Top 10 military powers: 2013

[anuanoop0]

---

---

10)BRAZIL




Active Personal : 371,199(2011)
Active Reserve : 1,340,000(2011)
Total Aircraft(Including Helicopters :1076(2012)
Total Naval Strength :106(2012)



9)ITALY



Active Personals :293,202(2011)
Active Reserve :41861(2011)
Total Aircraft(Including Helicopters) :1127
Total Naval Strength :179




8)SOUTH KOREA



Active Personals :653,000
Active Reserve :3,200,000
Total Aircraft(Including Helicopters) :968
Total Naval Strength :190



7)GERMANY




Active Personals :148,996
Active Reserve :355,000
Total Aircraft(Including Helicopters) :1418
Total Naval Strength :67




6)FRANCE



Active Personals :362,485
Active Reserve :419,000
Total Aircraft(Including Helicopters) :954
Total Naval Strength :180




5)UNITED KINGDOM(UK)




Active Personals :224,500
Active Reserve :187,130
Total Aircraft(Including Helicopters) :1779
Total Naval Strength :77



4)INDIA



Active Personals :1,325,000
Active Reserve :1,747,000
Total Aircraft(Including Helicopters) :2521
Total Naval Strength :170



3)CHINA



Active Personals :2,285,000
Active Reserve :800,000
Total Aircraft(Including Helicopters) :2839
Total Naval Strength :972



2)RUSSIA



Active Personals :1,200,000
Active Reserve :754,000
Total Aircraft(Including Helicopters) :5700
Total Naval Strength :224



1)UNITED STATES OF AMERICA(USA)



Active Personals :1,477,896
Active Reserve :1,458,500
Total Aircraft(Including Helicopters) :21961
Total Naval Strength :290


Read more: WORLD-DEFENSE-REVIEW: TOP 10 MILITARY POWERS:2013 LIST

[Gessler]

Hi Anuanoop,,,long time no see!

[B.VIRAJITH]

IMHO france should be up than UK

[anuanoop0]

Hi Anuanoop,,,long time no see!

Been busy on studies :D

France is already up than uk

[MiG-23MLD]

In my opinion that ranking is obsolete.


in my opinion i would say Europe is already a nation due to common currency and common defence industry.


So i would say
1-USA (largest military budget)
2-Europe (France, England, Germany, Italy and Spain plus minor countries , Second largest military budget and two nuclear powers )
3-Russia (largest nuclear stockpile)
4-China (third largest military budget)
5-India (nuclear power first largest military importer)
6-Israel (nuclear power)
7-Pakistan (nuclear power)
8-Japan
9-Brazil
10-Ukraine

[B.VIRAJITH]

Been busy on studies :D

France is already up than uk

France should be in Fifth place and UK in 6

[sunny_10]

I would like to put Japan on the 5th and UK at somewhere close to Argentina, no more than that

in fact, there would be two categories, one of the top four and the second category with the rest as its looks funny to see the top four with the rest....

the main report of this ranking is as below, in terms of the points they scored to, in form of "PwrIndx", where '0'/'zero' refers to complete control on the world. and here few senior members would be agree with me that US had score around 0.11 by sometime 2005 while its around 0.25, so steep decline in just 6-7 years

Global Firepower Military Ranks - 2013

[Picard]

in my opinion i would say Europe is already a nation due to common currency and common defence industry.

Incorrect, and I hope it never will be correct. Nation needs more than just "common currency", and one or two international corporations plus few cooperative projects hardly make for a "common defense industry".

[BMD]

I would like to ignore this list and all similar such lists.

There's more to military strength than a personnel and vehicle count.

[Manmohan Yadav]

Been busy on studies :D

France is already up than uk

i hope you will be more active now

[anuanoop0]

In my opinion that ranking is obsolete.


in my opinion i would say Europe is already a nation due to common currency and common defence industry.


So i would say
1-USA (largest military budget)
2-Europe (France, England, Germany, Italy and Spain plus minor countries , Second largest military budget and two nuclear powers )
3-Russia (largest nuclear stockpile)
4-China (third largest military budget)
5-India (nuclear power first largest military importer)
6-Israel (nuclear power)
7-Pakistan (nuclear power)
8-Japan
9-Brazil
10-Ukraine

I think the above list is totally obstole
1)While making a list of military powers we cannot include a whole continet by just stating they have common currency etc.
2)I dont think israel will be in top 10 list as their navy is too weak and there is no 'clear evidence for their nuclear arsenal'
3)Only strong point of pakistan is they possess nuclear weapons.If i am taking 'only nuclear powers to list...north korea will be in top 5...because of their vast army,navy and air force..Lol
4)Japan only got money they are now started to modernize their forces.And thier purpose is 'Self Defense'....If there is no US support to Japan it will be invaded by China
5)wait....what....Ukraine....Are you out of mind bro?

[anuanoop0]

i hope you will be more active now

I will try

[anuanoop0]

I would like to ignore this list and all similar such lists.

There's more to military strength than a personnel and vehicle count.

Strength will play a big role...Think if there is 100 vehicles and 50 soldiers ...whats the use ?

[BMD]

Strength will play a big role...Think if there is 100 vehicles and 50 soldiers ...whats the use ?

Quantity is important but there's a whole load wrong with weighting it on quantity or spending alone.

Spending?
The average defence industry worker's salary in the US or western Europe is probably 5-6 times what it is some countries. Not looking to list specifics here but you can see my point?

Quantity? Doesn't account for...

Quality
I keep linking this video on tanks but see at 22:30 how 2 damaged Israeli Centurion tanks took on 150 Syrian T-62s and destroyed 60 of them. At 14:30 you'll see how one very good tank can withstand 15 hits from projectiles that will kill lesser tanks.



Training
In the Falklands in air-air combat Harrier FSR2s went 23:0 against Mirage IIIs. That doesn't reflect the performance of the aircrafts, it reflects the performance of the pilots. See 7:20 (we were outnumbered 10:1 on the ground too):



Tactics and Experience
Battle of the Imjin River - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

60 years on: How 866 British heroes held off a 27,000-strong Chinese army | The Sun |Features

C4ISTAR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance
If you know what your enemy is doing, can acquire targets of significant importance and co-ordinate appropriate and timely strikes it's a significant advantage over an adhoc forward push. This is especially true if you have the means to hit those targets accurately from distance.

Going back to your original quote If those 100 vehicles were satellites armed with 100MW continuous wave free electron lasers, state-of-the-art surveillance and target acquisition systems, nuclear fusion powerplants and ion jet propulsion, with 50 guys in a several bunkers/space controlling them, you could probably make a fist of fighting any war. Taking things to extremes here obviously.

[anuanoop0]

Quantity is important but there's a whole load wrong with weighting it on quantity or spending alone.

Spending?
The average defence industry worker's salary in the US or western Europe is probably 5-6 times what it is some countries. Not looking to list specifics here but you can see my point?

Quantity? Doesn't account for...

Quality
I keep linking this video on tanks but see at 22:30 how 2 damaged Israeli Centurion tanks took on 150 Syrian T-62s and destroyed 60 of them. At 14:30 you'll see how one very good tank can withstand 15 hits from projectiles that will kill lesser tanks.



Training
In the Falklands in air-air combat Harrier FSR2s went 23:0 against Mirage IIIs. That doesn't reflect the performance of the aircrafts, it reflects the performance of the pilots. See 7:20 (we were outnumbered 10:1 on the ground too):

]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzLz5xx_cJw

Tactics and Experience
Battle of the Imjin River - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

60 years on: How 866 British heroes held off a 27,000-strong Chinese army | The Sun |Features

C4ISTAR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance
If you know what your enemy is doing, can acquire targets of significant importance and co-ordinate appropriate and timely strikes it's a significant advantage over an adhoc forward push. This is especially true if you have the means to hit those targets accurately from distance.

Going back to your original quote If those 100 vehicles were satellites armed with 100MW continuous wave free electron lasers, state-of-the-art surveillance and target acquisition systems, nuclear fusion powerplants and ion jet propulsion, with 50 guys in a several bunkers/space controlling them, you could probably make a fist of fighting any war. Taking things to extremes here obviously.

That makes sense......But bro you must realize one thing.....I you look closer to above list you can see almost all contries are equipped with quality equipments and having a well modernization plan.And They have good experience in combat field.If the list is simply based on quantity llike i said north Korea like countries will be in top 5.

Yes quality will be more impotent than quantity.Thanks for sharing that video.