Most powerful military in the known world? (Today)

[Imperializt Russia]

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

Japan above Germany and Israel below France..? That's a bit odd.

France has a more capable Navy and goes outside its own country.

[Valaran]

Japan above Germany and Israel below France..? That's a bit odd.

France has a more capable Navy and goes outside its own country.

Yeah France has significant force projection, something that Israel lacks.

[Sun Wukong]

Japan above Germany and Israel below France..? That's a bit odd.

France has a more capable Navy and goes outside its own country.

Though of the things wrong with that list, those are odd choices.

[The Greater Serbian Empire]

1. Russia
2. China
3. India
4. USA
5. Belarus
6. Cuba
7. UK
8. Egypt
9. Algeria
10. Iran
11. Vietnam
12. Japan
13. Turkey
14. Germany
15. Venezuela

[Sun Wukong]

1. Russia
2. China
3. India
4. USA
5. Belarus
6. Cuba
7. UK
8. Egypt
9. Algeria
10. Iran
11. Vietnam
12. Japan
13. Turkey
14. Germany
15. Venezuela

Funny.

[Thyrgga]

Sealand. Andorra. Vatican City. Luxembourg.

I said it, now focus on the thread.

Of course it is Iceland.

[Augarundus]

Just an FYI, Turkey is shockingly underrated in this thread. With the possible exception of the UK (this is arguable), Turkey has the strongest military in Europe (disregard the Russians as non-European). That's according to George Friedman and Stratfor.

It seems like we're overestimating the power of, say, Russia (which has to deal with a massive and indefensible border, and doesn't even have incredible hardpower - other than nukes - to make up for it) and China (has to deal with massive internal problems, has a really unexceptional but large military, and is geographically sort of insulated and challenged), and the continental European powers (de-fanged Germany and a France that isn't all it's cracked up to be), and we're vastly underestimating the power of, say, Japan and Turkey (or, for that matter, Poland, Brazil, South Africa, etc.).

[Roski]

Just an FYI, Turkey is shockingly underrated in this thread. With the possible exception of the UK (this is arguable), Turkey has the strongest military in Europe (disregard the Russians as non-European). That's according to George Friedman and Stratfor.

It seems like we're overestimating the power of, say, Russia (which has to deal with a massive and indefensible border, and doesn't even have incredible hardpower - other than nukes - to make up for it) and China (has to deal with massive internal problems, has a really unexceptional but large military, and is geographically sort of insulated and challenged), and the continental European powers (de-fanged Germany and a France that isn't all it's cracked up to be), and we're vastly underestimating the power of, say, Japan and Turkey (or, for that matter, Poland, Brazil, South Africa, etc.).

I tend to disagree.

While Turkey is more than capable of taking on the Russian Black Sea Fleet on its own, I don't think Turkey has a lot to do.
Maybe in past eras, I would agree, but Constantinople (Istanbul) is not as difficult to take as the past has shown it to be, with the advent of modern warfare by the Nazis.

Turkey is also kinda spiralling into the Islamic Third World Hell-hole like the rest of the countries in that general area. I also wouldn't count Turkey as "European", at least not as much as I would count Russia as European.

Turkey is quite powerful, but not all you've cracked it up to be.

[Augarundus]

I tend to disagree.

While Turkey is more than capable of taking on the Russian Black Sea Fleet on its own, I don't think Turkey has a lot to do.
Maybe in past eras, I would agree, but Constantinople (Istanbul) is not as difficult to take as the past has shown it to be, with the advent of modern warfare by the Nazis.

Turkey is also kinda spiralling into the Islamic Third World Hell-hole like the rest of the countries in that general area. I also wouldn't count Turkey as "European", at least not as much as I would count Russia as European.

Turkey is quite powerful, but not all you've cracked it up to be.

I'd recommend reading "The Next Hundred Years" by George Friedman, or at least checking out some of his lectures or Stratfor's articles on the Turkish military. I was actually fairly surprised by his assessment of Turkey's strategic position in the world (I was more or less in the same boat as you, figuring Turkey was a mid-tier power in a pretty insecure locale, until fairly recently). Turkey actually has quite a lot of clout in the world - it's only real competitor (it doesn't really have a very adversarial relationship with Russia, as far as I know, though they may not get along very well) is Iran, and Turkey is considerably economically stronger and less internationally isolated. It's military is larger and more powerful than any other in continental Europe (again, disregard Russia for a moment) and, by virtue of being a US ally, it has access to considerable American technology exchange (which is a massive boon for a country's military).

This will only become a clearer case in the future - Russia's heading for demographic catastrophe (one estimate placed their population as low as 100 million by 2030), economic stagnation (essentially dependent on high energy prices, which may not last, given alternative energy and, in the near term, the American shale boom), and geographic insecurity (North European Plain is empty, Central Asia is an unprotected jugular... yes, Russia historically has depth and winter - both of which are mitigated by modern technology - but it's lost that since the fall of the Soviet Union. Moscow is what? 200 miles from NATO? St. Petersburg less than a hundred?). On the other hand, Turkey has relatively high growth rates (economically and demographically), is in a far more geographically secure location than Russia (mountains to the east, weak Balkans that could be in its sphere of influence in the west, fish to its north and south) that affords it great freedom of movement (with the ability to expand into the Mideast, Central Asia, and the Balkans) and an economically important position at the crossroads of major trade patterns, and Turkey is militarily dynamic.

True, Iraq and Syria are in chaos, but we tend to overestimate the importance of events in the short-term. In the long-term, Turkey is the most dynamic agent in the Mideast, the United States will be withdrawing much of its presence there (leaving room for Turkish expansion), and many states will plausibly bend to Turkish will (Egypt, for example). As Friedman points out, when the Islamic world converges, it tends to do so around Turkic leadership. "Neo-Ottomanism" is an actual ideology is modern Turkey - this is because Turkey envisions itself as a great power, not a mid-tier nation on the outskirts of Europe.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

yes, Russia historically has depth and winter - both of which are mitigated by modern technology - but it's lost that since the fall of the Soviet Union.

winter

This is the point where I turn green and start smashing shit.

I've smashed the 'general winter' myth so many times on this board. I'm tired. Please. Don't make me do this again.

[Augarundus]

This is the point where I turn green and start smashing shit.

I've smashed the 'general winter' myth so many times on this board. I'm tired. Please. Don't make me do this again.

What's so wrong about the "general winter" myth? I'm not just saying "Russia gets a lot of snow - means it's impossible to invade", but that Russian geography has historically made it difficult to conquer. Russia has no obvious natural western border, which has caused it to expand westward constantly in order to make itself more secure. The outcome is a vast swathe of flatland - this means that armies marching towards Moscow have a long, stretched out supply line. The fact that mud seasons and severe winters make logistics even more difficult to manage also helps.

Russia's main defensive asset is depth (coupled with climatic characteristics of that depth) - that is also its main weakness, because it means Russia has a massive border to defend with a comparatively small population, given its size. But there's nothing wrong with the "General Winter" theory - people overstate its significance ("You can't conquer Russia because snow"), but it's not as if geography just doesn't matter at all.

[Avenio]

yes, Russia historically has depth and winter - both of which are mitigated by modern technology - but it's lost that since the fall of the Soviet Union.

winter

This is the point where I turn green and start smashing shit.

I've smashed the 'general winter' myth so many times on this board. I'm tired. Please. Don't make me do this again.

Totally true. That 'General Winter' thing is absolutely a myth.

That's why Russia has human wave tactics! Just send wave after wave of peasants armed with sticks and cardboard tanks at the enemy and eventually they'll relent. That's how they won on the Eastern Front, right? I read it in a Cracked article on '5 Totally True Ways the Nazis Could Have Won WWII", so it has to be true.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

This is the point where I turn green and start smashing shit.

I've smashed the 'general winter' myth so many times on this board. I'm tired. Please. Don't make me do this again.

What's so wrong about the "general winter" myth? I'm not just saying "Russia gets a lot of snow - means it's impossible to invade", but that Russian geography has historically made it difficult to conquer. Russia has no obvious natural western border, which has caused it to expand westward constantly in order to make itself more secure. The outcome is a vast swathe of flatland - this means that armies marching towards Moscow have a long, stretched out supply line. The fact that mud seasons and severe winters make logistics even more difficult to manage also helps.

Russia's main defensive asset is depth (coupled with climatic characteristics of that depth) - that is also its main weakness, because it means Russia has a massive border to defend with a comparatively small population, given its size. But there's nothing wrong with the "General Winter" theory - people overstate its significance ("You can't conquer Russia because snow"), but it's not as if geography just doesn't matter at all.

First, if you go into Russia unprepared for the winter, it's your own damn fault.
Winter does not show up out of nowhere. It has a schedule. If a general fails to take that schedule into account, it's not winter's fault, it's his own fault for being a shitty general. If, like Napoleon and Hitler, you hope to accomplish your goal before winter sets in, then you better not overextend yourself in the process. And if you don't have a plan to get out when a snag inevitably develops, then it is, once again, your own damn fault when people start freezing.

Second, 'General Winter' is often used as a cover for the fact that Russia has a tendency to produce some pretty damn amazing generals when in need. Saying Napoleon was 'defeated by winter' glosses over one of the most brilliant strategic withdrawals in history, conducted under adverse conditions, both physical (since Napoleon had seized Russia's supply depots,) and political (Bagration, De Tolly and Alexander all crowing for a showdown,) which coalesced into Kutusov leading Napoleon around Russia by the nose. I'm less familiar with WWII, but I do know that Zhukov was no fool. Perhaps brutal and willing to expend human lives in a shockingly callous fashion, but not generally wasteful.

Third, Russians are not immune to cold. Or mud. They know how to deal with those things, but once again, you cannot say that they came out of nowhere and surprised you. If you do the equivalent of the British high command basing their knowledge of the Crimean peninsula off of a tourist guide from 1820, then I say, once more for effect, that it's your own fault when a hurricane comes through and blows your army's tents away because you thought the region was known for its mild weather.

[Augarundus]

First, if you go into Russia unprepared for the winter, it's your own damn fault.
Winter does not show up out of nowhere. It has a schedule. If a general fails to take that schedule into account, it's not winter's fault, it's his own fault for being a shitty general. If, like Napoleon and Hitler, you hope to accomplish your goal before winter sets in, then you better not overextend yourself in the process. And if you don't have a plan to get out when a snag inevitably develops, then it is, once again, your own damn fault when people start freezing.

Second, 'General Winter' is often used as a cover for the fact that Russia has a tendency to produce some pretty damn amazing generals when in need. Saying Napoleon was 'defeated by winter' glosses over one of the most brilliant strategic withdrawals in history, conducted under adverse conditions, both physical (since Napoleon had seized Russia's supply depots,) and political (Bagration, De Tolly and Alexander all crowing for a showdown,) which coalesced into Kutusov leading Napoleon around Russia by the nose. I'm less familiar with WWII, but I do know that Zhukov was no fool. Perhaps brutal and willing to expend human lives in a shockingly callous fashion, but not generally wasteful.

Third, Russians are not immune to cold. Or mud. They know how to deal with those things, but once again, you cannot say that they came out of nowhere and surprised you. If you do the equivalent of the British high command basing their knowledge of the Crimean peninsula off of a tourist guide from 1820, then I say, once more for effect, that it's your own fault when a hurricane comes through and blows your army's tents away because you thought the region was known for its mild weather.

1) That doesn't mean that General Winter doesn't matter. It just means that a smart general will have to account for it.
The fact that Russia's geographic advantages require planning to overcome doesn't mean that they are not geographic advantages.

2) Again, not a reason why General Winter doesn't matter. Kutuzov and bros are pretty fuckin awesome - doesn't mean the geography doesn't matter. I'm not purporting some monocausal explanation for Russian military success.

3) Except the logistics of retreat and defense are fundamentally different than the logistics of supplying an offensive occupation. Russia's inhospitable climate and corresponding depth confer upon it a strategic advantage when defending its territory, because they impose a far higher cost on invaders.

[Marcurix]

Just an FYI, Turkey is shockingly underrated in this thread. With the possible exception of the UK (this is arguable), Turkey has the strongest military in Europe (disregard the Russians as non-European). That's according to George Friedman and Stratfor.

With all due respect to George Friedman it is possible he is wrong, it is the nature of such things. I honestly do not see Turkey, as capable as its military is, outdoing the UK, France or Germany in terms of capability, training, equipment and so forth.

It seems like we're overestimating the power of, say, Russia (which has to deal with a massive and indefensible border, and doesn't even have incredible hardpower - other than nukes - to make up for it)

Russia is a hard one to pin down.

and China (has to deal with massive internal problems, has a really unexceptional but large military, and is geographically sort of insulated and challenged),

I will agree a lot of people have been overestimating China on this thread, but i will disagree with it being "geographically sort of insulated and challenged".

and the continental European powers (de-fanged Germany and a France that isn't all it's cracked up to be), and we're vastly underestimating the power of, say, Japan and Turkey (or, for that matter, Poland, Brazil, South Africa, etc.).

And you also run the risk of this over-estimation and under-estimation. Germany and France posses capable military forces-beyond the other countries you listed, except for maybe Japan.

Brazil? The countries armed forces are equipped for peacekeeping operations, like many of the military's of S.America. That army is currently have trouble maintaining order over its slums. Likewise South Africa is not equipped for much more than peacekeeping and Poland is untested.

[Immoren]

...with the advent of modern warfare by the Nazis...

What?

[Lyttenburg]

I'd recommend reading "The Next Hundred Years" by George Friedman, or at least checking out some of his lectures or Stratfor's articles on the Turkish military...

This will only become a clearer case in the future - Russia's heading for demographic catastrophe (one estimate placed their population as low as 100 million by 2030), economic stagnation (essentially dependent on high energy prices, which may not last, given alternative energy and, in the near term, the American shale boom), and geographic insecurity (North European Plain is empty, Central Asia is an unprotected jugular... yes, Russia historically has depth and winter - both of which are mitigated by modern technology - but it's lost that since the fall of the Soviet Union. Moscow is what? 200 miles from NATO? St. Petersburg less than a hundred?)....

Mr. Friedman is either a) Delusional or b) Likes to present his erotic fantasies about Russia's destruction in the written form.

Did Mr. Friedman provide for us, his intended readers, how, and by what means would the Russian population shrink by some 40 million people in just 16 years? As a Russian, I will certainly like to hear what mighty brain of Mr. Friedman produced in that regard!

"Russian Demographic catastrophe" - is a mem, trope, in which nearly all "thinking" people in the West believe without doubt. But. there are some that don't - and using forbidden and arcane arts of the statistics can say with a certain degree of reliability, that this is nothing more than another peice of anti-Russian propaganda.

Look for yourself:







Western "analytics" and "Kremlinologists" had benn foretelling doom and destruction for Russia for the last 20+ years, as if this mere thing will make their wet dreams come true. Here is another example of their "predictions" and how it disagees with the reality.

Who is really facing a demographic catastrophe, is Russia's neighbours and former Warsav pact members. Strangely enough, Western free press (tm) don't like to pinpoint that free and independent Baltic states (and now a NATO members) lost roughly 1/3 of their population since the dissolution of the USSR and are, indeed, facing a downward spiral.



Now these so-called "specialists" added a "collapsing economy" to the list of "dreadful things that gonna bury Russia any time now!". Theywere repeating this since first "sanctions against Russia" started rolling back in the spring. Despite all their prediction, there are no ravening mobs of jobless and homless people on the streets of Moscow crying for the Putin's blood, nor there are any significant changes in the life (financially speaking) of the ordinary Russians.

As for another myth, that "Russia is solely dependent on fuels export", look at yet another (last one!) chart:



Russia and Saudi Arabia have an almost identical level of oil production, so what this chart demonstrates is that the non-oil parts of Russia’s economy are, completely by themselves, substantially larger than the entirety of Saudi Arabia’s.

[United States of Cascadia]

Just an FYI, Turkey is shockingly underrated in this thread. With the possible exception of the UK (this is arguable), Turkey has the strongest military in Europe (disregard the Russians as non-European). That's according to George Friedman and Stratfor.

It seems like we're overestimating the power of, say, Russia (which has to deal with a massive and indefensible border, and doesn't even have incredible hardpower - other than nukes - to make up for it) and China (has to deal with massive internal problems, has a really unexceptional but large military, and is geographically sort of insulated and challenged), and the continental European powers (de-fanged Germany and a France that isn't all it's cracked up to be), and we're vastly underestimating the power of, say, Japan and Turkey (or, for that matter, Poland, Brazil, South Africa, etc.).

While I'll agree many of the nations you've listed are powerful, the fact that France and the UK actually have a way to project force makes them win out. The sheer power that a capable blue water navy possesses is enormous, something military doctrine has had to take into account for about seventy years now. Air Craft Carriers alone (and their strike groups) make is so the controlling nation is breathing down your neck, they happen to be damn hard to take out to boot. Turkey just doesn't have that ability, even the developing naval powers in India and Pakistan don't come close.

[The United Kingdoms of Austinarya]

China is the best in terms of manpower, The US is best with technology and in Britain our army is the most professional as we have 28 weeks training for the army (30 for grenadier guards and parachute regiment) then we have 32 weeks fro the Royal Marines which is the longest training in NATO. If only Cameron stopped giving all this foreign aid to dictatorships and left the EU, then maybe we could actually give our army some money.

[Organized States]

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

Japan above Germany and Israel below France..? That's a bit odd.

JSDF is quite a capable and modern force, especially in terms of the Maritime and Air Power when compared to some of their neighbors.

[Alexiandra]

1. USA
2. China
3. Russia
4. Germany
5. India
6. France
7. United Kingdom
8. Iran
9. Israel
10. Canada

[Organized States]

1. USA
2. China
3. Russia
4. Germany
5. India
6. France
7. United Kingdom
8. Iran
9. Israel
10. Canada

India, France, and the UK are above Germany, I'd put Germany right next to Canada, and Israel is far more powerful than Iran.

[Alexiandra]

1. USA
2. China
3. Russia
4. Germany
5. India
6. France
7. United Kingdom
8. Iran
9. Israel
10. Canada

India, France, and the UK are above Germany, I'd put Germany right next to Canada, and Israel is far more powerful than Iran.

That's debatable. You have to consider the ramifications of military action against Iran. By simply exisitng, Iran has secured a massive, multi-national force of Islamic extremists who are willing to sacrifice their lives in defence of Iran itself. I'd recommend giving this a read. http://www.rense.com/general69/dayone.htm

Also, I happen to think that the UK is very overrated as a military power. It has what... one aircraft carrier?

[The United Kingdoms of Austinarya]

1. USA
2. China
3. Russia
4. Germany
5. India
6. France
7. United Kingdom
8. Iran
9. Israel
10. Canada

India, France, and the UK are above Germany, I'd put Germany right next to Canada, and Israel is far more powerful than Iran.

The UK is way more powerful than France

1) United States
2) Russia
3) China
4) India
5) United Kingdom
6) France
7) Germany
Turkey
9) Japan
10) South Korea
11) Israel
12) Brazil
13) Canada
14) North Korea
15) Iran

[Organized States]

India, France, and the UK are above Germany, I'd put Germany right next to Canada, and Israel is far more powerful than Iran.

That's debatable. You have to consider the ramifications of military action against Iran. By simply exisitng, Iran has secured a massive, multi-national force of Islamic extremists who are willing to sacrifice their lives in defence of Iran itself. I'd recommend giving this a read: http://www.rense.com/general69/dayone.htm

Also, I happen to think that the UK is very overrated as a military power. It has what... one aircraft carrier?

I'm viewing this less as ideology and willingness, and more of raw military power, which Fortress Israel far outweighs Iran in terms of firepower and technological advancement, however, lacks quite a bit of the manpower.

The UK, has, more force projection than Germany, however, with the launch of the QE class, and her large Tanker and Transport fleet, allows for the UK to participate in far off operations with quite a large portion of her military force, while Germany, in order to do the same, has to charter large transport aircraft to similar things.