Most powerful military in the known world? (Today)

[Gotengo]

You realize the same vehicles and systems can be used in the trenches. And what if say in the case of where facing the entrenched troops cant be avoided and the entrenched forces have air support and armored troops.

See, here's the thing. Large, conventional militaries (especially the US) have a hard-on for ensuring air superiority. That's a thing.

Secondly, how exactly is one going to be using tanks inside of a trench?

The same way Panzer's were used at Normandy. Pillboxes. Or Bunkers. Trenches do have structures in them. The ones in World War 1 had underground barracks for pete's sake. Anyways, Artillery can work in the same way, such as the emplacement of a PzH2000 one of the best Mobile Artillery Pieces as of today into a specialized Bunker, it could fire away with relative safety.

And you see as to your first comment, nothing ever goes completely right. What if your incapable of securing air superiority through a combination of AA and enemy Airborne Units. You see Trench Warfare can still be a effective tactic.

[Caninope]

Russian motor rifle units in the defensive were trained to prepare trenches and vehicle dugouts at the platoon, company and battalion level. I guarantee that American units are trained to prepare and fortify trenches.

Oh, they most definitely are.

However, trench warfare, as we have seen it, is currently obsolete. Trenches are not, but trench warfare as we like to think about it is.

[Caninope]

The same way Panzer's were used at Normandy. Pillboxes. Or Bunkers. Trenches do have structures in them.

Panzers, to the best of my knowledge, were not being used in trenches at Normandy. Rather, they were part of a defensive line of fortified positions, which is much different.

What if your incapable of securing air superiority

Many Western doctrines would emphasize doing this first, before send ground troops in.

enemy Airborne Units.

In English, Airborne Units normally refer to paratroopers, but I get he feeling that's not exactly what you're trying to say.

[The Saint James Islands]

The United States. Obviously. There is no competition when it comes to the war business.

The top 10? I really can't be bothered about that.

[Imperializt Russia]

Russian motor rifle units in the defensive were trained to prepare trenches and vehicle dugouts at the platoon, company and battalion level. I guarantee that American units are trained to prepare and fortify trenches.

Oh, they most definitely are.

However, trench warfare, as we have seen it, is currently obsolete. Trenches are not, but trench warfare as we like to think about it is.

It's not obsolete in the same way that the bayonet charge is not obsolete. The circumstances that allow or call for them as actions are more limited.

Wikipedia attempts to describe trench warfare as a point at which firepower outstrips mobility. I'd proffer that the nuclear battlefield, one where countries of ground may be traded between tank assaults and group nuclear strikes, is one where firepower certainly outstrips the mobility of the forces fighting.

[The Predator Federation]

You can also argue:
Even though yes, Countries may have better things than the US, it does not mean everything they have is better and does not mean they have more of them.

Aircraft: Best = F22 (and there is 186, thank you for giving the wrong facts) however there is no combat seen of this jet other then the red flag games where the F22 was the dominant plane, best bomber B-2. However best multi role fighter is either the Rafale or F16/18. Hard to decide when the Rafale has seen almost no combat but the F16 and 18 are put to use daily which is why I argue these two over the Rafale even though it's obvious the Rafale seems more versatile. I don't even want to consider the SU however in this, yes it can do crazy stunts, but don't let that fool you as these stunts won't be use in a conflict and will result in defeat if even tried doing so.

Tanks: Arguably the M1A1/2 Abrams and let me tell you why before you spaz out the German Leopard, British Challenger, or the T90. The Abrams has seen more combat and has never been destroyed in battle period. People argue the T90 but I mean why isn't there any combat? 23 Abrams have been damaged to the point where they needed repairs and for a tank thats been in service since the early 1980s is beyond crazy.

Helicopters... I have no idea. I can agree the KA50 is the better than the apache, but it's a newer helicopter. A lot newer than the Apache. I believe it's a tie between the KA50 and the Apache idk. But the AH-1Z Viper gets my win for the best. BTW let me tell you this, even if the KA50 is better than the apache, two apache's is always better than one, so consider the "more attack helicopters" into effect as now any other country is overwhelmed by the fact American helicopters just keep coming non-stop.

I can agree with you on best trained as smaller Countries like Britain have better trained marines since they don't have a big military and don't have even close as many soldiers joining as the US, but special forces groups are arguable for best. 13 (not 12) weeks however does not mean much, it's how effective that soldier can be, and from what I seen, US soldiers are effective, very effective. Many confirmed kills, very little losses (deaths) for the amount of time time spent in the war as well. And since so many American soldiers are actually experienced in real war more than any other Country means they are more trained and prepared for war and fighting and not training gathered at boot camp. This in my opinion means American soldiers are pretty much more well trained (if they have fought in Afghanistan or Iraq and are still stationed there. And don't forget, 13 weeks of boot camp is one thing, but remember that even after boot camp, soldiers are still training everyday and many are training with other Countries. So in my opinion, this is complete BS because we don't know who really has the best trained Marines and Army. No one does. It depends on the person.

Money: in terms of military spending, yes the budget is high, the equipment cost more, however, lets not forget how much money the US has compared to other Countries Combined. These high costs does not harm the US at all. The money btw means the US can invest in making new equipment and more. It's why USA is still the only Country actually making stealth planes/ships on a large scale where Russia and China are still having difficulties. Common sense.

Ships: America has the best aircraft carriers and a lot more of them. However, in terms of destroyers I have no clue. I know nothing about destroyers, but USA has a bigger Navy all around and is spending most of it's military budget into producing new ship designs. I hear everywhere the Arleigh Burke class being the best along tied with the Type-45 Class. In terms I give them a tie after reading about the two and reading about some other ships. Yes the 45 is more up to date, but means nothing when it's outgunned and unable to destroy multiple targets at once. The Zummwalt class is suppose to be the best class destroyer anyways and the most up to date ship, but is unproven like the type-45.

More reliable planes?: Because the F-22 program got canceled does not mean it's unreliable. The F-35 is a money mess yes (does not harm the US but other Countries). But at least let it prove itself before smacking down a plane American pilots and British pilots seem to be in love with. Lets not also forget other American planes. F-15's (115 confirmed air to air kills and not a single f-15 destroyed), F-16, more than 4500 of these made, and everyone loves them with so many successful missions. F-18, need I say more, the plane is known for doing everything right? A-10 (the most feared CAS/A-G plane and possibly the best), B2, the famous AC-130, B1-Lancer, B-52. I don't think the US air force is the most known for sucking.

Now lets Consider: Considering all this, the US military is not bad. You forgot to do research, have common sense, look at real world data. It's why everyone considers the US Military the best, I have traveled to other Countries and dared ask which military they thought was the most effective and almost every answer was USA. Friendly fire... lol, like other Countries have not made these mistakes? Don't put friendly fire into the topic. No one and nothing is perfect period.

Now last, even though the US military might not have the best everything... it's not like any other country has more of "the best of everything" than the US. The US is more successful than it's enemies. I don't even know why I compared allies in this argument. You're argument was very biased btw acting like USA had nothing good at all. The US does not spend 40% of the worlds Military budget to simply not have anything considered to be the best. Before you reply to someone again, I advise you do some research first.
-TopTenWar A youtube channel

[Vamtrl]

The US will bitch slap everyone (nukes aside).

[Roski]

You can also argue:
Even though yes, Countries may have better things than the US, it does not mean everything they have is better and does not mean they have more of them.

Aircraft: Best = F22 (and there is 186, thank you for giving the wrong facts) however there is no combat seen of this jet other then the red flag games where the F22 was the dominant plane, best bomber B-2. However best multi role fighter is either the Rafale or F16/18. Hard to decide when the Rafale has seen almost no combat but the F16 and 18 are put to use daily which is why I argue these two over the Rafale even though it's obvious the Rafale seems more versatile. I don't even want to consider the SU however in this, yes it can do crazy stunts, but don't let that fool you as these stunts won't be use in a conflict and will result in defeat if even tried doing so.

Tanks: Arguably the M1A1/2 Abrams and let me tell you why before you spaz out the German Leopard, British Challenger, or the T90. The Abrams has seen more combat and has never been destroyed in battle period. People argue the T90 but I mean why isn't there any combat? 23 Abrams have been damaged to the point where they needed repairs and for a tank thats been in service since the early 1980s is beyond crazy.

Helicopters... I have no idea. I can agree the KA50 is the better than the apache, but it's a newer helicopter. A lot newer than the Apache. I believe it's a tie between the KA50 and the Apache idk. But the AH-1Z Viper gets my win for the best. BTW let me tell you this, even if the KA50 is better than the apache, two apache's is always better than one, so consider the "more attack helicopters" into effect as now any other country is overwhelmed by the fact American helicopters just keep coming non-stop.

I can agree with you on best trained as smaller Countries like Britain have better trained marines since they don't have a big military and don't have even close as many soldiers joining as the US, but special forces groups are arguable for best. 13 (not 12) weeks however does not mean much, it's how effective that soldier can be, and from what I seen, US soldiers are effective, very effective. Many confirmed kills, very little losses (deaths) for the amount of time time spent in the war as well. And since so many American soldiers are actually experienced in real war more than any other Country means they are more trained and prepared for war and fighting and not training gathered at boot camp. This in my opinion means American soldiers are pretty much more well trained (if they have fought in Afghanistan or Iraq and are still stationed there. And don't forget, 13 weeks of boot camp is one thing, but remember that even after boot camp, soldiers are still training everyday and many are training with other Countries. So in my opinion, this is complete BS because we don't know who really has the best trained Marines and Army. No one does. It depends on the person.

Money: in terms of military spending, yes the budget is high, the equipment cost more, however, lets not forget how much money the US has compared to other Countries Combined. These high costs does not harm the US at all. The money btw means the US can invest in making new equipment and more. It's why USA is still the only Country actually making stealth planes/ships on a large scale where Russia and China are still having difficulties. Common sense.

Ships: America has the best aircraft carriers and a lot more of them. However, in terms of destroyers I have no clue. I know nothing about destroyers, but USA has a bigger Navy all around and is spending most of it's military budget into producing new ship designs. I hear everywhere the Arleigh Burke class being the best along tied with the Type-45 Class. In terms I give them a tie after reading about the two and reading about some other ships. Yes the 45 is more up to date, but means nothing when it's outgunned and unable to destroy multiple targets at once. The Zummwalt class is suppose to be the best class destroyer anyways and the most up to date ship, but is unproven like the type-45.

More reliable planes?: Because the F-22 program got canceled does not mean it's unreliable. The F-35 is a money mess yes (does not harm the US but other Countries). But at least let it prove itself before smacking down a plane American pilots and British pilots seem to be in love with. Lets not also forget other American planes. F-15's (115 confirmed air to air kills and not a single f-15 destroyed), F-16, more than 4500 of these made, and everyone loves them with so many successful missions. F-18, need I say more, the plane is known for doing everything right? A-10 (the most feared CAS/A-G plane and possibly the best), B2, the famous AC-130, B1-Lancer, B-52. I don't think the US air force is the most known for sucking.

Now lets Consider: Considering all this, the US military is not bad. You forgot to do research, have common sense, look at real world data. It's why everyone considers the US Military the best, I have traveled to other Countries and dared ask which military they thought was the most effective and almost every answer was USA. Friendly fire... lol, like other Countries have not made these mistakes? Don't put friendly fire into the topic. No one and nothing is perfect period.

Now last, even though the US military might not have the best everything... it's not like any other country has more of "the best of everything" than the US. The US is more successful than it's enemies. I don't even know why I compared allies in this argument. You're argument was very biased btw acting like USA had nothing good at all. The US does not spend 40% of the worlds Military budget to simply not have anything considered to be the best. Before you reply to someone again, I advise you do some research first.
-TopTenWar A youtube channel

1: Agreed
2: The M1 Abrams has been destroyed in Combat. The Challenger has not been destroyed by enemy fire.

[Imperializt Russia]

Tanks: Arguably the M1A1/2 Abrams and let me tell you why before you spaz out the German Leopard, British Challenger, or the T90. The Abrams has seen more combat and has never been destroyed in battle period. People argue the T90 but I mean why isn't there any combat? 23 Abrams have been damaged to the point where they needed repairs and for a tank thats been in service since the early 1980s is beyond crazy.

Those numbers are patently incorrect, because that's about the number of Iraqi Abrams tanks that have suffered damage. A number of Abrams tanks have been lost to combat, and were subsequently destroyed by US forces to deny them to the enemy. A number of vehicles were damaged or destroyed in blue-on-blue attacks in the Gulf War.

There's little deserving of the T-90's hype. There aren't many in service. The vehicle can be rationalised as a T-72 with significantly improved electronic capabilities.

[Antarticaria]

Tanks: Arguably the M1A1/2 Abrams and let me tell you why before you spaz out the German Leopard, British Challenger, or the T90. The Abrams has seen more combat and has never been destroyed in battle period. People argue the T90 but I mean why isn't there any combat? 23 Abrams have been damaged to the point where they needed repairs and for a tank thats been in service since the early 1980s is beyond crazy.

Those numbers are patently incorrect, because that's about the number of Iraqi Abrams tanks that have suffered damage. A number of Abrams tanks have been lost to combat, and were subsequently destroyed by US forces to deny them to the enemy. A number of vehicles were damaged or destroyed in blue-on-blue attacks in the Gulf War.

There's little deserving of the T-90's hype. There aren't many in service. The vehicle can be rationalised as a T-72 with significantly improved electronic capabilities.

In technicality a tank does not count as a loss or causality unless it was never recovered even after initial explosion so I always found the numbers for tanks destroyed alittle strange since I have seen people follow both rules of judging if a tank is destroyed or not. What would you think be the more used method?

[Jarden]

This is not a measure of Russian military superiority over the rest of the world. This is a measure of Russian expansionism and willingness to use its military to bully its much smaller and weaker neighbours.

This is not a measure of Russian military superiority. This is a measure of Russian capability to destroy the world in a suicide mission. Something America is also capable of.

Different cases have different conditions. Still not a measure of Russian military superiority over the rest of the world.

America does not need as strong a defence force since it does not piss off its neighbours, Cuba is the exception. Also it's defended against foreign invasions by two large oceans, something russia doesn't have so has to make up for in a home defence force. Even then this point you put across shows that american power projection is far greater than that of Russia's.

Really, you think Cuba is the only country that harbors a grudge or even hatred against the US. What about most of the Middle East which the U.S. is pretty much occupying under the premise of 'Keeping the peace'. I highly doubt that all of Japan has forgotten about the months of firebombings on civilian targets in the 1940's and the Atomic Bombs (Again dropped on civilian targets and of the two cities only 900 Soldiers were killed and 260,000 Civilians were killed), I'd say they still harbor a grudge. And how about all the other country's of the world that the U.S. has messed with or pissed off.

First of all yes it is.

Second of all, I think we have reached the heart of your argument. You just have an anti-America bias. Mentioning politics in a thread that is only about military strength, only listing recent international events as evidence. I think you just dislike America, to the point where you ignore legitimate analysis on military strength just to rant about your own opinion. I could throw things like military budgets and technological advances, and you would still rant about police or something,

America has not made the greatest technology advancements. That goes to Germany and Japan whose militaries have some of the most sophisticated technology in the world.

And America's military budget has equal pro's and con's.

Both Japan and Germany use American military tech. Japan doesn't have a true military and neither does germany because they aren't allowed under the resolution of WWII so America Protects them and arms them.

[Marcurix]

This thread just won't die will it? It's the Simpsons of NS.

Both Japan and Germany use American military tech.

And? Plenty of countries use American Military technology in their armed forces. Both Japan and Germany have a considerable domestic arms industry alongside this.

Japan doesn't have a true military and neither does germany because they aren't allowed under the resolution of WWII so America Protects them and arms them.

I assume by "true military" you mean the self-defense requirements for each nation to go to war. This does not rob them of having a "true" military, only limits the situations in which they can be used.

[Roski]

Really, you think Cuba is the only country that harbors a grudge or even hatred against the US. What about most of the Middle East which the U.S. is pretty much occupying under the premise of 'Keeping the peace'. I highly doubt that all of Japan has forgotten about the months of firebombings on civilian targets in the 1940's and the Atomic Bombs (Again dropped on civilian targets and of the two cities only 900 Soldiers were killed and 260,000 Civilians were killed), I'd say they still harbor a grudge. And how about all the other country's of the world that the U.S. has messed with or pissed off.




America has not made the greatest technology advancements. That goes to Germany and Japan whose militaries have some of the most sophisticated technology in the world.

And America's military budget has equal pro's and con's.

Both Japan and Germany use American military tech. Japan doesn't have a true military and neither does germany because they aren't allowed under the resolution of WWII so America Protects them and arms them.

Right.
Because the G36C and the Eurofighter are made in the United States.
As well as the Leopard. Yeah, no.
Also, Germany has one of the most powerful militaries int he world.
Japan also has a very powerful military.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Confirming it would require a lot of research which I'm far too lazy to do, but I'd be reasonably confident in saying that it's unlikely that current-gen Russian tanks of any given period in the Cold War have not been destroyed in battle, except for monkey models. Russian export models are generally notably inferior to the sort they employ themselves. Much like the US' export versions of the Abrams don't include DU armor and weapons.

[Roski]

Confirming it would require a lot of research which I'm far too lazy to do, but I'd be reasonably confident in saying that it's unlikely that current-gen Russian tanks of any given period in the Cold War have not been destroyed in battle, except for monkey models. Russian export models are generally notably inferior to the sort they employ themselves. Much like the US' export versions of the Abrams don't include DU armor and weapons.

The Russian T-90?

Its been used in combat once. One tank reportedly took seven RPG rounds (More or less about the same as the M1A2SEP) and remained operational.
Other than that, it has not seen combat action.
It most likely won't either, at least not under the Russian Flag, the the T-99 (Or the Armata) is to be used starting 2015.

[Imperializt Russia]

Both Japan and Germany use American military tech. Japan doesn't have a true military and neither does germany because they aren't allowed under the resolution of WWII so America Protects them and arms them.

This is true of Japan, but no such restriction is true of Germany.
As a result of the German unification there are troop limits that were imposed by agreement between the US and USSR. Troop limits that Germany has never since matched.

Confirming it would require a lot of research which I'm far too lazy to do, but I'd be reasonably confident in saying that it's unlikely that current-gen Russian tanks of any given period in the Cold War have not been destroyed in battle, except for monkey models. Russian export models are generally notably inferior to the sort they employ themselves. Much like the US' export versions of the Abrams don't include DU armor and weapons.

The Russian T-90?

Its been used in combat once. One tank reportedly took seven RPG rounds (More or less about the same as the M1A2SEP) and remained operational.
Other than that, it has not seen combat action.
It most likely won't either, at least not under the Russian Flag, the the T-99 (Or the Armata) is to be used starting 2015.

T-90, T-80 and T-72 (with and without ERA) were tested against each other with ATGM, heavy AT rocket and RPG-7 attack.
T-90 suffered the least penetrations, according to the test.

I think if you search the current "Main Military Vehicle" thread for the search term "BDD", you might find someone describing or linking an assessment of that test.

[Holy Marsh]

The United States clearly has the most powerful military. That is a different question from who would win what war since wars involve a lot more than the power of one's military.

[Roski]

Both Japan and Germany use American military tech. Japan doesn't have a true military and neither does germany because they aren't allowed under the resolution of WWII so America Protects them and arms them.

This is true of Japan, but no such restriction is true of Germany.
As a result of the German unification there are troop limits that were imposed by agreement between the US and USSR. Troop limits that Germany has never since matched.

The Russian T-90?

Its been used in combat once. One tank reportedly took seven RPG rounds (More or less about the same as the M1A2SEP) and remained operational.
Other than that, it has not seen combat action.
It most likely won't either, at least not under the Russian Flag, the the T-99 (Or the Armata) is to be used starting 2015.

T-90, T-80 and T-72 (with and without ERA) were tested against each other with ATGM, heavy AT rocket and RPG-7 attack.
T-90 suffered the least penetrations, according to the test.

I think if you search the current "Main Military Vehicle" thread for the search term "BDD", you might find someone describing or linking an assessment of that test.

I was using the one thing that I saw when I looked for destroyed T-90s, to see if I could argue (or back) his point. All I found were some Syrians stuffing the thing full of C4.

[Adab]

1. USA
2. Russia
3. UK
4. China
5. France
6. Japan
7. India
8. Germany
9. Turkey
10. South Korea
11. Israel
12. Brazil
13. Pakistan
14. Egypt
15. Indonesia

I'm not a military expert, but I'm somewhat surprised that I didn't find North Korea in your list - their armed forces, the Korean People's Army (not to be confused with the army, the Korean People's Army Ground Force), is the largest military organization on Earth. Oh well, you learn new things every day.

[Roski]

1. USA
2. Russia
3. UK
4. China
5. France
6. Japan
7. India
8. Germany
9. Turkey
10. South Korea
11. Israel
12. Brazil
13. Pakistan
14. Egypt
15. Indonesia

I'm not a military expert, but I'm somewhat surprised that I didn't find North Korea in your list - their armed forces, the Korean People's Army (not to be confused with the army, the Korean People's Army Ground Force), is the largest military organization on Earth. Oh well, you learn new things every day.

Yes. But I don't think highly talked about cannon fodder is really powerful?

[Holy Marsh]

1. USA
2. Russia
3. UK
4. China
5. France
6. Japan
7. India
8. Germany
9. Turkey
10. South Korea
11. Israel
12. Brazil
13. Pakistan
14. Egypt
15. Indonesia

I'm not a military expert, but I'm somewhat surprised that I didn't find North Korea in your list - their armed forces, the Korean People's Army (not to be confused with the army, the Korean People's Army Ground Force), is the largest military organization on Earth. Oh well, you learn new things every day.

Poor training, poor air force, poor navy- when one judges a military, all things must be considered. The numbers of the KPA are made up by ill-equipped, likely ill-led, poorly led men. They are not a powerful military force.

[Altito Asmoro]

1. USA
2. Russia
3. UK
4. China
5. France
6. Japan
7. India
8. Germany
9. Turkey
10. South Korea
11. Israel
12. Brazil
13. Pakistan
14. Egypt
15. Indonesia

I'm not a military expert, but I'm somewhat surprised that I didn't find North Korea in your list - their armed forces, the Korean People's Army (not to be confused with the army, the Korean People's Army Ground Force), is the largest military organization on Earth. Oh well, you learn new things every day.

Largest? Yes.

Well-trained, well-fed, and well-equipped? Absolutely not. Well-fed is a priority in the NK, but other than that, is not given.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'm not a military expert, but I'm somewhat surprised that I didn't find North Korea in your list - their armed forces, the Korean People's Army (not to be confused with the army, the Korean People's Army Ground Force), is the largest military organization on Earth. Oh well, you learn new things every day.

Yes. But I don't think highly talked about cannon fodder is really powerful?

Not the entire KPA is cannon fodder, they've been undergoing modernization for a while now and there have always been cream of the crop units like the 105th.

[Roski]

Yes. But I don't think highly talked about cannon fodder is really powerful?

Not the entire KPA is cannon fodder, they've been undergoing modernization for a while now and there have always been cream of the crop units like the 105th.

Yes. 6 million cannon fodder with probably 10-20k halfway decent soldiers will not stop the might of China, South Korea, Japan, America..

[Altito Asmoro]

Yes. But I don't think highly talked about cannon fodder is really powerful?

Not the entire KPA is cannon fodder, they've been undergoing modernization for a while now and there have always been cream of the crop units like the 105th.

That "cream of the crop" units are only a small part of the large military.

Modernization? With whatever funds they have, they can only do in a small-scale modernization.