Top 20 strongest Armed Forces in the world

[Deadlift]

According to Global Firepower, a website that collects informations about the military forces of most nations in the world, the rank is the following:
(Note: this rank doesn't take count of nuclear weapons and similars)

20: Thailand
19: Poland
18: Egypt
17: Pakistan
16: Italy
15: Taiwan
14: Canada
13: Australia
12: Indonesia
11: Israel
10: Turkey
9: Japan
8: Germany
7: South Korea
6: France
5: United Kingdom
4: India
3: China
2: Mother Russia
1: USA

Do you agree with that list?

 

[YellowFang]

Is it based on quality or quantity...?

 

[Deadlift]

Is it based on quality or quantity...?

Both, and more other. Here's the link

You must be registered for see links

 

[YellowFang]

Do you agree with that list?

What I believe is that, firepower and technology doesn't get you the desired/expected results...
E.g. Soviet-Afghan war

 

[Deadlift]

What I believe is that, firepower and technology doesn't get you the desired/expected results...
E.g. Soviet-Afghan war

I personally don't agree with that list much. Seems strange that Vietnam and Iran aren't in the list at all and India is superior to UK. Indians are more but their armaments are outdated as hell

 

[Prince Badman]

I personally don't agree with that list much. Seems strange that Vietnam and Iran aren't in the list at all and India is superior to UK. Indians are more but their armaments are outdated as hell

to answer your question i will ask you to look into the actually working forces in all the countries, not only the cadets but the soldiers who actually have to fight. Start with their training regiments and the conditions in which they are able to fight, their versatility. Also specialized weapons help you in specific missions for example MP-5 is a very good weapon for specific missions but when you go to a full fledged war you go with a regular rifle long range and accurate. There are many points which matter in a war. The supply of ammunition being the foremost. In a war you need a continuous supply. Lets say Iran in possession of a very good rifle that is russian made and russia is the only supplier of its ammo. So each round fired from that rifle will cost much more than that fired by a Iranian self made rifle....in that case the fighting country will rather go for a weapon that is less technically advanced and more economical. Also note the fact that specialized weaponry won't do you much good in an actual war(if you are talking about guns and not heavy weaponry).

To answer your question to why Indian army is considered superior.....Indian army isn't just all numbers but each and every soldier is well trained to handle all sort of climates, terrains natural obstacles and all other elements that prove to be a hurdle in a battle. Their training is very harsh as compared to the armies of other countries. Also they don't rely on technology rather than skills of their own which makes it easier to fight even in a critical condition...if you know about the training of SEALS or SAS thats a training regime for a normal Indian Army soldier....

 

[Joon]

If they researched this stuff, I don't see a problem with it. It is a shame that didn't factor in a lot of other important stuff.

 

[Wabbit]

There is joke that US navy is the second largest airforce in teh world and US cost guard is the second largest navy.
There is huge gap between US and Russia and china and then china and India.
Also the force projection matters US has carrier groups and overseas bases. UK and France also have overseas bases. China and India lack power projection. Russia kind does as they showed in Syria but not like US.

 

[Deadlift]

There is joke that US navy is the second largest airforce in teh world and US cost guard is the second largest navy.
There is huge gap between US and Russia and china and then china and India.
Also the force projection matters US and UK and France have overseas bases but China and India cat project power. Russia kind does as they showed in Syria but not like US.

Russia is planning to reduce drastically the military personnel in order to focus all on quality. How can you say that one is stronger only because has more numbers? Then North Korea should be among the strongest since its soldiers are many af. And instead it isn't even in the top 20 of this ranking list.
Also, do you really think that what Russians did in Syria is a prove of their whole power? It's nothing more than a little taste

 

[Mad Titan Thanos]

Why is Germany above Turkey .Turkey have 200 000 more soldiers, 300 + more aircraft, 3000 + more tanks ,more artillery,Rocket launchers, bigger fleet.

Only thing Germany has is better economy and budget and they are placed above Turkey.

I am glad mother Russia has land systems that are tiers above any one.

 

[Wabbit]

Russia is planning to reduce drastically the military personnel in order to focus all on quality. How can you say that one is stronger only because has more numbers? Then North Korea should be among the strongest since its soldiers are many af. And instead it isn't even in the top 20 of this ranking list.
Also, do you really think that what Russians did in Syria is a prove of their whole power? It's nothing more than a little taste

Do you doubt the quality of US assets? You could say that one sucks if they have large numbers but not equipments but that is not the case with US.
I am talking about power projection. Russia does not have warm water ports to project power like USA with a large navy and carrier groups. They are doing so with long range bombers to an extent.

 

[Deadlift]

Why is Germany above Turkey .Turkey have 200 000 more soldiers, 300 + more aircraft, 3000 + more tanks ,more artillery,Rocket launchers, bigger fleet.

Only thing Germany has is better economy and budget and they are placed above Turkey.

I am glad mother Russia has land systems that are tiers above any one.

I'm glad about it too, since I've always been Pro-Russia lol
Anyway I'd say it's strange for me also that Germany is considered superior to Turkey. I've always been convinced that Turkey is the best in the NATO besides USA and UK, even because Germany is very nerfed since he lost both the World Wars

Do you doubt the quality of US assets? You could say that one sucks if they have large numbers but not equipments but that is not the case with US.
I am talking about power projection. Russia does not have warm water ports to project power like USA with a large navy and carrier groups. They are doing so with long range bombers to an extent.

Far from doubting that, I know what kind of a beast United States are.
Rather, you shouldn't doubt about Russia's resources, since it has warm ports and naval bases all over the world, and first class crafts and aircrafts to do missions at every range

 

[Dark Sonic]

What I believe is that, firepower and technology doesn't get you the desired/expected results...
E.g. Soviet-Afghan war

And the Afghanistan war with Britain around the 1800's.

 

[paratise]

Why is Germany above Turkey .Turkey have 200 000 more soldiers, 300 + more aircraft, 3000 + more tanks ,more artillery,Rocket launchers, bigger fleet.

Only thing Germany has is better economy and budget and they are placed above Turkey.

I am glad mother Russia has land systems that are tiers above any one.

Germany's defense budget is about 2 times higher, and they are developing & producing their own equipment for a long while unlike Turkey which got involved with technological self-sufficency later:

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

OT: Well i am not informed enough to disagree with the list so i agree...

 

[Wabbit]

I'm glad about it too, since I've always been Pro-Russia lol
Anyway I'd say it's strange for me also that Germany is considered superior to Turkey. I've always been convinced that Turkey is the best in the NATO besides USA and UK, even because Germany is very nerfed since he lost both the World Wars



Far from doubting that, I know what kind of a beast United States are.
Rather, you shouldn't doubt about Russia's resources, since it has warm ports and naval bases all over the world, and first class crafts and aircrafts to do missions at every range

ayy. Use google at least.
Their only warm water port is none other than Syria, which will not be accessible if Assad falls.
They are supposed have everything to counter NATO but they can barely maintain their naval presence after fall of soviet union. Even at the height of cold war their naval power was through subs, they never cared for large navy because of their port problem. They have got a modernization plan going on, it is going to take time, to modernize and build up capacity.

 

[BlacLord™]

Is it based on quality or quantity...?

It's mostly quantity, giving little to no attention to quality.

Proof? It put Russia as second because of sheer numbers (i.e. conscriptable population etc)... despite their military technology being decades out of date. They still have turboprop powered planes as part of their offensive air force. A prime example being the Tu-95, which went into service 60 years ago, and they don't plan to replace it for another 24 years.


They should be 7th, through sheer numbers.


OT: That's a pretty poor list from a pretty poor site.

 

[TimothyTheTomato]

Usa usa usa usa

 

[Deadlift]

ayy. Use google at least.
Their only warm water port is none other than Syria, which will not be accessible if Assad falls.
They are supposed have everything to counter NATO but they can barely maintain their naval presence after fall of soviet union. Even at the height of cold war their naval power was through subs, they never cared for large navy because of their port problem. They have got a modernization plan going on, it is going to take time, to modernize and build up capacity.

Uff I guess your the typical American kid who believes that USSR still exists.
What do you say about Vladivostok, Sochi, Sevastopol, Astrakhan, in Russian territory, and all the countless bases on South Easth Asia?
Anyway it's actually true that Navy is the weak point of Russian Military, but their air and land war apparatuses are on a completely different level. Also, Russia's nuclear power is larger and more powerful than America's.
The modernization you're talking about goes on since Second Chechnya War, and in 2002 "situation has already changed a lot".
In 2016 no, Russia still has old pieces but you can't say that is outdated anymore

 

[Deadlift]

It's mostly quantity, giving little to no attention to quality.

Proof? It put Russia as second because of sheer numbers (i.e. conscriptable population etc)... despite their military technology being decades out of date. They still have turboprop powered planes as part of their offensive air force. A prime example being the Tu-95, which went into service 60 years ago, and they don't plan to replace it for another 24 years.


They should be 7th, through sheer numbers.


OT: That's a pretty poor list from a pretty poor site.

Umm, no? Russian military being outdated is a clichè, but it's no more the truth. Also, don't bring Air Forces on this question, since it's one of the most technological in the world, every year Russians invent several new kind of aircraft, everyone perfectly able to compete on par with the most advanced American aircrafts.
Read the reply above for more infos.

Also, I don't take my informations by that site only

 

[Wabbit]

Uff I guess your the typical American kid who believes that USSR still exists.
What do you say about Vladivostok, Sochi, Sevastopol, Astrakhan, in Russian territory, and all the countless bases on South Easth Asia?
Anyway it's actually true that Navy is the weak point of Russian Military, but their air and land war apparatuses are on a completely different level. Also, Russia's nuclear power is larger and more powerful than America's.
The modernization you're talking about goes on since Second Chechnya War, and in 2002 "situation has already changed a lot".
In 2016 no, Russia still has old pieces but you can't say that is outdated anymore

Le pleb I am not even American nor I live in NATO country. You are really delusional at this point, which you are accusing me of. I told you to use google but you did not. It seems you have not intention to check. We are talking about overseas bases not inside. Countless bases? Check out about base in Vietnam which was pulled out years back.
How? State some facts. It is also a misconception that Russia has an edge in nuclear arsenal. To give you an idea a single SSBN of US carries 24 ICBMs each with upto 12 warheads each around 100-400kt. That is roughly around 200 warheads in a sub. 18 of these SSBNs are active. Russia is still struggling to build up capacity with new borie class subs. Furthermore France and UK also keep subs with similar capacity deployed. That is not even adding silo based nukes.