Top 10 Military Nations
- Thread starter Chengdu J-10
- Start date
- Status
Hi all, heres my personal opinion;
First list - Highest ability and/or success in defending it's own lands (no nukes).
1) China
2) Russia
3) USA
5) India
6) United Kingdom
7) France
8) Israel
9) Germany
10) Taiwan
Second list - Invasion capabilities (no nukes)
1) USA
2) Russia
3) United Kingdom
4) China
5) France
6) Israel
-It's kind of hard for me to finish the list-
First list - Highest ability and/or success in defending it's own lands (no nukes).
1) China
2) Russia
3) USA
5) India
6) United Kingdom
7) France
8) Israel
9) Germany
10) Taiwan
Second list - Invasion capabilities (no nukes)
1) USA
2) Russia
3) United Kingdom
4) China
5) France
6) Israel
-It's kind of hard for me to finish the list-
Hi,
From your first list, you listed China to be ranked top in the list even above US and Russia. I found it quite strange, and please don't mistaken me, I am just wondering why you listed it that way.
We all know that China had the largest land army, but most of the time it is not quantity that matters, but rather quality that matters. I believe that the US had much better equipment, they have better training and alot of experience, the Russian had alot of experience as well as equipments, so either one would be above China (that is my humble opinion, not meant to be offensive at all). Also I believe that Japan should also be within that list and should land quite high in the list too.
These sort of threads usually get closed but since this one hasn't, i shall participate in my own way. Instead of giving reasons for a placement of a country, i will make five different lists from which my opinion on what a country is good at and what it is not should be visible. Keep in mind i'm not taking into consideration geography - they're rated based on conflicts at imaginary lands, where geography is same for every country. Also, i threw nuclear weapons out of equation as - if one side has them and the other doesn't - it's a huge game changer.
top 8, if they were defending an imaginary continental land from a neighbor, a very strong agressor, bent on setting foot and permanently occupying their country.
1. China
2. US
3. India
4. Russia
5. Japan
6. France
7. Germany
8. UK
top 8, if they were defending an imaginary island land from a neighbor, a very strong agressor, bent on setting foot and permanently occupying their country.
1. US
2. China
3. Japan
4. India
5. Russia
6. UK
7. France
8. Germany
top 8, if they were attacking a neighbouring continental enemy land, bent on conquering them fully.
1. US
2. China
3. Russia
4. France
5. UK
6. India
7. Germany
8. Japan
top 8, if they were attacking an enemy island based land, half way around the globe, bent on conquering them fully.
1. US
2. UK
3. France
4. China
5. Russia
6. Japan
7. India
8. Germany
top 8, if two countries' militaries were just to charge at one another at an imaginary massive battlefield (land and sea) till the death of the last soldier.
1. US
2. China
3. Russia
4. France
5. UK
6. India
7. Japan
8. Germany
Have fun.
OK if two countries' militaries were just to charge at one another at an imaginary massive battlefield (land and sea) till the death of the last soldier.
1. China
2. Russia
3. North Vietnam n North Korea
4. USA
5. UK
6. France
7. India
8. Japan
China, Russia, North Vietnam n North Korea dont care how much people they got killed how many people are wounded they will still charge to the enemy untill the enemy are destroyed or until they are destroyed by the enemy. Unlike the USA remember the Vietnam War. USA left the South Vietnam because they lost to much of their troops so they left South Vietnam. Unlike North Vietnam they fight till dealth n Wat about the Korean War who create the Worst retreat in USA military history the Chinese did. The Chinese made the USA longest retreat in history they lost everything all their equipments, all their vehicles all their supply. Rememeber that PEOPLE. OYA Also in WWII who beat the German Army The Russian did. Wat did the USA did attack German troops in Africa n only land in Norway did that help nope. The Russian fought long n hard against in the German on their Soil. It was the Russian who stormed into Berlin n Ended WWII in Europe. Not USA. Not France. Not German. But the Russian. And the USA think they beat the German army n ended WWII. By ASS. USA is nothing. They lost in Korean Was againest the Chinese. A USA Crops got 10% more firepower than the Chinese Army Group. They got planes they got ships they got tanks they got guns they got artilleries. Wat did the Chinese got no ships no planes no tanks only guns n mortars. And they beat the US Army. Wat about the North Vietnam n made the USA retreat from the South Vietnam. So who is better now.
Well, you then bring in political aspects. Like some don't care about their people while others do. To be objective and military only, I think one must assume equal habits on both sides. Of course the reason for the war matters. In your argumentation, NKs, NVs, and Chinese were fighting as defenders on their home ground, while the US was fighting several thousand miles away. Had the fight happened on US shores for example, I believe your point of war tiredness would fall apart.
Also the US leaving SV because of the heavy losses is true, but only after they bombed the NVs to the table and made a peace treaty. That the NVs later attacked again and the US did not really intervene, was a political decission, but not neccessarily a sign of military weakness. I also think the US military in the first years was restricted to defensive operations and was not allowed to advance into the north, AFAIK.
Actually the US did not only fight in Africa and Norway. Stalin nearly begged the US to open a second front in West Europe against germany and was happy that it finally happened. Besides all the goods the US send him.
Of course the Russians did a major part and fought hard and brave. But I doubt they alone could have completely defeated Germany back then in time.
Hello. The reason I put China ontop in defence because of a few reasons.
1) China has the highest amount of available soldiers in the world. 300 million female soldiers and 300 million male, which really outnumbers the entire U.S. and Russian population. Quantity still matters today, if not, they help a lot. Remember no nukes are used.
2) In the Chinese arsenal, there are weapons that are good enough to counter American and Russian ones. Having up to 2000 modern tanks, combined strength of 300, 76(sinodefence) destroyers and frigates are enough to defend China and 2nd generation aircrafts could still come in support. As seen in pictures, infantryman of China did not wear helmets and not even one QBZ too be seen but if a real war really breaks out, regulars would receive better equipments and helmets and not equipments used in trainings.
3) US budget in all fields are higher than China, training as well but the Chinese training for ground forces are good enough, especially the infantries, they don't have worse training than US infantries but probably in tactical areas. The pilots are able to operate and engage in dog fights and military personels can operate and fight in vehicles their trained in. The Chinese army basically meets the training to defend themselves, and to mention their discipline.
Massive Chinese army could suffer because of enemies having superior technologies but China would not lose cities to invaders now, because if invaders(Americans just for example)were to take a Chinese city, USA would be forced to send in infantries and armors to crush the defenders, but the attackers are vastly outnumbered, out-gunned and won't be facing under-trained militias and insurgents without armor nor air support but would be facing another army that are ALSO trained, well-equiped and supported by armors and airforce. Chinese military is more tactical now so forget human wave because it is useless agains modern technologies.
In conclusion, Chinese military cannot be conquered and a military that size supported by hi-tech modern equipments cannot lose lands to invaders who are outnumbered greatly.
Oh yeah and sorry, I think Japan deserves a good place in defence.
So that's my humble opinion
redfox;
I personally don't think China would use human wave attack now because of the high-technologies everyone has. In the Korean war, charging is the key to victory and nowdays it's really suicide. Unless it's a fixed-force charging directly at eachother in a toe-to-toe battle till the last soldier dies you're talking about then you're right, China would stay in first.
Russia did do most of the work in fighting Germany, in the end it was successful for the Red Army but without the Americans in the west fighting the battle of the Bulge, re-taking France, and operation Market Garden then there would be a lot more German tanks, artileries, airplanes to fight in the east against the Soviets.
And you forgot to add that Chinese supplies in the Korean war were transported to the frontline by backpacks.
Now for coffee :coffee:
Last edited:
I've stayed out of this discussion simply because comparasions lead to flamming and nationalistic chest thumping...
However...The same could be said if any military ever invaded the US. Each and every state has it's own National Guard & Air Guard units. Not to mention that the citizens of the USA are probally the most heavily armed in the world..Millions upon millions of Americans own fire arms...Millions...And would not be afraid of shooting at invaders..trust me....I personally hope and pray it never comes down to that sort of warfare...
I won't list a top 10 but perhaps a top 5 will do
1) USA
2) China
3) UK
4) France
5) Japan
Last edited:
Dude, you have a serious misconception about the difference between political will and military capability.
As to World War II. The US opened up a front against the Nazis by INVADING them against hostile shores. A very serious and difficult undertaking. Landing hundreds of thousands in Africa and then Italy, and then a million in Normandy. Those invasions allowed the Russians (who fought like wild cats) to defeat the Nazis in the East just as their pressure allowed the US, UK and others to prevail in the west. It took both, but NOONE outside of the US could have pulled off such an invasion that made the two fron victory possible...noone, either then or now.
In Korea, the US had the power to stop the Chinese intervention (and at the time would have prevailed had any other nation sought to retaliate), but did not use it. Instead, they relied on conventional means and initially took a beating (after they had thoroughly defeated North Korea and pretty much occupied all of the North who had been the agresssors by invading the south). Then, after being pushed way back by the numerically superior Chinese, the US then began pushing the Chinese back. If the US had not opted to stop at the current demarkation line, it is likely they would have prevailed...but political will faltered and so the military machine stopped.
In Veitanam, the US bombed and fought the North to the negotiatiing table in 1972. A treaty was signed, and that treay, that the North signed was very favorable to the US and the South. At that point the US has essentially won the war. But then, again, political will failed and when the North abjectly violated the treat in 1974 by invading, the US simply continued withdrawing and did not engage. Not a military loss in the least, no matter how much revisionist history is written about it...but a stunning and stinging political faltering that reverberated for decades all around the world and led to many of the problems we face now. It still reverberates.
So, in terms of military power I believe you are flat wrong. In terms of political will...which influences the application of that power...that is another question. Just the same, if it came down to a war where the US was actually threatened with its existence, you would see a completely different story. The American people would pereservere, regardless of cost, in such a scenario, just as they did in WWII, and during the Cold War for that matter, where the threat was clear and recognized and the US stood up in lives and treasure for well over 40 years until finally winning out.
Just my opinion...but one based on my own experience through the late 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and to now, and upon my own father's experience and uncles who fought in the previous wars spoken of.
well actually Russians would have won the eastern front without any western allied help. Even if all Nazi resources would have been placed in the Barbarosa, they still wouldnt have had a change to defeat Russia. German capacities just weren't enough.
But that doesent undermind the US contribution. With out it, the UK would have propaply fallen, and that would have had trendmous affect on the war, and even if somewhere in the 50's the Russians would have reached Berlin, the whole Europe would have been lost anyways. If Normandian landings wouldn't have been made, the Nazis would have had least few years more time to destroy the slavic, gypsy, jew population as well as all left-wingers and minorities. US also won single handedly Japan, that had great effect in the Asia.
That is subjective... like Jeff said, if your existence was threatened (someone invading you), you'd fight like a cornered cat to the death.
However, if it's war on foreign soil, public support will last for maybe a decade. If you cannot secure a quick victory, it becomes increasing more difficult for your propaganda department to spin. Had the Korean war dragged on to 1960, I doubt the public support in PRC would've been as strong as it was in 1951.
Look at the Soviet War in Afghanistan from 1979-1989. This was the mighty Soviet Union, lead by the Russians that crumbled Napoleon and Hitler. 5 years into the war, the Soviet leadership realized they stepped into a sinkhole. By 1988 it was war to lose the hearts and minds of your own people.
- Status