Top 4 most powerful military's

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   
I recently found a site that has this info on world military's. Does anyone have any differing opinions? The UK seems to be too high in the ranking? And where is Turkey or Israel?

United States
Army: 7900 Tanks (M1-A1) Navy: 74 Subs, 12 Carriers, 27 Cruisers, 52 Destroyers, 35 Frigates, & 21 Patrol Boats Air Force:3533 Combat AircraftAtomic Weapons Cap.
United Kingdom
Army: 2500 Tanks (Challenger 1&2(Best Tank In Nato)) Navy: 20 Subs, 4 Carriers, 25 Frigates, & 23 Patrol Boats Air Force: 800 Combat Aircraft Atomic Weapons Cap.
China
Army: 7000 Battle Tanks(old russian tanks most do not work or do not have spare parts) Est. 1500 working Navy: 65 subs (most not working), 20 destroyers (most old U.S or Russian most might work), 40 Frigates (Old U.S, Russian, May Work) and 368 Patrol (Small Not Heavly Armed) Air Force: 3000 Combat Aircraft (Old Soviet Aircraft, No spare parts, Out-Of-Date) Atomic Weapons Cap.
Russia Fed.
Army: 21,820 Tanks (Most If Not All Do Not work(need spare parts)) Navy: (Most Vessels Do Not work or are too old to run or be effective) 67 Subs, 1 Carrier, 7 Crusiers, 10 Frigates, 108 Patrol Boats (Not heavly Armed) Air Force: 1500 Combat Aircraft (not many trained pilots, some do not work or need spare parts, Most old Soviet Aircraft this information on it




posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Ive also found some more info from a different site it states:

Which country on the planet has the most powerful armed forces? It's not a matter of numbers, although that's a major factor. It's more a matter of other things that are not often discussed.

By size (number of troops), the top ten nations looks like this;

China
United States
India
Korea, North
Russia
Korea, South
Pakistan
Israel
Turkey
Iran

But anyone who has studied military history knows that the number of troops is a misleading measure. There are several factors that make the troops of one army more effective than others. The most obvious modifying factor is weapons and equipment (quantity and quality). Closely related to this are the “combat support” elements. The most important of these are logistics (being able to move troops, and their supplies, long distances and in a timely manner) and maintenance (keeping things in repair and running under all conditions.) Then there are the intangibles (like leadership, training and the most intangible item of all; military tradition.) Apply all of those to the raw number of troops and you get different number. This number is called "combat power."

Top Ten By Combat Power

United States
China
Israel
India
Russia
Korea, South
Korea, North
United Kingdom
Turkey
Pakistan

The most unusual entry here is Israel. But this is because Israel is one of the few nations to have a reserve army that can be mobilized for action more quickly than most countries can get their active duties into shape for combat. The mobilized Israeli armed forces number over half a million troops. In addition, the Israelis have world class equipment and weapons, as well as exceptional intangibles. The downsize of this is that mobilizing its armed forces also cripples the Israeli economy. Under these conditions, Israel must conduct a war that ends within a few months. After that, supplying the armed forces becomes difficult and actual combat power begins to decline.

The other nations in the top ten have large armed forces that are well equipped and trained, at least compared to most nations farther down on the list. Britain’s armed forces, like Israel’s, are better equipped, trained and more experienced than most. Turkey benefits from having a strong military tradition and excellent leadership at the small unit level, as well as good combat training.

Overall, the U.S. combat power is about three times that of second place China, and ten times that of tenth place Pakistan. But another modifying factor is how you plan to use that combat power. Wars are not fought in a vacuum, but in places that often inconvenient places for one side. Most armed forces are optimized for fighting on their own borders; for defending the homeland. Only the United States is capable of quickly moving lots of combat power to anywhere on the planet. Moreover, given a few months, the United States can put enough combat power just about anywhere, and become the major military force in that neighborhood. Countries like Britain and France can move some forces to just about anywhere on the planet. But no one can put forces anywhere quite like the United States.

For most nations with powerful armed forces, it's mainly a matter of having the most formidable military force in the neighborhood.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
actually most of chinas tanks are working. the T-59 and T-69 /T-79 share a lot of the same parts.

and there is a extensive upgrade program

and china has 72 submarines.

24 destroyers(BTW these designs are all indegenious)

heres links to tanks/army
www.globalsecurity.org...

airforce
www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Your stats on Russia Airforce's operational Planes are wrong 98% of our Planes are FULLY operational.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:40 AM
link   
I didnt know the turkish army was that powerfull, I just thought they had lots of men. I have to say the turkish millitairy is very experienced thanks to the pkk attacks.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:43 AM
link   
OK, it seem realistic to mee...



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Your stats on Russia Airforce's operational Planes are wrong 98% of our Planes are FULLY operational.


With Russia's bad ecomny how do you plan to put the planets in full operational? it cost a lot to put your 1500 aircraft in full operational.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Your stats on Russia Airforce's operational Planes are wrong 98% of our Planes are FULLY operational.


Really, SiberianTiger?
Read this?
Reality Check: Russian Defense Minister says Russian Army Could Not Wage War

This?
RUSSIA'S CRUMBLING MILITARY

Or this?
Russia's Air Force: An Institution in Painful Transition

Or how about this mention from a Venik's Russian military site?


The flying hours for 2000 averaged 20 hours for the 37th Air Army, 20 hours for Frontal Aviation and approximately 44 hours for the 61st Air Army. According to Major General Dimitry Morozov, in 2000 less than 5,000 aircraft were `serviceable' (capable of being maintained and repaired), with operational strength at approximately 4,000 aircraft and helicopters. Of all serviceable aircraft, about 35 per cent are actually used, the rest being idled to save on airframe, engine and equipment stress. Only 20 per cent of the air force is said to be 'modern'. Problems are so serious that this once formidable air force is believed to be incapable of dealing with two large-scale strategic missions simultaneously. The outlook is particularly bleak for Frontal Aviation, where only 54 per cent of the front-line fleet is serviceable, and the 61st Air Army (the transport fleet) where 50 per cent of the fleet is serviceable. The lack of flying hours and maintenance may explain the air force's deteriorating safety record. In the first six months of 2000, accident rates increased threefold from the first six months of 1999. During the 1980s, the accident rate averaged one emergency every 26,000 hours. By 1999-2000 this had risen to one accident every 12,000-13,000 hours. In addition to the funding, personnel, aircraft and maintenance crisis, the RFAF is having to cope with inadequate ground support structures. The Air Traffic Control (ATC) system is decrepit, and airfield lighting is operating in `emergency conditions' in 40 per cent of cases. Combined with the poor training of many pilots and ground crews, the lack of spare parts and the often erratic performance of ground-control systems, the state of the air force has been seriously degraded.

Current State of the Russian Air Force

More can be found.
Your assertion, SiberianTiger, is quite unfounded.





seekerof

[edit on 5-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   



24 destroyers(BTW these designs are all indegenious)



world know the reality chinkom


that why you need explanation everywhere


[edit on 5-7-2005 by mirza2003]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
As per 2002 figures, India is the world's third largest army.

But as per 2005 figures, India is the world's second largest army.

And now everyone carries one of these : www.ncoretech.com...

[edit on 5-7-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
its not too hard to link nationality with posts in this thread....



my .02 is the US has so much recent experience in battlefield communications, logistics, transportation, support, that we would have an almost insurmountable advantage in the early stages of any war.

what does that mean ?

by the time any nation knew the fight was on, their military communications and utilities in their biggest cities would be smoldering heaps of rubble, and their generals would be waiting for orders while our 2nd phase kicks in.....

[edit on 5-7-2005 by syrinx high priest]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uk_United
I recently found a site that has this info on world military's. Does anyone have any differing opinions? The UK seems to be too high in the ranking? And where is Turkey or Israel?

United States
Army: 7900 Tanks (M1-A1) Navy: 74 Subs, 12 Carriers, 27 Cruisers, 52 Destroyers, 35 Frigates, & 21 Patrol Boats Air Force:3533 Combat AircraftAtomic Weapons Cap.
United Kingdom
Army: 2500 Tanks (Challenger 1&2(Best Tank In Nato)) Navy: 20 Subs, 4 Carriers, 25 Frigates, & 23 Patrol Boats Air Force: 800 Combat Aircraft Atomic Weapons Cap.
China
Army: 7000 Battle Tanks(old russian tanks most do not work or do not have spare parts) Est. 1500 working Navy: 65 subs (most not working), 20 destroyers (most old U.S or Russian most might work), 40 Frigates (Old U.S, Russian, May Work) and 368 Patrol (Small Not Heavly Armed) Air Force: 3000 Combat Aircraft (Old Soviet Aircraft, No spare parts, Out-Of-Date) Atomic Weapons Cap.
Russia Fed.
Army: 21,820 Tanks (Most If Not All Do Not work(need spare parts)) Navy: (Most Vessels Do Not work or are too old to run or be effective) 67 Subs, 1 Carrier, 7 Crusiers, 10 Frigates, 108 Patrol Boats (Not heavly Armed) Air Force: 1500 Combat Aircraft (not many trained pilots, some do not work or need spare parts, Most old Soviet Aircraft this information on it


MBT wise, the US has 5,017 Abrams. 4,796 are in the US Army and 221 are in the USMC.




2500 Tanks (Challenger 1&2(Best Tank In Nato))


Wrong on both accounts. There are about only 386 Challenger II's in service, and last time I checked, the Challenger I was taken out of service. And the Abrams is the best tank in NATO, but not by much.

[edit on 5-7-2005 by Hockeyguy567]

[edit on 5-7-2005 by Hockeyguy567]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Hockeyguy567, source please


Thanks

sporty



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I dunno, but this link gives different figures :

3,273 M1 tanks were produced for the US Army.
77 M1A2 tanks have been built for the US Army.

www.army-technology.com...



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
I dunno, but this link gives different figures :

3,273 M1 tanks were produced for the US Army.
77 M1A2 tanks have been built for the US Army.

www.army-technology.com...





4,796 M1A1 tanks were built for the US Army, 221 for the US Marines and 555 co-produced with Egypt.


Read it again, Stealth Spy.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
Hockeyguy567, source please


Thanks

sporty


www.military.com... m1a1&cat=g&lev=2

Inventory:
U.S. Army: 4,796
U.S. Marine Corps: 221



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Hockeyguy567, zdrastvutye
atkuda vy? shto strana?
Spaseba!



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I would say chinathey could woop our buts with so many troops



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
The most important fighter that we need are MiG 25-31's, Su-27-33's, Tu-22-160's Ground attack Su-24-25's, other less important ones are MiG 27's so those figures you guys gave are 1996 and 2001's figs DUDE a wwhhhoolllee lot has change scince then man, heres the figures for operational Aircraft 1. Su-27=400, warfare.ru... 2. Su-33= 52 warfare.ru... 3. MiG-25= 232 warfare.ru... 4. MiG-29's= 455 warfare.ru... 5. MiG-31's = 325 warfare.ru... NOW lesser important Fighters 6. MiG-23's= 635 warfare.ru... Now "Fighter/Bombers" 7. MiG-27's= 253 8. Su-24's= 577 www.abovetopsecret.com... 9. Su-25's= 262 warfare.ru... Now we Strategic Bombers (I will only list the most important ones) 1. Tu-22's= 265 warfare.ru... 2. Tu-160 this site says 12 but scince 2004 the total now in 17 warfare.ru...



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Your stats on Russia Airforce's operational Planes are wrong 98% of our Planes are FULLY operational.




Carefully put down your copy of Pravda and put the cap on the bottle of glue.

AT best you are looking at 80% and that in light of the massive downsizing that has occured.



In June 1998, about half way through the downsizing, approximately 600 aircraft had been released for international sale, including MiG-23s, MiG-27s, Su-22s, L-39s and transports. Older SAMs, such as S-125 and S-200 were also put on the market. The reduction in the number of aircraft improved mission capable rates to to 80% -- previously, it was estimated to be 45-50% for long-range aviation, 40-50% for frontal aviation, 60-65% for storm aviation and 40% for fighters.
www.fas.org...


ANd what of the Navy? Lets take a look at the pride of the Russian surface fleet shall we?



On 23 March 2004 Russia's navy chief reportedly said that the nuclear-powered Peter the Great missile cruiser, was in such dire condition that it could "explode at any moment" - only to backtrack on his statement a few hours later. Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov said the massive cruiser had been badly maintained and could "explode any moment", adding that "it's especially dangerous because it has a nuclear reactor".
www.globalsecurity.org...


[edit on 7/5/05 by FredT]





 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join