What's new

The most powerful military nations 2015

Unfortunately French are indeed known for surrender, it is said quite casually to boot often with a bunch of laughs but the truth is quite different. Under Napoleon they pretty much ran all of continental Europe and if the Brits did not have the English channel we all could have very well been speaking in French right now.
 
.
not sure about the 'manpower fit for service' .. china 618 million ? :what:
 
.
how UK came on no.5 Cant understand ,

We should be higher on this ranking ! :mad:

Besides if Sweden and Pakistan would go to war we'd kick your butts as long as we don't freeze to death fighting you guys in Sweden and you'd probably drop dead with a heat-stroke if you manage to fight us in the middle of a Pakistani Summer ! :tongue:
please respect other nations , and prove that you are real ****
 
.
You must read my post again....
You do know on whom or which country it was aimed at. Dont you?? Lol
And if you take USA into consideration then the list shows it as the most powerful nation...sans the nuclear weapons. So how did you conclude that USA has no capability???




View attachment 189909

View attachment 189910

View attachment 189911


Go ahead, tell me what is it that you disagree to??
Btw these countries were not ranked by me. lol

i been to GFP multiple times and i dont consider it accurate , because they failed to mentioned that what their criteria of calculating , numbers , technology , budget , etc ?? in and for even NK got some 60+ midgets subs .. the thing is just because you have huge number of troops doesnt mean that you can put all your troops or stuff into the battle ... some American member here claimed that even US can not even put their force into a Conventional war .. well this List is good to boost some emotions for Indians i guess cause they are at 4th , but technology , budget , and Quality wise , they would not be in top 5 ... hard to swallow but truth
 
.
The website posts Bangladesh above Greece and Nepal above Srilanka....wtf??

Myanmar doesn't exist....Afghanistan is better than Nepal,Libya,Srilanka.
 
.
Unfortunately French are indeed known for surrender, it is said quite casually to boot often with a bunch of laughs but the truth is quite different. Under Napoleon they pretty much ran all of continental Europe and if the Brits did not have the English channel we all could have very well been speaking in French right now.
Go back even further, 1066- William the Conqueror (French King) won the Battle of Hastings and conquered the British Isles.
 
. .
Its funny they put Egypt and Saudi Arabia ahead of us. These countries ask for our help in training their forces and for the record they don't have a defense industry.

Only Saudi Arabia asks for Pakistani help to train troops, Egypt also provides training to a large number of Arab and friendly nations which includes Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (Pakistani students passed out of the Egyptian Staff College this year). Joint exercises and training improves interoprability and understanding between forces, it is not really a measure of who is or who isn't better, for instance US SF recieve training from many other SF units around the world (most notably Israel) but does that mean the US SF aren't the best equipped, trained, and financed on the planet?

they have no defense industry ... our defense industry is in good shape

Just because you aren't aware of the respective nations defence industries doesn't mean they don't exist!

Egypt for instance produces everything from bullets to tanks to trainer aircraft, and soon Corvettes (Gowind) and later Frigates with Chinese cooperation. The Arab Organisation for Industrilisation makes an export revenue per annum of around $1B while serving the needs of the Egyptian Armed Forces first and foremost. Although it has stagnated after the death of Field Marshal AbuGhazzallah to a large extent cooperation with the UAE which has a small but incredibly good defence industry may see its revival.

The Saudis are rapidly improving their defence industry, into perhaps the best industry in the Middle East, with licensed assembly of the Typhoon, production of parts and electronics for the F-15SA and the capability to produce its own EW and targetting pods SA is turning into a powerhouse, that is even before considering its expenditure on R&D.

While arguably no where near as strong as the Pakistani defence industry, they certainly don't "have no defence industry".



And even crappier navies.. Heck Egypt doesn't even have BVRs etc not do these guys have under water capabilities.. But I guess resources n economy are also held into account wrt this ranking,

Navies that are rapidly modernising and adding potent platforms, for instance Egypt procured 4 Ambassedor MKIII FMC from the states, will produce 3 Gowind Corvettes in Egypt (one will be produced in France), a deal for 1-2 FREMM is basically done, and 2 latest Type 209 subs will be inducted in 2016 (with an option for two more) to replace the obsolete improved Sino-Romeo class subs.

As for the Saudis, they are going ahead with a massive expansion of their Navy by spending a lot of money on R&D and licensed production. With its plans to buy around 6 FREMMs and littoral combat ships (or even Burke Class destroyers) the future of the Saudi Navy looks bright, although what its doing about subs is still up in the air. A new contract to build a plethora of smaller coastal patrol boats and ships is also promising.

In essence what you have here is two navies that are modernising and growing while the PN is stagnating, proof of that is wanting to go for OHPs as a stop gap.

The BVRs argument is again flawed, the Mica IR on the M2K and the AIM-7M/P are beyond visual range missiles, the latter however lacks the modern active radar of the AMRAAM. Either way, the acquisition of Russian fighters Mig-29/35 will provide the EAF with the R-77 and the acquisition of the Rafale will provide the EAF with the radar guided Mica and in the future the MBDA Meteor. So however effective you think this (f;awed) argument is, it will be a thing of a past (and in less than a year).

all those number are just the amount of equipment each country has....having lots of shitty weapons doesn't mean your better compared to a country that has less but more powerful equitment

What is with the butthurt over a meaningless list? I know you're here to propagate the bigoted idea 'that Arabs can't fight' (even though there is plenty of evidence that states otherwise) but do you have to be so ignorant and dickish about it, so Egypt came up on top, big deal!
 
.
The list is a joke. You can't rank countries as to who is stronger or weaker, you can only measure countries against each other based on geographic realities and whether or not they can project power. For example Turkey is stronger than the phillipines but that doesn't mean that its something to brag about because Turkey can't even fight the philippines due to geographic distance and inability to project power. Thats why these lists are b.s. I understand comparing neighboring countries but I think coming up with these lists is a joke because every country has its own requirements and needs which are determined by realistic threats, its economy and thats what in the end determines its military strength, countries don't care about these lists they only care if they can accomplish national objectives. Also the list doesn't take into account cyber warfare which is now a big factor in 21st century warfare, people don't think about it much but another country no matter how big or small can literally knock your lights out and its game over.
 
. .
I dunno ..6 weeks was kinda funny? :D


P.S: I do admire Napoleon... (Even for a little guy he packed quiet a punch)..:D


Haha .. But you are "british" Atleast that's what you claim on MP...:)

He was not short. Thats a myth
 
. . .
Total Naval Strength: (US)473 - 520 (CN) ????? Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom