Countries Ranked by Military Strength (2016)

[Great Sachin]

@dadeechi
As per my opinion top ten best armed forces list will be like that....
1 USA
2. Russia
3. China
4. UK
5. France
6. Turkey
7. Pakistan
8. Germany
9. Italy
10. UAE

I did't include India because they did't deserve any ranking.

I thought Pakistan is No 1

 

[anas_nurhafidz]

This is just... Big bullshit

Don't believe this

 

[Great Sachin]

True rank vs observable rank are two very different metric. What I mean by that is most military, especially the world powers, hide their true weapons and capabilities. These ranks are mostly based on speculative quantity and quality that is not easily access by a third party. For instance, we get penalized for not having solider abroad. This has nothing to do with our capabilities but it is a matter of political will and determination.

I like to rank country purely based on a head-to-head match. For this China/Russia can be interchangeable. If a war is fought between China/Russia, it is likely difficult to see a winner. We can certainly chunk out more weaponry and in the long run, I feel we can defeat Russia. Of course we assume no nuke is used. Russia will defeat us in battle, but the war is won by industrial might and manpower. It is similar to Nazi losing to the Red Army.

I think the Britain and France can defeat India force without much issues. India is known to have a lot of weapons systems and ammunition, but these are fixed numbers. It will run out eventually. Though, a prolong war, India will likely have an advantage. I like to think of in this scenrio. If Britain/France doesn't defeat India in one year, then they are likely to lose. Germany is also a country with a lot of potential if they want to revive Reich. If they do, they could easily been #4 behind USA/China/Russia. Japan could have a tie with Britain. So in a real war match-up or called it potential real strength if you will. I would rank...

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

I kinda agree with this ranking...economy should also be important factor

 

[ito]

You know me. I'm not a bias person by nature. I always speak the truth and has nothing against India.

Yeh, if it is in your dream. You just not a strong industrial power right now. I admit, you are like us in WWII in which you lack the industrial might to produce weapons to fight but has a lot of potential in manpower and strategic depth (land and resources) to prolong that can tire out any opponents.


I like to think of scenario where the war is fought on neutral country where both sides bring their stuff and just fought it out. All of their stuff and resources and see who win.


Not Israel. They are too small. Their force is design for defense. Lbs for lbs, it might have been a different story.

I don't have any thing to say if it is your personal opinion. But facts can be quite different from opinions. The rankings done by GFP are based on hard facts.

 

[dadeechi]

I wonder what would be the ranking if we just take the motivation and skill of the armies to fight discounting the technology, money and political power.

Where does Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Pakistan, Israel stand in such listing? Who will make it to the top 15 in such listing.

 

[911]

I wonder what would be the ranking if we just take the motivation and skill of the armies to fight discounting the technology, money and political power.

Where does Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Pakistan, Israel stand in such listing? Who will make it to the top 15 in such listing.

I know where you are taking this

Would like to know as well

 

[BordoEnes]

This list is based on quantity without taking into account to quality and overal effectiveness of an armed forces. The Mexican armed forces is extremely corrupt and lacks competitive equipment compared to lets say... Spain. Thus i think this list doesnt actually represents the true capabilities of an armed forces.

The motto of the site itself is "Strength in Numbers".

 

[untitled]

Then pull your head out of where ever it's stuck and give Kongsberg a look.


We also have more combat experience then Sweden who's only war in the last 100 years was fought against puberty.

but they have IKEA...

 

[Bornubus]

Why do these list includes India as a top military power ?

Its not because of growing $2 trillion economy or operating thousands of tanks,jets and nuclear subs but because of Men and their achievement on the ground.

Indian armed forces has one of the best warriors of mother earth sometimes called martial races.

1.Rajput,Jat,Sikh,Ahir,Gurkha,Gujjar,Madrasi (old term for entire south),Naga,Gujjar Khatri and small communityof Hindustani Musalman etc are form bulk of our armed forces.

2.Talking about militiray culture and experience,it goes back to thousands of years where Europeans fight with stones Indian had Iron weapons.Also the experience of fighting from Greeks,Mongols,Arabs to Nazi Germany.

3.There is virtually no place on earth where Indian army didn't fight (barring South or America) in ww 1 and ww o2 from the dessert of Africa,Palestine ,Iraq to to Malaysia oand Burma also lot of men died fighting in Europe,in 1962 jawans fought till last man last bullet with vintage rifles and no winter clothing, they never mass Surrendered.


4.we designed our own Training methods,institutes and training school like Jungle warfare school,HAWS and different battle school where every major military comes to train with Indian army in US army on yearly basis.

Lastly our result says it all taking siachen,turtok and Kargil (1971),IPKF mission in Lanka for 3 years,UN peacekeeping and successfully containing the insurgency.

The reason why Russia and China figures at top is due to their equipment and established military base and not because of men.

 

[danish_vij]

True rank vs observable rank are two very different metric. What I mean by that is most military, especially the world powers, hide their true weapons and capabilities. These ranks are mostly based on speculative quantity and quality that is not easily access by a third party. For instance, we get penalized for not having solider abroad. This has nothing to do with our capabilities but it is a matter of political will and determination.

I like to rank country purely based on a head-to-head match. For this China/Russia can be interchangeable. If a war is fought between China/Russia, it is likely difficult to see a winner. We can certainly chunk out more weaponry and in the long run, I feel we can defeat Russia. Of course we assume no nuke is used. Russia will defeat us in battle, but the war is won by industrial might and manpower. It is similar to Nazi losing to the Red Army.

I think the Britain and France can defeat India force without much issues. India is known to have a lot of weapons systems and ammunition, but these are fixed numbers. It will run out eventually. Though, a prolong war, India will likely have an advantage. I like to think of in this scenrio. If Britain/France doesn't defeat India in one year, then they are likely to lose. Germany is also a country with a lot of potential if they want to revive Reich. If they do, they could easily been #4 behind USA/China/Russia. Japan could have a tie with Britain. So in a real war match-up or called it potential real strength if you will. I would rank...

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

if u keep quality in mind surely i can agree to most of ur rankings...but quantity is also sort of quality...and i can see india moving up 1-2 spaces(quality+quanity)....though many indians will disagree with ur rankings as they are used to listening india @4 ...i agree to most of it

 

[Madali]

It's such a hard list to make. Kinds of wars makes a big difference, is it defensive, offensive, fought in a third country, etc. The duration of the war makes a huge difference too, some countries have a big advantage at first, while others will be able to rely either on their population or a military industry to not only replace weaponsnbut also to make new ones to meet the needs.

But also, it is not taking into account the drive and the Idealogy of the people.

Imagine two scenarios. 1) China attacking USA land 2) USA attacking China land

I think China would be a much better defender because their population would be much more willing to die for China. How many Americans would be willing to die for America? A lot of their population are dual citizens, I doubt they feel 100% American to be willing to stay and die. But where would a Chinese go? A Pakostan-American or Arab-American or Iranian-American could easily run away and become Canadian or British, they won't care. But a Chinese has only the option of remaining Chinese. So they would have to stay and fight.

 

[kaykay]

It's such a hard list to make. Kinds of wars makes a big difference, is it defensive, offensive, fought in a third country, etc. The duration of the war makes a huge difference too, some countries have a big advantage at first, while others will be able to rely either on their population or a military industry to not only replace weaponsnbut also to make new ones to meet the needs.

But also, it is not taking into account the drive and the Idealogy of the people.

Imagine two scenarios. 1) China attacking USA land 2) USA attacking China land

I think China would be a much better defender because their population would be much more willing to die for China. How many Americans would be willing to die for America? A lot of their population are dual citizens, I doubt they feel 100% American to be willing to stay and die. But where would a Chinese go? A Pakostan-American or Arab-American or Iranian-American could easily run away and become Canadian or British, they won't care. But a Chinese has only the option of remaining Chinese. So they would have to stay and fight.

Very bad and outdated analogy. We are not in world war 1-2 era anymore. hell even then USA's geography is such that ground forces can't launch offensive in US( except Canada and Mexico may be..LOL). For rest I believe technology, enough manpower, equipments etc matter in which USA is gonna lead for foreseeable future.

 

[Bornubus]

True rank vs observable rank are two very different metric. What I mean by that is most military, especially the world powers, hide their true weapons and capabilities. These ranks are mostly based on speculative quantity and quality that is not easily access by a third party. For instance, we get penalized for not having solider abroad. This has nothing to do with our capabilities but it is a matter of political will and determination.

I like to rank country purely based on a head-to-head match. For this China/Russia can be interchangeable. If a war is fought between China/Russia, it is likely difficult to see a winner. We can certainly chunk out more weaponry and in the long run, I feel we can defeat Russia. Of course we assume no nuke is used. Russia will defeat us in battle, but the war is won by industrial might and manpower. It is similar to Nazi losing to the Red Army.

I think the Britain and France can defeat India force without much issues. India is known to have a lot of weapons systems and ammunition, but these are fixed numbers. It will run out eventually. Though, a prolong war, India will likely have an advantage. I like to think of in this scenrio. If Britain/France doesn't defeat India in one year, then they are likely to lose. Germany is also a country with a lot of potential if they want to revive Reich. If they do, they could easily been #4 behind USA/China/Russia. Japan could have a tie with Britain. So in a real war match-up or called it potential real strength if you will. I would rank...

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

As far as military industry and equipment is concerned your list is OK.

But in a war numbers count more than anything specially when the gap is significant take a hypothetical example of a war with German and India with latter has a standing army of more than 1.3 million (excluding reserves) against a meagere 100k - 200kk forces.

It just need a single successful maneuver to trap few Divisions and Brigades which will eventually broke the back or led to the surrender of thousands.

 

[Donald Trump]

Why do these list includes India as a top military power ?

Its not because of growing $2 trillion economy or operating thousands of tanks,jets and nuclear subs but because of Men and their achievement on the ground.

Indian armed forces has one of the best warriors of mother earth sometimes called martial races.

1.Rajput,Jat,Sikh,Ahir,Gurkha,Gujjar,Madrasi (old term for entire south),Naga,Gujjar Khatri and small communityof Hindustani Musalman etc are form bulk of our armed forces.

2.Talking about militiray culture and experience,it goes back to thousands of years where Europeans fight with stones Indian had Iron weapons.Also the experience of fighting from Greeks,Mongols,Arabs to Nazi Germany.

3.There is virtually no place on earth where Indian army didn't fight (barring South or America) in ww 1 and ww o2 from the dessert of Africa,Palestine ,Iraq to to Malaysia oand Burma also lot of men died fighting in Europe,in 1962 jawans fought till last man last bullet with vintage rifles and no winter clothing, they never mass Surrendered.


4.we designed our own Training methods,institutes and training school like Jungle warfare school,HAWS and different battle school where every major military comes to train with Indian army in US army on yearly basis.

Lastly our result says it all taking siachen,turtok and Kargil (1971),IPKF mission in Lanka for 3 years,UN peacekeeping and successfully containing the insurgency.

The reason why Russia and China figures at top is due to their equipment and established military base and not because of men.

But remember, we still don't have the capability of launching an expeditionary force like the countries above us in the list.

 

[Madali]

Very bad and outdated analogy. We are not in world war 1-2 era anymore. hell even then USA's geography is such that ground forces can't launch offensive in US( except Canada and Mexico may be..LOL). For rest I believe technology, enough manpower, equipments etc matter in which USA is gonna lead for foreseeable future.

Technology matters, but as long as wars are fought by humans, it stands to reason then, that what motivates humans matters a lot.

I would actually say it matters today more than ever before. In previous centuries, a significant amount of population didn't really care who won the war. They were peasants, whether peasants under a French king or a British king. In our region, borders meant very little, there was no real sense of nationalism (that's why Empires were easier to maintain than today).

Nowadays, it is different. A person living in a small town has been trained to be patriotic, has access to the news, and when he sees on TV that the enemy just killed a soldier of his country, his emotion flares up more.

This differs per country. Compare another war. Imagine South vs North Korea (without any advance help). South has more advanced technology, but N. Koreans have two things. One, they have a Military First philosophy in their country (military comes before everything else) and second, as the poorer nation, they have LESS to lose and MORE to gain. The NK soldiers would be more motivated, because getting South Korea will mean more for them. But what would South Korean's gain for grabbing North Korea? They would have just added a whole new population which would be a burden on their economy. A South Korean would desire a stalemate, a North Korea would desire a full victory.

Why does Israel succeed in its defensive wars against the Arabs? Because if it loses, IT GOES EXTINCT. But what happens if lets say Jordan or Egypt loses? They just go back to their countries, maybe they lose a bit of land, but what how much does that affect an average Jordanian or Egyptian?

Hunger, motivation, ideology, all of this matters more than ever.