on the planet than the US one. They're throwing money out the window by the bucket loads.

You've never heard of hyperbole, have you.

Fact of the matter is that the US military is great at fighting wars, and very bad at dealing with civilians. I don't think that is sustainable in the modern world.

And besides, I'm not sure there is a less cost-effective military on the planet than the US one. They're throwing money out the window by the bucket loads.


I wish some lands in my yard .

Police deal with civilians . The Army and Marines and other services kill people and blow things up . They anhililate whatever force opposes them ...then they get stuck with babysitting civilians ?

Blame THAT bit on the assholes that decided to use a fighting force for an occupation force. You cant blame the military for assholes in politics..the Military says " Yes Sir " and does its best to get the job done.
And IF they were not doing a very good job under the circumstances ..with only 150,000 troops on the ground in a country of 26 million plus all or most armed....there would be a bunch of dead people ..including American soldiers littering every street in Iraq...never mind elections ..and a constitution ....and an Army and police force...and a budding democracy...they actually stopped killing each other a little and negotiated MORE Sunni's into the government .

surely you err .


I will take my military EVERY day ..thats GOOD at winning wars...thats the job they are supposed to do .

You want to peace and love them to death send some hippy dudes to invade and conquer.

I will take my military EVERY day ..thats GOOD at winning wars...thats the job they are supposed to do .
And I'm saying that it depends on the country you're talking about. Canada doesn't want to win wars.

Many countries want their militaries to be able to stabilise places, secure interests and protect civilians. And I'm arguing that it is perfectly possible for Canada to be able to do that better than the US can fight foreign wars.

Because, let's face it, the US military, despite what you wish, isn't only there to fight wars. It can't be, because with modern war comes peacekeeping, reconstruction and a lot of asymmetric warfare that you can only successfully fight in people's heads. That's not the politicians' fault, that's just how the modern world works.

If you argue that the US Army or Marines aren't good at this, then that is exactly the type of shortcoming I'm talking about which puts the US lower on my list.

Australia is ok militarily. Nothing too fantastic. Our governments have always demonstrated a chronic lack of understanding for what our nation needs to effectively work in the region. Our SAS is second to none though. Their headquarters is only a kilometre away from me and I know a few of them. Nice guys but totally hardcore motherfuckers.

I'm happy that we're finally starting to beef up our navy forces into something respectable. However our airforce is totally dismal and our army is desperately underfunded with a complete lack of adequete armour support. For fuck's sake, my state is flooding the country with money thanks to our huge mining boom + our ability to rob the Chinese blind. We can afford to spend a couple of billion to build a much more effective rapid-strike military.

It's obvious that our role in the region is threefold.

1) Defence of Australia - Given our huge landmass, speed and effeciency are a must here. We can't field large armies so we need to have a powerful navy and an airforce that has exceptional range. I'm becoming less and less certain that the F-35s are up to the job.

2) Maintaining regional order - Though it seems kinda arrogant to say it, we are the stablest and most economically powerful nation in the region. We need to be able to project ourselves across reasonable distances to deal with local problems such as the Solomons, East Timor, Fiji etc. We're already pretty good at this with our Hercules Transports and the like, but a navy which can project would be really handy.

3) Rapid Response to Humanitarian Crisis - Australia has demonstrated an excellent abilty to respond to humanitarian disasters. More effecient supply lines and better transports, such as GOOD helicopters would make us that much better.

However, I do think people underestimate China totally, They are updating thier military to the extreme. Not only with new technology, but better training, and better strategy. The extreme numbers do help though if things backfire.

And, I beleive everyone is putting technology a little to far. Technology can only go so far, but it can fail, and it can malfunction, and it does. Can your soldiers operate with out it? and just because you have better technology, doesnt mean you automaticly win as some nerds think. The US had 100x the technology of the Vietnamese and were bloodgened real good in vietnam, same story in Iraq wether US wins or not, the insurgents still made us bleed with bieng the underdog in technology.

This is basically a throwback to the quantity versus quality debate. The US does not only have superior military technology in more widespread implementation, it also has the capability to project that technology and use to the greatest advantage. I find it interesting that for all the Chinese are "upgrading," the size of their military (close to 4 million, including reserves) and their overall military expennditures (something like 42 billion USD) do not compare to that of the US (3 million with reserves, 400 billion USD). Granted, China doesn't pay its soldiers as much as the US, but this highlights an important point that the money has to be going toward something. And in the US, its training, arms and improving overall quality. Which is something no other nation in the world can compare to (on the scale of the US military in its entirety--specialized forces notwithstanding, and Israel as well, considering their constant state of war with their neighbors).
Further, the US was not "bludgeoned" in Vietnam, except by the population and the press. Same with Iraq. Although Iraq is more of a strategic issue than a tactical one--the brass and leadership (armchair generals like Rumsfeld) kinda botched the whole thing by failing to prepare for a long-term occupation (if you'll remember, the first part of the war in which Saddam was toppled went like clockwork and virtually without a single flaw).

One of the big problems in the US military is that they watch too many Hollywood movies about themselves. The attitude in the senior staff is that MOOTWa (Military Operations Other Than War) is for pussies. It’s machismo over professionalism and it’s not very smart, considering they’re stuck in a crap hole of insurgency for their philosophy, poor planning, and White House micromanagement. It works great if all you ever do is fight pitched battles and invade people, but it means you suck at soldiering in the post Cold War era. The US could learn a lot from the UK troops. You can’t call the UK soldiers pussies but at least they know how to operate around civilians and deal with the natives.

Haha, that Wiki list is fantastic...Russia has 21000+ tanks. Holy guagamoly. However, the state of the Russian Army is rather miserable due to lack of funding and morale. SPETZNAZ can probably kick some ass...but as we've all witnessed in Beslan, in a rather brutal than accurate way. :(

As for the technology issue, military experts outside the States often argue the advanced technologies as a weak point in the US Army. In siutations like Iraq it might help as manuvers are quick and support is good. However, in a prolonged war scenario with multiple fronts and a enemy capable of interrupting supply lines (yes there are such countries...as China per example) technology might very well work against the US troops. A mixture of simplistic training and complete reliance on technology has led to a shocking friendly fire record (ask British Gulf war veterans about it).

I don't think you can just say best = y. It all depends on the war scenario. Alltogether USA, China and the Brits are probably strongest. However, I'd want to see anybody invade Israel.

Costa Rico #1!

Haha, that Wiki list is fantastic...Russia has 21000+ tanks. Holy guagamoly. However, the state of the Russian Army is rather miserable due to lack of funding and morale. SPETZNAZ can probably kick some ass...but as we've all witnessed in Beslan, in a rather brutal than accurate way. :(

As for the technology issue, military experts outside the States often argue the advanced technologies as a weak point in the US Army. In siutations like Iraq it might help as manuvers are quick and support is good. However, in a prolonged war scenario with multiple fronts and a enemy capable of interrupting supply lines (yes there are such countries...as China per example) technology might very well work against the US troops. A mixture of simplistic training and complete reliance on technology has led to a shocking friendly fire record (ask British Gulf war veterans about it).

I don't think you can just say best = y. It all depends on the war scenario. Alltogether USA, China and the Brits are probably strongest. However, I'd want to see anybody invade Israel.

A number of countries could do it, in the long run:

Blockade israel, using all available airpower and SAM's to defend the ships

Wear down the israeli airforce. It can't replace that, not within any managable timeframe, especially blockaded.

Get sufficient air superiority(Numbers of decent technology, european/american would do it), then bombard for a while.

The rest is really gulf war style. Israel has a great airforce, but a puny ability to replenish it.

I don't think you can just say best = y. It all depends on the war scenario. Alltogether USA, China and the Brits are probably strongest. However, I'd want to see anybody invade Israel.

Invading Israel would be tough, although it might be the only thing that could unite the Palestinians and Jewish populations. Unite to savagely attack someone else for a change that is.

Biggest: China, hands down.
Best: Not sure actually..The US one, for all of it's flaws, is still a world benchmark, while some European nations have armies that seem good, but are untested, like the Poles..so I'm currently undecided.

Bringin this thread back...

Biggest: China, hands down.
Troop wise, of course. Not budget wise, a realm in which the US military takes the price a dozen times over. And even at that, size means something, but not much in military affairs. After all, 300 Spartans held over 100,000 Persians for days at Thermopylae.

I think the biggest problem for the British army is the inept handling by the goverment of things like logistics. "Hey lets not give our front line troops bodyarmour before we enter a war." or not rebuilding Afghanstain or deciding tht at sending two woman with a weird motviational film involving dolphins and whales is going to appease the elders. However we do seem to be pretty good at occupation and our forces do have a good repuation.

Is the USA so deserving of the high rankings given it? It has a repuation for freindly fire and in Iraq, killed more of the British forces then the Iraqi's did. The bombing of the Red Cross, the tank blowing up the journlitsts hotel, civilian casulties, I do expect a good army to not kill more of their allies then the enenmy managed. USA has the numbers and the supplies but do they have the training, the skill required?

Like it or not, warfare adapts as does the army role and now the milatry have to act as a peace keeping force. Any time an ally has to go "We are not American" to appease the occupied, there is a problem with said American army. Helps if you don't go running over goats repeatdly when the British are trying a hearts and minds operation. Iraq... well civilian deaths, no matter how few, and then massacres is a big no no.

I don't know why anyone would think any country even comes close the United States in military strength. It is so far past any other country.

I would list it in this order from top to bottom:

USA
Great Britian
Isreal
China
India
France
Germany
Russia
South Korea
Pakistan?