Top 10 Armed Forces in the World

[Mo12]

Majority of people, and the World statistics show USA, Russia, China, India to be top 4.

However I seen some weird choices for 5th place in this forum, like South Korea, Pakistan, Turkey, Israel etc etc

 

[Hideki Yukawa]

I agree with you, however we are in the minority.

They made this list by quantity of weapons, real strength is not that. A stupid troops with full of equipment even be kill by an intelligent woman with a knife. I think Chinese you understands it more than anyone.

 

[King Solomon]

Majority of people, and the World statistics show USA, Russia, China, India to be top 4.

However I seen some weird choices for 5th place in this forum, like South Korea, Pakistan, Turkey, Israel etc etc

It is the top four which matters. The rest are technically just puppets who can be displaced whenever the top four wishes.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

india is quite overrated how can a country that got ruled by a mini country be strong they cant even war , they can compete with pakistan and outnumber them thats all

and a country that is in the commenwealth where they are 'part of it' and uk the leader oh god little india

What is this "mini country"??? I hope you're not talking about the British empire, because they're not "mini" at that time.

And the British came when the Mughal empire was gone and different factions in India were fight with each other.

It's not like the British empire went toe to toe when India was united.

 

[Fanling Monk]

They made this list by quantity of weapons, real strength is not that. A stupid troops with full of equipment even be kill by an intelligent woman with a knife. I think Chinese you understands it more than anyone.

I think everyone overate SK because of the US. The NK soldiers are indoctrinated at early ages and they think of nothing but killing the enemies of the south. They train longer(years) and harder than the school boys brothers in the south and they're well fed.

If war does breakout without the US, the NK soldiers would swarm southward fearlessly and speedily that no force can counter. Their brothers in the south simply don't have that kind of desires and willpower to fight like that. Advance weaponry do not mean that much in these kind of close combat situations.

BBC News - North Korea: Neighbours on alert

 

[Hideki Yukawa]

I think everyone overate SK because of the US. The NK soldiers are indoctrinated at early ages and they think of nothing but killing the enemies of the south. They train longer(years) and harder than the school boys brothers in the south and they're well fed.

If war does breakout without the US, the NK soldiers would swarm southward fearlessly and speedily that no force can counter. Their brothers in the south simply don't have that kind of desires and willpower to fight like that. Advance weaponry do not mean that much in these kind of close combat situations.

BBC News - North Korea: Neighbours on alert

The same case happened in North/South Vietnam but opinions and the ways of Vietnamese and Korean are different.

 

[newdelhinsa]

The military power in terms of numbers, quality, quantity, investment in R&D, political will to use military, military alliances and cooperation with other states, political stability and global reach determines the ranking of any military power.

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

Rest of the states are weaker to be effectual, are either subservient to above states or proxies.

 

[NiceGuy]

All of this ranking does not make any sense since at the end of the day it's all come down to the military industrial capabilities of a particular country to produce everything of their own weaponry like planes, ships, missile, radar, engine, avionics, tanks etc. The might of a military is its abilities to supply its own weaponry.

Ranking should be like this:

1.USA
2.Russia

The rest of the "top" ones not in any particular order are Britain, France, Germany, Japan, China

The above 7 countries are the only ones that I can think of in term of having a complete military industrial capabilities to produce everything for their weaponry. No need for the top 10 as the rest of the world does not hold much of an advantage over others.

Correct, only US and Russia are capable to invade another country. China, India , UK etc can only strong enough to defend themself.

 

[Ottoman-Turk]

Economy is the biggest factor on Military Strength , but however with that are other factors

What equipment their military has IS TOP
1.Economy
2. In a war can they feed their population and war at the same time
3. In a total war situation , is their population big enough to carry on
4. Do they have strong industries or make weapons while in war
5.Military History and How nationalistic their people are
Apart from this in a war how many actually allies they have or brothers that will come to war with them ( even not country , just loose people e.g Turks helping azerbaijan in their war against armenia , just volunteers not the army)

Also there is some things people dont no exactly like 1. UKs airforce is outdated and has like only 150 new typhoons ,

Some people put israel in 7th position above Turkiye or other nations that is a joke , because how long can israel air force withstand a long war JUST WITH THEIR AIR FORCE , they have a small navy , i dnt even think they have 1 frigate , only some corvettes and attack boats etc when a army with a big airforce plus largee navy come whats going to happen so israel can never ever invade countries that are not their neigbours , they can only defend themselves well , so cant be in top 10 but can be in top 10 nations who defend themselves agains neighbours , UK has only like 150 new euro typhoons rest are old , so they have not very modern airforce i didnt no they have no f-16 or f-15 AFAIK they have good navy , does germany still have a agreement which stops their from building big army etc

 

[King Solomon]

Economy is the biggest factor on Military Strength , but however with that are other factors

What equipment their military has IS TOP
1.Economy
2. In a war can they feed their population and war at the same time
3. In a total war situation , is their population big enough to carry on
4. Do they have strong industries or make weapons while in war
5.Military History and How nationalistic their people are
Apart from this in a war how many actually allies they have or brothers that will come to war with them ( even not country , just loose people e.g Turks helping azerbaijan in their war against armenia , just volunteers not the army)

Also there is some things people dont no exactly like 1. UKs airforce is outdated and has like only 150 new typhoons ,

Some people put israel in 7th position above Turkiye or other nations that is a joke , because how long can israel air force withstand a long war JUST WITH THEIR AIR FORCE , they have a small navy , i dnt even think they have 1 frigate , only some corvettes and attack boats etc when a army with a big airforce plus largee navy come whats going to happen so israel can never ever invade countries that are not their neigbours , they can only defend themselves well , so cant be in top 10 but can be in top 10 nations who defend themselves agains neighbours , UK has only like 150 new euro typhoons rest are old , so they have not very modern airforce i didnt no they have no f-16 or f-15 AFAIK they have good navy , does germany still have a agreement which stops their from building big army etc

Israeli navy has dolphin class nuclear capable submarines with which they can turn Turkey into radioactive dust in a matter of minutes. So, you better think before speaking.

 

[The Great One]

Economy is the biggest factor on Military Strength , but however with that are other factors

What equipment their military has IS TOP
1.Economy
2. In a war can they feed their population and war at the same time
3. In a total war situation , is their population big enough to carry on
4. Do they have strong industries or make weapons while in war
5.Military History and How nationalistic their people are
Apart from this in a war how many actually allies they have or brothers that will come to war with them ( even not country , just loose people e.g Turks helping azerbaijan in their war against armenia , just volunteers not the army)

Also there is some things people dont no exactly like 1. UKs airforce is outdated and has like only 150 new typhoons ,

Some people put israel in 7th position above Turkiye or other nations that is a joke , because how long can israel air force withstand a long war JUST WITH THEIR AIR FORCE , they have a small navy , i dnt even think they have 1 frigate , only some corvettes and attack boats etc when a army with a big airforce plus largee navy come whats going to happen so israel can never ever invade countries that are not their neigbours , they can only defend themselves well , so cant be in top 10 but can be in top 10 nations who defend themselves agains neighbours , UK has only like 150 new euro typhoons rest are old , so they have not very modern airforce i didnt no they have no f-16 or f-15 AFAIK they have good navy , does germany still have a agreement which stops their from building big army etc

They can get their reserves in war faster than what most countries would take to get their active personnel. Not to mention their army is one of the best if not the best trained, equipped forces in the world. They have more warfighting experience then even the US. No wonder SEALS go their for training.

 

[gambit]

I think everyone overate SK because of the US. The NK soldiers are indoctrinated at early ages and they think of nothing but killing the enemies of the south. They train longer(years) and harder than the school boys brothers in the south and they're well fed.

If war does breakout without the US, the NK soldiers would swarm southward fearlessly and speedily that no force can counter. Their brothers in the south simply don't have that kind of desires and willpower to fight like that. Advance weaponry do not mean that much in these kind of close combat situations.

BBC News - North Korea: Neighbours on alert

Yeah...Too bad for you that you believe in your own tripe about the North Koreans...

Nation & World | Effects of famine: Short stature evident in North Korean generation | Seattle Times Newspaper

Foreigners who get the chance to visit North Korea — perhaps the most isolated country in the world — are often confused about the age of children. Nine-year-olds are mistaken for kindergartners and soldiers for Boy Scouts.

"They all looked like dwarfs," said Kim Dong Kyu, a South Korean academic who has made two trips to North Korea. "When I saw those soldiers, they looked like middle-school students. I thought if they had to sling an M-1 rifle over their shoulders, it would drag to the ground."

To the extent that they ever get to meet South Koreans, the North Koreans are likewise shocked. When two diminutive North Korean soldiers, ages 19 and 23, accidentally drifted into South Korea on a boat, one reportedly was overheard saying they would never be able to marry South Korean women because they were "too big for us," according to an account in the book "The Two Koreas," by Don Oberdorfer.

The soldiers were repatriated to the North at their own request.

The North Koreans appear to be sensitive about their stature. In dealings with the outside world, the country likes to present a tall image by sending statuesque (by North Korean standards) athletes to joint sporting events in South Korea and elsewhere and assigning the tallest soldiers to patrol at the demilitarized zone that divides the two countries.

Starting in the mid-1990s, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il (who reportedly wears elevator shoes to enhance his 5-foot-3 height) ordered people to do special exercises designed to make them taller. As a result, it is not uncommon to see students hanging from rings or parallel bars for as long as 30 minutes. Basketball is also promoted as a national sport to instill the yearning for height.

"Grow taller!" instruct banners hung in some schoolyards, defectors and aid workers say.

Seok Young Hwan, a North Korean army doctor who defected to South Korea in 1998, said the Health Ministry also ordered government-research institutes to investigate herbal remedies and vitamins believed to promote growth. One popular Chinese medicine distributed to soldiers and students is made of pine-tree powder and another of calcium.

"People are really fixated on what they need to do to make children grow," Seok said.

It appears that none of these curatives has been effective — although North Korea can boast of the world's tallest basketball player, 7-foot-9 Li Myung Hoon, who is believed to have a pituitary imbalance. The North Korean military had so much difficulty finding tall-enough recruits that it had to revoke its minimum height requirement of 5-feet-3. Many soldiers today are less than 5 feet tall, defectors say.

Height, however, is only the outward manifestation of the problem. The more troublesome aspect of stunting is the effect on health, stamina and intelligence.

"There is a difference between being naturally small because your parents are small. That's not a problem," Seok said. "But if you're small because you weren't able to eat as a child, you are bound to be less intelligent."

When civilian women on the other are too big for your own soldiers, that does not bodes well for your entire military.

 

[500]

Some people put israel in 7th position above Turkiye or other nations that is a joke , because how long can israel air force withstand a long war JUST WITH THEIR AIR FORCE

Israel has very strong army (1800 Merkava tanks + Magah 6/7) and decent navy. Israel is fighting wars since its birth, including independence war that lasted a year and attrition war that lasted 2 years.

they have a small navy , i dnt even think they have 1 frigate , only some corvettes and attack boats etc

Our covettes have same harpoon missiles as ur frigates and they also have Barak self defence missiles. Frigates are needed for oceans, in Mediterranean sea corvettes are enough.

when a army with a big airforce plus largee navy come whats going to happen so israel can never ever invade countries that are not their neigbours

Very few countries can invade countries that are not their neighbors. In fact US is only country in the world that can invade a strong non neighbor country.

 

[LeGenD]

And who said or even implied that?

Fine. US has some great missiles in its arsenal and same is true for Russia.

As if T 90 is staying all the same without any upgrades.

Any information in this regard will be useful.

For now, I have this data:

Let us compare both models (T90 and M1A1). AND the way each models were tested by their producers.

Why not compare T90 with M1A2? When you talk about supposed superiority in Tanks, consider the best Tank for comparison in US arsenal.

- T 90 is much lighter than M1 A1. Weights 47 tonnes as opposed to 64 tonnes.

As I have pointed out before, M1 Abrams is a heavy tank. T-90 is a medium Tank. Both Tanks belong to different classes.

However, it would be prepostous to assume that more weight = better armour. For that, rigorous testing will have to take place.

Thicker the armor; heavier the Tank. Though armor is not the only factor which contributes to weight.

Here is decent explanation:

The tank is an 86 year old weapon system, having been in existence since 1915. A tank is traditionally considered to have three major design elements, weapons, armor and mobility. Tank design has always been a compromise between these three traditional elements, and the smaller the tank, the more compromises that must be made.

- M1A1 is assumed to be "proven" its reliability in 1991 and 2003 when it sustained hits by 125mm Soviet anti tank ammunitions. However, it is conveniently forgotten that these ammunitions were out of production since 1973.

And how can you ascertain this? Iraqi officials did manage to procure some new weapons from some Russian firms prior to US invasion in 2003.

- M1A1's frontal armour was not tested with modern projectiles as far as I can recall.

Armor related improvements in Tanks are implemented to counter latest threats. Common sense.

On the other hand, while testing T 90, the most advanced anti tank missiles were used which are equally efficient as the 120 mm gun of Abrams. 6 hits in the range of 200 m. Plus tests against the most modern grenade launchers. Result: Armor not pierced

I would like to see that how T-90 will do, if it is targeted in lower frontal hull.

- During 2003 campaign, the sides of Abrams would be pierced even with RPG7's first versions. A crucial weak spot was discovered - The SPU, which can be destroyed by machine gun alone.

Exceptional cases can be expected.

However, the survivability of M1 Abrams is proven under challenging scenarios;

The tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles provided superior fire power and armor protection. (Battle of Fallujah, Chinese assessment)

Overall, M1 Abrams losses in Iraq due to enemy fire are very low.

- T90s have Shotra (optical electronic suppresion "blinds") installed for all versions. This guides enemy missiles away. System which is absent in Abrams

This remains to be seen in battle.

- T90's working range has been put to 5-6 km.

This range is due to ATGM. Now do some digging on XM-1111, which Americans Tanks will use.

T90 and Abram's ammo power is very similar.

Remains to be seen.

- Abram's projectile uses depleted uranium as core. While T90's uses Tungsten, However, T90s ammo contains fragmentation-sharpnel projectile with remote detonator. Can be detonated for "hiding" targets. Abrams has no such facility.

Very interesting.

- Initial versions were inferior to Abrams in terms of mobility. But after 1000 HP engines, T90 is even with (if not superior) to Abrams.

T-90 is a medium Tank. Mobility should be its strong point.

- T90 is suited to any off road environment. As far as i remember, during weapons exhibition in 1993 at UAE, Abrams "lost its shoe" (one of its track) during testing.

You are talking about a very old event.

- T90s were tested in Malaysia with others. It travelled 3000 KM in the terrain of malaysian jungle, where all of its competitors stopped.

What were the competitors?

- Capability tested in Indian Thar deserts where temperatures can reach 50 degrees.

Iraqi deserts are COOL, right?

Today, the T90 is superior to Abrams in most respects. We are waiting for our new generation of tanks to be produced. T95 and beyond

Unless T-90 proves itself against latest M1 Abrams Tanks in battles, your claim is just a CLAIM.

Why General-Colonel Postnikov has complains?

New Russian Army weaponry 'inferior' to NATO's, overpriced | Defense | RIA Novosti

Or rather they are incapable of producing Abrams efficiently and at low cost.

Bad assumption.

M1 Abrams is designed for power projection and dominance.

However;

Not precisely a Tank but USA can develop cost-effective solutions, if it wants to.

 

[Banglar Lathial]

Overall, M1 Abrams losses in Iraq due to enemy fire are very low.

Sir, you are badly misinformed. Continue your discussion with S-19, sorry for the interruption .