Top 10 military powers ??? What is your take

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Quasar44, Jan 6, 2020.

  1. Quasar44

    Quasar44 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Messages:
    2,939
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here is mine

    USA
    Russia
    China

    India
    UK
    France

    Germany
    S. Korea
    Israel
    Japan
     
  2. Right is the way

    Right is the way Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    3,214
    Likes Received:
    1,584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    USA followed by Russia. What behind UK. Then even further behind everyone else. The only reason I have for that is the lack of a formidable navy and enough planes to have the capability to wage a realistic attack outside your own border. If your military can't play a road game they are just a protection force.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2020
  3. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    3,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I heard many times that the french army was extremly ill managed and that many generals were not very skilled. I would put France behind Israel.

    I would put China first, because of the manpower and because they have maybe a better grasp on the internet. The first part of a contemporary war would happen on the internet and disabling many infrastructure through hacking.
     
    Quasar44 likes this.
  4. Quasar44

    Quasar44 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Messages:
    2,939
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    USA has double the Air and Sea power
     
    Bluesguy likes this.
  5. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not even close. What China completely and utterly lacks is the capability of force projection.

    They are a formidable force, but only if the conflict is against a country they directly connect to by land. Their sealift and airlift capability is a complete joke, and even India has a greater airlift capacity than China has. It is only their large military that allows it to rank higher than India.
     
    Right is the way and Quasar44 like this.
  6. Quasar44

    Quasar44 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Messages:
    2,939
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Israel has superior Air Force and superb tanks

    They also have several layers of missile defense technology and will adding their new laser beam defense weapon in 1-2 yrs
     
  7. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But like China, almost no force projection capability.

    Locally, they are the strongest by far. They have some of the highest training and quality of equipment. But like most others, it lacks any kind of force projection. The largest airlift craft is the 18 C-130s they own. ANd that is only on paper, the majority are configured as air tankers and not for cargo.

    In fact, their largest airlift capacity is their 23 CH-53 and 48 UH-60 helicopters. But those are of very limited range, so are only of use in a local battlefield setting. Not in any kind of force projection past their own borders.

    You can have the largest military in the world, 10 times the size of the US and China combined. But if you have no capability to move it anywhere, it is only good defensively. This is why even though North Korea often swaps with China over who has the largest military on the planet, they are not even on that list at all. Absolutely no force projection capability at all, and likely unable to even do more than moderate damage to either of their neighbors if a conflict broke out with them.
     
    Quasar44 likes this.
  8. Quasar44

    Quasar44 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Messages:
    2,939
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What about Russia and the UK

    Thx
     
  9. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,093
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Offense or Defense?

    Offensively, The US followed distantly by China followed by UK and everyone else distantly behind.

    Defensively, US with Russia in a close 2nd and China in a close 3rd. Russia's nuke shelters may even put them ahead of the US, if **** goes that way.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2020
  10. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    England is a shadow of itself. It still has a lot of influence internationally, but has a very limited ability to project power. The Falklands proves that to this day.

    Russia is still up there, and still has a good force projection capability. Still a large Blue Water Navy, that is able to operate anywhere in the world. Add to that hundreds of transport aircraft that can airlift huge amounts of men and material. And a navy that includes 2 dozen landing ships, and all the ships needed to escort and support them in a true Blue Water configuration.

    Those are the key 2 things that China almost utterly lacks. Almost no Blue Water skills or abilities, almost no training or experience in true Fleet Operations. No UNREP experience.

    Russia has that, and uses it regularly. The UK used to have it (and could regain it quickly if needed), but has largely blown that off for decades.
     
  11. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, the US first, Russia second. China, only when faced with a conflict with a nation they directly border. Outside of that, they are highly limited.

    The UK, with help. If the Falklands conflict was to happen now, I doubt that the UK could do it on it's own in 2020. Their ability to project force has eroded a lot in the last 40 years. Their Force Projection is right there with China, but their much smaller military offsets that when comparing the two.

    But then you have the strength of alliances. If needed and justified, the UK has a large number of allies they can call upon for assistance. Something that Russia and China do not have. I can not see the US and France joining Russia and China in a conflict to help them out.
     
  12. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,093
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Russia is largely a paper tiger. Their ground forces especially are woefully antquated, largely made up of refurbished cold war relics, far more useful in D than O.

    Their new Armata tank is certainly amazing, but they have about 5 of them due to budget limitations. They've actually started putting dumbfire hyperbarric missile launchers on old T-70 platforms (which they have endless fields of, but in states of near ruin after decades just sitting) to bolster their 'tank' numbers, even though there isnt a tank in the world susceptible to hyperbarric attack. Just because a military is large, which Russia's is massive, thats not an indication of much in and of itself in modern warfare.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2020
  13. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In the words of the famous Georgian philosopher, "Quantity has a quality all it's own".

    Russia has huge numbers of antiquated tanks, only when compared to the US. When compared to what most of the rest of the world uses, they are first class tanks. When compared tank per tank, the actual stats are pretty much this:

    1. US Domestic tanks
    2. Russia Domestic tanks
    3. US Export tanks
    4. Russia Export tanks

    And that is not comparing actual tank per tank, only the number of tanks in use in the world. Most of them are either of US design, or Soviet design in origin. Even those that China exports wholesale are ultimately modified Soviet tanks.

    So if Russia was having to face off against 150 tanks owned by Myopia that are T72 export models and all they can bring in is 150 T72 domestic models, expect the Russians to win, hands down.

    You talk about Russia using "antiquated cold war relics". Apparently you do not realize that is what the majority of the world uses. And ones that are not even as good as what Russia uses. Just look at the conflicts of Iraq. They stalemated in a decade long war, against equipment not at numerous, but of a higher quality. Then towards the end it continued the stalemate as their enemy swapped to higher numbers but lower quality.

    Then they overran an enemy in days that had some of the best equipment in the region, but a fraction of the numbers they had.

    Then got their asses spanked twice in their own area, by a coalition that was outnumbered, but had superior equipment and doctrine.

    It is so much more than age or equipment. You also have to compare what it was designed for. And even the absolutely best Export tank of Iraq in 1991 was only roughly comparable to the M60. Not even close to the new M1. The majority of their tanks were inferior to the M60.

    And that is what Russia would face. Tanks that are essentially top of the line 1960's era, while their tanks are at least mid-1990's in quality.
     
  14. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    83
    dblpost
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2020
  15. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    11,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you take the reins off the military and allow them to fight a campaign with full support of the people with the objective to win, the USA is by far and away the most powerful force on the planet. Not only is the standing army Professional, but the economy can be mobilized at a speed that other nations cannot come close to equaling.

    The real issue is getting the public behind the military and allowing them to do what it takes to win.

    My top 3:

    1. USA
    2. China.
    3. Russia

    The rest could be a toss up depending on situation and on threat to the actual country involved. Japan for instance has a very highly professional and capable army that would be almost impossible for nations around them, including China, to overwhelm unless nuclear weapons were brought to the table.

    If you back the UK with money and allow them to increase their military power, they are another extremely capable military power.
     
  16. Quasar44

    Quasar44 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Messages:
    2,939
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Israel has a huge Air Force
    Turkey has huge Navy and army
    India has huge army
     
  17. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Their most likely enemies are not the U.S., but Germany or Red China. I would much rather be Russia against the both of them. No one in their immediate regions can stand up to them, even as an alliance.
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  18. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,093
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not with Russia on the defense anyway. I don't see Russia as a major offensive threat (except for nuclear, of course). They might be able to overwhelm Germany (as an example, if they could get there) by itself, but Germany is never by itself (anymore). Russia could never hope to invade the EU, or China. But it would likely force back an invasion by either of them.

    Not that any of that seems likely...

    But then again, Russia is massive. With the EU on one side and China bordering them basically on the other side of the planet, they're kinda forced to have two independent defence forces, essentially.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2020
    Farnsworth likes this.
  19. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Mostly agree, but situations change; if NATO breaks up, Germany could end up without allies, or fewer of them; even with NATO it was basically French and British nuclear policies the Soviets feared over ours in the Cold War era; they were far more aggressive in their threats to go nuclear right off the bat if the Soviets invaded western Europe. In any case, the Russians, as far as I know, still make most of their own weapons systems and supply, something the Germans and the U.S. no longer do, a different thing than we had in WW's I and II, if by some chance a conflict goes long term. One of the things I hope Trump succeeds in doing is bringing a lot of the manufacturing back to the U.S. so we can have a good depth of a skill base at hand when we need it. I say 'when', not 'if', since wars are pretty much inevitable sooner or later.
     
  20. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Russians have very little projectable military force.
     
  21. Right is the way

    Right is the way Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    3,214
    Likes Received:
    1,584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who other then the United States has more than them.
     
  22. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No one.
     
  23. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, you may be surprised.

    Are you aware that they have 20 landing ships? Ranging from the Alligator Class, which can carry either a Battalion of Infantry, or a Battalion of tanks (or both if they can stick the troops on the deck). Their newest is the 1 year old Ivan Gren, which can carry a Company of tanks and a Battalion of Infantry. They actually have quite an impressive amphibious capacity, and I for one have never laughed at it. The only main problem is how they have scattered it, including the Black Sea.

    Then add in over 125 Il-76, 125 An-26, and 60 An-12 among other transport aircraft and they also have a rather impressive airlift capacity as well. Now granted, they have rarely used it as such, preferring to go to all their engagements on the ground. But do not confuse their rarely using it with their not having it.

    If they ever actually wanted to, they could actually give the US a run for it's money when it comes to putting troops on the ground somewhere, and keeping them in beans and bullets. I simply think they would run into problems because they have never really needed to do it in the past, so have little actual experience in doing so.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  24. HurricaneDitka

    HurricaneDitka Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2020
    Messages:
    7,155
    Likes Received:
    6,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I doubt it. For a hypothetical thought exercise, imagine that for whatever reason, both the USA and Russia decided they needed to maintain a significant military presence in the capital of Mali (chosen only because it's had recent troubles and is roughly equidistance from both Washington, DC and Moscow). You really think the Russians could compete with the sort of force the USA could put in place and maintain, if they felt it necessary? We sent over half a million troops to the region for the Gulf War, and kept them equipped and supplied. A decade later, we put an invasion force of 192,000 together for the Iraq War. IMHO, no country in the world can compare with the US when it comes to conventional force projection. It isn't even close. The USAF has 50 C-5's, 220 C-17's, and I don't even know how many hundreds of C-130s. The Navy has 10-12 of each LHA/D, LPD, LSD, T-EPF. A not-very-old article put it this way:

     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  25. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Remember, Aeroflot is a Government owned carrier. So their entire fleet of 242 aircraft could be pressed into service with little warning.

    And you are failing y trying to compare Russian capabilities with those of the US. Heck, even comparing US capabilities in 1990-1991 compared to now is a fail. We could not even do that today. Could they put in place as quickly, probably not. But they could do it, and maintain them. Of that I have no doubt.

    And that build-up took over 6 months. And involved calling up pretty much all of the Guard and Reserves. I doubt we could even meet that 700k manpower requirement today, short of recalling those in the inactive reserve.

    And I already went over our force projection capabilities. And yes, Russia is #2 in the world when it comes to that. But you can largely throw away all the naval projection capability, does not apply to Russia. They (nor the Soviets) never took their Navy seriously, other than as a way to try and balk the US and NATO.

    And especially throw out the Navy, because your scenario discusses Mali. A land-locked nation without an ocean port. So the Marine Amphibious forces would be largely useless. You can absolutely never rely upon land access through another country, so you would have to anticipate all forces would have to arrive by air. Which is great if we are talking an LHA, not so great if you are talking about an LSD.
     

Share This Page