India/Pakista/Turkey Military Rankings

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   
very few people on this forum (or anywhere else for that matter) will commend a post that has their country ranked a bit lower than what they feel it should be..

THe post is about turkey , India and Pakistan..
The guy still hasn't answered WHY he had a tough time ranking these three??!!

Also Each military is adjusted to suit its terrain..
So while India may not have that much of a difficulty adjusting to temperate climate, other "not so globally endowned " countries may have problems adjusting to climates which are not prevalent anywhere on their soil..




posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   
prelude, quality list and I apologize if I came off as offensive. I am used to being numero uno on the message boards that I frequent. I guess I was caught off guard (being beligerant) when I was confronted with posters that seem to know more than I about certain military inquiries.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 05:51 AM
link   
my counter-post. already posted


Originally posted by prelude
6 China
Reason : a rising Economy but too much over estimated


WTF. how can you under-estimate the worlds second largest economy PPP and the country with the second largest money reserves.?



pros : economy
a big man power
reverse engineering
Cons
lack of war resources most importantly OIL
reverse engineering
lack of indigenous technology and too much dependence on Russia


more pros. 2nd largest GDP in PPP and 6th in Nominal.
worlds second largest money reserves.
3rd largest RnD spender.
huge amount of indegenious technology.
Large population
advanced IT manufracturing.
90-99% of chinese population educated.
very high growth economy




Originally posted by prelude


5 India
Reason : they are a rising military power
Pros : a good pool of talented population
a developing indigenous medium tech military industry
a big man power


these arent good reasons.



these are all the quailtys china already has. + more(a lot more)

[edit on 30-7-2005 by chinawhite]



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   
you always get your nickers in a twist when anyone gives India a shimmy over china.. Its oh soo predictable..



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Very interesting question. I'd say their all dangerous due to there nuclear capability. Perhap's Turkey would rank one, as their WMD are US Designed and Built. There is not a second.

Dallas



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   
ahem... rather incorrect I would say..

Even Pakistan packs more of a punch than Turkey.. and I doubt there are any nukes in turkey anymore..
Wasn't that one of the pre-requisites of the Bay of Pigs solution??
Kennedy withdraw the jupiter missiles from turkey and Krushchev withdraws his from cuba..

Anyways.. Turkey is weird.. It allows its soil to be used for american imperialsim and at the same time cribs abt hitler comparisions..

Lets take a look a the Turkish forces shall we?

AF:
Good Read www.scramble.nl...

The highlights are F-16 Ds and some upgraded phantoms called the F-4E 2020 (Terminator).. IMO something like the MiG-21 Bisons..
Then a few AH-1s and a few T-38s/T-41s..

Compare it to the PAF and the IAF:

www.scramble.nl...
www.scramble.nl...

The Turkish AF surprisingly looks comparable to the PAF, although with the PAF set to receive 70 odd F-16s (blk 50), they seem to have the edge

The IAF is a class above both of the above in terms of numbers and type of a/c as well
However training and skill levels may be comparable..



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Let me play stupid and play not up with recent times (post 1963). Turkey's part of NATO (for now) and has held nuclear ground to ground weapons for some 44 years.

Their bullish attitude in Iraq had to do with their hatred of the Kurds (respectful people trying to run their own little piece of the sand).
But they ok'd bush's request to stay out of the assault at a cost of no-sea landing and no fly over of their territory.

But Turkey's still part of NATO and still posses Minuteman Missles. Aimed a different way these days but doesn't matter, as with Russia, it only takes a quick re-alignment.

Turkey offsets anything Pakistan or India has recently proved at least flys and can be detonated.

Dallas



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   
hmm.. didn't know that.. But I'm sure Turkey doesn't control these minutemen now does it?
Hell.. thatway we got some tactical nukes in South Korea as well aye?
We can't talk abt them when mention "south Korea's military prowess" now can we?
When one talks about nuclear states one mentions:
US, Russia,China,UK,France,India,Pakistan..
and the maybes are Israel(IMHO they got em'), North Korea, Iran

Now where does Turkey figure in all this??
And NATO doesn't play into a miltary comparision of coutnreis now does it??

As for what you said about stuff that "flies" and that "Turkey can match or better anything India/Pakistan has" I presume you're refering to those minutemen again right?
Because as far as AFs go I see the IAF defnitely (and now the PAF too) superior to Turkey..

Also note that both India and Pakistan ballistic missles can reach most of turkey except say Istanbul..



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   
There are atlest 20 threads on the top 10 best list, x country v/s y country, top 4/3/2 ..... etc etc etc.

IMO such threads must be prohibited.


Mods, are you listening.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   
you people are severely underestimating Japans military power along with Germany, Japan right now is probably at least the 8th strongest power, along with Germany at 6th-8th strongest power. Japan is limited to 7% on military spending, however that 7% for the second most powerful economy in the world has grown to become larger than many countries whole budgets combined, the same thing for germany. plus although japan doesn't have any resources, they are very desciplined and if required would get the resources they need at any cost, just like in WWII. as for germany, they're the same as japan, except with more resources more political and media coverage, and are able to get so creative and intellegent and can create some great technology if actually hassled, just like what happened in WWII, Germany was the most advanced power all throughout the war except the soviet union definitly had better numbers.

anyhow i don't think Germany and japan should be underestimated. also russia has the largest Armed forces(tanks, tools, other machinery, artillery, etc.) in the world, all thorughout the cold war, NATO ha dtrouble finding a way to stop Soviet tanks from swarming europe, and many of those Soviet tanks went to the hands of the russian successors, along with the largest ammount of nuclear warheads and tonnage in the world, even the US doesn't have enough to match russia. however russia has a sloppy corrupt economy and many of it's military is hardly maintained, so it's not active, however in a time of war i'm telling you, russia has the resources, the nationalism and patriotism, and the manpower to defend itself and defeat any natin in a defensive war, and maybe even a offensive war if the population is helpful, or a stalin-like man would rise to power.

as for France and the UK, it is hard to tell who is better, but i think i would put France first, as it is the command post of NATO and by being that, it gained a large ammount of troops and so from the US and aid from the US, and right now if there was to bea soviet attack France would probably be the one to be relied on to defend continental europe, of course along with the US. however since WWII, France has taken a peaceful approach to things and that slows it's military down. as for the UK, it has a very good arsenal, along with a good economy, and traditional culture, military prowess, etc.

as for india and china, i think china is better, it has the fastest growing economy, a rather stalin-style communism which allows it to draw troops against the will of the people and the people are themselves very patriotic and nationalistic. China also has i believe strong leadership, and it's military is rather more advanced than many other nations, and it's obviously up to par technologically speaking if it goes against any of it's neighbourse in Asia including russia. however it's lack of technological prowess and advancement when compared to the west, narrows it's potential, but it's very large Armed forces and infantry paints an impressive and powerful image. China's nuclear weapons are a good adition, although not a large stockpile, but good enough, and like russia, china's immense size can always win a defensive war in it's present condition, but also like russia not always an offensive one.

as for India it's economy is fastly growing, it's armed forces, like china, is one of the largest in the world, however as many said, it's shortaege of resources, especailly OIL, can make it very culnerable. nevertheless, India has most of the good things and the bad things that china has, except a nationalistic population, and of course it's not a communist governement, anyhow technologically it's also not so good, not as good as china at least, but it's better than her neighbours except of course for china and russia.

here my list:

1.USA(of course)
2.russia(inactive, but there)
3.China(has a lotta troops)
4.France
5.china
6.UK
7-8. germany+Japan
9-10. Iran/Vietnam/Turkey(take another pick



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   
My recent effort to rate various Navy's anti-ship missiles - albeit only a tiny segment of a wider picture - have led me to look at lots of military data and consequently re-evaluate my estimation of what country ranks where.

The first thing I've realised is that nuclear weapons are the ultimate equilizer, particularly ICBMs. That is why countries like North Korea, Israel, India, Pakistan, Iran and no doubt a few others are soooo concerned about joining the nuclear club.

It is obvious that USA has the most military might, both nuclear and conventional. BUT with their ICBMs other nuclear countries are capable of DESTROYING the fabric of the USA in mutually assured destruction. The effects of nuclear war on human life, is so scary it isn't nice to ponder - Chenobyl (?spelt?) showed us that even a localised nuclear exchange can have consequencies globally.

So the ICBM powers are undeniably the top and are essentially EQUAL in absolute might: beyond landing a single ICBM on a US city any notion of the US "winning" a nuclear war is moot - there are no winners.

1: USA, CIS (Russia), UK, France, China.

Next come the other nuclear powers who even if they don't have global reach are still capable of sufficient nuclear deterent to make full scale war unthinkable:

2: India, Pakistan, Israel. (note: all three could join the top five if they were able to deploy nuclear warheaded land attack missiles on their conventional subs as Israel is rumored to have done).


Beyond that we have to look at conventional power. Although US inevitably comes out tops, a closer look reveals that most countries have an unbalanced military might - stronger in certain areas than others. For example Japan has incredible naval might in terms of warships and aircraft, but completely lacks the aircraft carriers* and/or cruise missiles needed to project that power far beyond her shores to anything like the same degree as Spain, even though Spain has far fewer "good" warships etc.



*Trivia: Japan does have an aircraft carrier but it isn't described as such for political reasons and Japan doesn't have any VTOL jets so cannot use it for launching fighter planes. But if Japan bought F-35s or AV-8s - or UCAVS - it could be a credible power projection asset



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Could you source some info on the Japanese carrier bit?
Also maybe you need to re-work the number of SS-N-27 missiles India can launch from sub/surface platforms.

Here's another excerpt from the same source I quoted in the India vs. Pakistan Navies thread:



In December 2001, India Defence Consultants reported that up to 200 Klub ASCMs are being supplied for the Sindhugosh Class submarines being refitted and for the future needs for the Project 17 Class frigate and the Bangalore Class destroyers.
Source


Actually, you know what..I do a bit of analysis of my own and put up pics/missile details on the IN vs. PN thread this weekend

Don't bother..or maybe you could research a little more on the PN capabilities in terms missiles etc.. unless you're already on some other project of sorts!!

The amt of data you churn out is mind boggling..



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
you always get your nickers in a twist when anyone gives India a shimmy over china.. Its oh soo predictable..


Espically when its not true

Heres your japanese carrier Osumi Class



--------

Is india getting Club-N for its ships now?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   
When considering military might in an all out war scenario you should remember that EU countries are so economically connected that if one of them goes into a full scale war rest will have to make sure it ends fast either by diplomacy or by assisting with military power.

Combined power of 25 EU countries is quite mighty, especially if you count in trained reserves. (even small countries like Finland can gather 400 000 trained men in a matter of days), and countries like Germany, France, Poland etc can gather much more men.

My list would be

1.USA
2.EU
3.Russia
4.China
5.India
6.Pakistan/Koreas...


PS. Poland has quite a military too



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
My top 10.

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

I am only ranking the 10 largest militaries in the world. These country's represent 1-10 in size. My basis is on a combination of the size, how well equipped and trained the military is, and the quality of leadership and experience in their respective armed forces. It should be noted the only reason the UK scores lower than the others is due to the UK being in a rebuild cycle, recently retiring several older systems as new systems are in the process of being brought online.

I have to rank Israel 3rd, I mean think about it objectively, Israel has mobilized their half million man reserve in a matter of weeks and had them ready for all out war. If you gave contries like Germany and France a year, could they really do it? Probably not without a major labor strike or two, and that isn't a joke either.

In terms of the specific question:

I would put India one, Turkey second, and Pakistan a close third. There are several factors.

India has the fourth most deployed and experienced military in the world, behind the US, UK, and Israel. Most people probably don't pay attention, but India provides more troops to the UN than any other nation, and has developed deployment capabilities to reflect that reality. This has the doubled effect of combat experience and deployment action, and combined with the incredible pace of multi-national training exercises the Indian Defense branches maintain, places them very high. In terms of personal, India has the 3rd largest military in the world behind the US and China.

Turkey has legendary leadership capability at the small unit level, and has a tradition of excellence regarding their military. It should be pointed out that Turkey has the largest military of any European country except Russia, and has very modern equipment. Due to tradition and leadership, which is a major edge for Turkey, I would rank Turkey higher than Pakistan.

Pakistan has the seventh largest military in the world, but does not have modern equipment for all its troops. Pakistan also has a questionable track record of leadership success, with limited success in Naval and Air Force capability during times of war. The sheer size of Pakistans Army however deserves much respect, and with an improving economy, assuming they can overcome the dead-enders living in their mtns, is on solid foundation for modernization and improvement.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
IMO when ranking military's one should look at the amount of force a country can project and how well they can fight a defensive war, then of course weapons, training, logistics, supply, leadership, intelligence, and all the other essentials are a must. I don't place too much value on raw numbers alone, especially in this day and age. By my system I would not place North Korea for example over the UK.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   
i'll stick to my own list, i mean no country can defeat ,in a defensive war, russia, china, or india, not in war games, not in real life either. the US has the best trained army in the world, best equipped, but it's dwarfed in size by the Chinese military, china has like 100million or so army, along with tanks aircraft, and everything else, and it's communist style government can allow it to draft douible or triple that ammount of troops, along with controlled economy, it can mobilize the country quickly and start pumping out planes and tanks, much like the soviet union in WWII. as for india it can easily do the same, excet it can mobilize as much and can't draft as much.

so my list is right here:

1.USA
2.Russia, nukes and tanks play a vital role
3.China
4.India
5.France
6.Germany
7.Japan
8.UK
9.Iran
10.Vietnam/N.Korea/S.Korea/Israel(take a pick!)



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Not really, the US military which currently has 1,420,000 personnel was ranked second in the world behind China which currently has 2,255,000 personnel. Again, China cannot train, equip, support, etc...100 Million men, that’s some fantasy which has no basin in reality. A few million reserves and or draftees I can accept but 100 million or above is not realistic. And any country in an all out war can impose conscription it does not matter if it is communist or not, during WWII 60% of all US servicemen were draftees. Same goes for the economic situation, basically any large nation with large reserves and a developed and flexible economy can do all of the above. And any large developed county would be hard to beat in a defensive war, but not impossible, occupation howler is a whole different ballgame.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite


Espically when its not true

Heres your japanese carrier Osumi Class



--------



Baahh!!
That's a heli carrier. The Japanese are going to use that for F-35s?
VTOL F-35s?



Is India getting Club-N for its ships now?


India already has Klub-N for some of its surface vessels namely the
Talwar(Krivak III) frigates in the form a single 8 cell Launcher. However these are reported to be replaced/complemented by PJ-10 Brahmos missiles.
I am currently trying to do a in-depth analysis of the IN fleet in terms of missiles and seeing if that matches up to what planeman came up with. Will post the same with pics by this weekend hopefully.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
ok lets say china can operate 10million troops at one time, now tell do you really think the US can support 15million troops to occupy china and defeat the chinese army. you see it is definitly impossible to beat china or russia or india, unless somehow you trun the army against the country, and that is rather hard in a country like India, China, or Russia. those people are nationalistic, patriotic, and loyal to thier country and proud of it.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join