What's new

Countries Ranked by Military Strength (2016)

+++
About the topic in hand, there are some ambiguity of course...
  • But in all practical sense the economic might of top countries particularly last 2 decades of economic growth had helped few consolidate top positions.. For example China growth has helped it bridge the gap between herself and Russia and in coming years that should see China cross Russia and become Second..
  • USA will remain #1 for at least another decade and half or may be more owing to the gap in a technological advancement and its humongous MIC.
  • In all sense the beyond top 3 surprise contenders would be India, France, Germany, Israel, Turkey, Japan and Pakistan.. These ranks would keep shuffling... Primarily France already is an accomplished economy but is battling slowdown yet its Def spending is pretty robust..
  • Germany is slowly but surely reviving its military but not very aggressively and is in sync with its economic growth
  • Israel continues to be investing a lot of technological advancement in defensive Shield and sword strategy.. This front is perhaps one of the highest across the globe in terms of spending and research.
  • Turkey slowly is getting out of NATO shadow and establishing a robust Military modernisation plan.
  • Japan is changing fast.. Mr Abe is definitely going to increase military spending.. Important to look out from where Japanese investments gives them the returns as their own internal economy is not growing in a great pace.. on yop being a close USA ally has some restriction.
  • Pakistan here is the best chance.. IF they take some good corrective action and build a economy where growth from today can add at least 2% more every year the increase in even 0.5% additional spending in military might can help her a lot
  • For India its all about sustaining economic growth +decision on time+ implementation.. If she does that then her being a economy to watch for next 2 decades can help her build a huge military in all wings (IAF,IN and IA)..
  • I personally see next 2 decades may see top 4 comprising of far more powerful China, Russia and India..

So practically these 10 countries are the countries which should ideally occupy the top 10 slots..

Sadly UK i dont count her prowess too much owing to various reasons.. One chief being past glory and present economy wont let it sustain a top 10 slot for long Outside top 10 between 11-15 i see countries like UK, South Korea, Australia, Italy and Saudi Arabia...

16-20 should see Italy, Norway, Iran, Singapore and Indonesia.

The surprise package can be Iran with so much money power now it can definitely take a much deeper modernization plan which will see it moving to 11-15 rank in a decade.

Note i have not ranked any country rather i have bucketed them in different ranks.. i cannot rank them outright as parameters and scoring logic needs far more data which is not available..

These are personal opinions.. of course..


man power, economic power, Manufacturing and Civil Engineering Industries, Education, Health Sector, R&D progress, and defense industry is actually very active in Indonesia today more than ever, in which i see the decline in those areas in today Pakistan. That's why even though they had a lot of hardware and military power they can't utilize them in the very best way possible.
 
.
man power, economic power, Manufacturing and Civil Engineering Industries, Education, Health Sector, R&D progress, and defense industry is actually very active in Indonesia today more than ever, in which i see the decline in those areas in today Pakistan. That's why even though they had a lot of hardware and military power they can't utilize them in the very best way possible.
Solid points sir.. As I said indicative.. But then who knows in a decade Indonesia may crack into top 15 and then surely top 10 too..

There is a risk for Pakistan to either address these issues for a more structural growth or else of course modernisation would lag surely making them drop out of top 15-20 in a decade to come..
 
.
I was reading somewhere that we can deploy 2 brigades (comprising around 5k-10k soldiers) using INS Jalashwa,5 smaller 5600 tonnage LST-L and other smaller vessels
RFP issued for India navy amphibious vessels (LHD or LPD type) | Page 20 | Indian Defence Forum

Wish we had bought the Mistrals but we dont need it now :(

As far as attacking france is concerned...nah,its too beautiful for that :p:
Yes those 5600 ton ships Magar Class,Kumbhir Class ships took part in joint USMC and Sikh LI amphibious assault exercise in the past.

INS Airavat is also the similar class ship apart from several small ships which can transport a single tank or a coy of Troops.

Tropex_2009_India_Indian_army_military_exercise_BMP-2_armoured_infantry_fighting_Vehicle_001.jpg
 
.
Yes those 5600 ton ships Magar Class,Kumbhir Class ships took part in joint USMC and Sikh LI amphibious assault exercise in the past.

INS Airavat is also the similar class ship apart from several small ships which can transport a single tank or a coy of Troops.

View attachment 293765
Yup.....in Malabar 06 i guess
9th batallion of our Sikh Light Infantry participated in the amphibious assault exercise
Navy graduating towards holding multinational exercises in future - Oneindia
 
.
Canada #14 ... crap

with our 6 tanks and 12 F 18s

yayyyyy

this world must be becoming very peaceful looking at this list
 
.
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".

Yes this is a very astute observation.

Have a look at the Arabs and how they performed against Western militaries or Israel . Equipment and pure numbers can only get you so far.
Even countries like India or Pakistan might be suspect if put under pressure from an advanced, organised, Western military.
 
.
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.

Yes but these numbers only count in a short war. In a protracted conflict Germany would mobilize it's whole country and its industrial base. Once that happens there's no way India could beat Germany.

India is still reliant on importing weapons (and other technology too). It has no ability to produce advanced jet fighters, or tanks or computers, etc. Germany would simply have to wait out the initial onslaught then use it's advanced economy to pump out jet fighters, tanks, guns that become more and more advanced with each generation. Have a look at how fast Germany's war technology advanced during WW2! Germany would have 7th or 8th generation jet fighters by the time India has figured out how to build a competitive 5th generation jet engine.

India will never be a 1st rate military power so long as it is reliant on importing its best weapons.
 
.
With that reasoning Russia should be placed at the top as they were successful in repelling one of the most organised, efficient fighting machines commanded by some of the most tactically adept general ever witnessed by the modern world.

and yes I'm talking about the Wehrmacht.

That was over 60 years ago and plenty has changed since then.
 
.
Countries Ranked by Military Strength (2016)

The complete Global Firepower list puts the military powers of the world into full perspective.


The GFP Top 10:

1. United States

2. Russia

3. China

4. India

5. United Kingdom
tis the best and most trustable rankings in this field i've ever studied

in my opinion if you collide these countries head on but we know UK and US are never going to and there are many other examples many countries below will outdone the ones above look at vietnam and i certainly think that UK being lower rated will be more deadly to India if taken head on but that is not going to happen can it ?
 
.
tis the best and most trustable rankings in this field i've ever studied

in my opinion if you collide these countries head on but we know UK and US are never going to and there are many other examples many countries below will outdone the ones above look at vietnam and i certainly think that UK being lower rated will be more deadly to India if taken head on but that is not going to happen can it ?

It's actually a really bad ranking with too much emphasis on quantity and not enough on quality. For example according to GFI North Korea has the most powerful submarine fleet in the world - when we all know they possess ancient rust buckets that are mostly small mini-subs.
 
.
It's actually a really bad ranking with too much emphasis on quantity and not enough on quality. For example according to GFI North Korea has the most powerful submarine fleet in the world - when we all know they possess ancient rust buckets that are mostly small mini-subs.
I read the source but did'nt come across the given stats by you .... but it is very trustable ranking
 
.
man power, economic power, Manufacturing and Civil Engineering Industries, Education, Health Sector, R&D progress, and defense industry is actually very active in Indonesia today more than ever, in which i see the decline in those areas in today Pakistan. That's why even though they had a lot of hardware and military power they can't utilize them in the very best way possible.
Indonesian SOF also train with Indian Army.

Yes but these numbers only count in a short war. In a protracted conflict Germany would mobilize it's whole country and its industrial base. Once that happens there's no way India could beat Germany.

India is still reliant on importing weapons (and other technology too). It has no ability to produce advanced jet fighters, or tanks or computers, etc. Germany would simply have to wait out the initial onslaught then use it's advanced economy to pump out jet fighters, tanks, guns that become more and more advanced with each generation. Have a look at how fast Germany's war technology advanced during WW2! Germany would have 7th or 8th generation jet fighters by the time India has figured out how to build a competitive 5th generation jet engine.

India will never be a 1st rate military power so long as it is reliant on importing its best weapons.
You've little idea.
 
.
I think India and France have too much interest to destroy each others tomorrow..... France isn't going to war against anyone,but if one day India goes mad and attack France :
1st : You don't have the capabilities of sending an expeditionary army.
2nd : War against France,means war against NATO,means war against US,UK etc.
3rd : M51............. ASMP/A.....
-
BTW,you'll realize soon that you don't win a war (like in the past) with tons of soldiers,you'll realize that to equip well your army,you'll have to reduce your size (As the Chinese are currently doing and will continue to do.),a war,or at least quick battles are won by smaller highly mobile,well trained and modern forces....

I know. Simply speaking without the NATO part, India cannot invade France so thousands of kilometres away. It's a logistic nightmare to send thousands of troops. And to invade an hostile territory with no support from Neighbours, its bound to fail.
Its not medieval periods and that troll was in that mindset.

But France can get help from Pakistan who always love to meddle :P
 
.
I am afraid that country without nuclear weapons cant be at the top of the list.
 
.
I gave my reasons on south and north korea.
And your reason was juvenile. It revealed an immature understanding of people and international affairs in general.

A fight between the two Koreas would result in a route for the northern half. That does not mean the south will not suffer damages. Yes, the South Koreans would take losses, but you and the Chinese group here overestimate the North Koreans and underestimate the South Koreans, not because you have any real understanding of military affairs but that you just want to cast a US ally in as negative a light as possible. Simple as that.

In one generation, the North Koreans, as an isolated group, became inferior to the South Koreans in every MEASURABLE ways, from physical being to intellect. There are DIRECT evidences for that -- defectors. The male defectors lamented that they cannot find mates in South Korea because ordinary South Korean women are taller than they are, and that their competitors, the South Korean men, are generally healthier and more physically attractive. Physical status just one of several reasons why many North Koreans who defected to the south but then want to return to the north.

In a war between the two Koreas, both sides have equal reason/motivation to fight to the utmost. Either side would lose its existence. Either no more North Korea or no more South Korea. The idea of a single Korea matters less than the idea of no more North/South Korea. Why ? Because what most Koreans, North and South, know is: North Korea and South Korea. The idea of a single Korea is mostly intellectual and philosophical while the existences of North and South Koreas are real. A single Korea belongs to their ancestors and most of them are dead. North and South are what the current generation know and defends.

So if -- in a war between the two Koreas -- the reason/motivator is the same, what then WOULD -- not could -- be the deciding factor for victory and the real probability of the erasure of one Korea ? The disparity of technology between the two. The North Korean military would be defeated. Whether Seoul want to push northward and unify the country or not is independent of the fact that technically speaking, the south is superior and will militarily defeat the north.

Speaking from an air force perspective, the ROKAF will have control of North Korean airspace.

Air Dominance - The ability of an air force to compel other air forces to rearray themselves into subordinate postures.

Air Superiority - The ability of an air force to take control of contested airspace and if there are losses, those losses would not pose a statistical deterrence to that ability.

Air Supremacy - He flies, he dies.

To date, only US airpower have the ability to compel other air forces to rearray themselves just from presence alone. In Desert Storm, the US and allies went from dominance to supremacy of Iraqi airspace in hours, not days.

The ROKAF is not as powerful as US airpower, but it will be able to achieve air superiority of large areas of North Korean airspace. That control may not be persistent, but even repeated duration of control of key air corridors and areas would be enough to give the South Korean army relief from the threat of air assaults so it can better focus on ground combat. And today, without air power, a loss is quite assured.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom