Top Ten Nations in Terms of Land Combat Power

[A_C_Slater]

Taken from the book How to make War in the 21st Century



Put these countries in order in terms of military land power: (includes land based air power)



U.K.
Turkey
South Korea
China
Israel
U.S.
Russia
India
Pakistan
North Korea

[lehighguy]

What scale? (small battle, outright war, are there restrictions)

Do they have air support, naval support?

[A_C_Slater]

Post deleted by A_C_Slater

[lehighguy]

You need to give more then that. You question is meaningless. It's like asking if the hulk or superman would win in a fight.

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to give more then that. You question is meaningless. It's like asking if the hulk or superman would win in a fight.

[/ QUOTE ]


You're right, I edited it up and fixed it. But Superman would win. I even have the comic book for proof. An issue of Marvel vs. DC.

[BCPVP]

Nuclear countries first in order of the strength of their nuclear arsenal.
Non-nuclear countries in order of their combat strength.

Is there a point to this?

[lehighguy]

Is there a point to this?

[BCPVP]

I don't know. I have no idea what this thread has to do with anything

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know. I have no idea what this thread has to do with anything

[/ QUOTE ]

Rank China and North Korea correctly in that list and you might see what.

[whiskeytown]

My guess from top to bottom is that we're about 8th, probably...

The countries with the largest populations will have the largest standing armies - followed by countries who have to maintain combat like readiness...

I'm not counting our nuclear arsenal because quite frankly, I think it's unusable - the M.A.D. doctrine is a pretty damned solid one.

China
Russia
North Korea
India
Pakistan
South Korea
Turkey
USA
Israel
UK

[jokerthief]

Here is my guess:
Russia
China
U.S.
North Korea
India
South Korea
U.K.
Israel
Pakistan
Turkey

You need to tell us the correct answer AC. This is bugging the hell out of me.

[theweatherman]

this totally depends in the location of the battle. If a land army is invading the US there is really not a nation in the world that could do it (without nukes of course, but i agree that they are unusable). Think of how many bombs the US would drop while the chinese are marching across alaska towards washington. The same goes for the Us invading China. Both impossible.

[Bjorn]

My guess

1) U.S.
2) U.K.
3) China
4) Russia
5) Israel
6) India
7) Pakistan
8) North Korea
9) Turkey
10) South Korea

/Bjorn

[Brom]

Is there a (definitive) answer to this? At least according to you?

My guess would go something like:
US
China
Israel
India
Russia
South Korea
North Korea
UK
Turkey
Pakistan

[Myrtle]

worthwhile & informative link below.....

http://www.militaryfactory.com/countries_comparison_detail.asp

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
My guess

1) U.S.
2) U.K.
3) China
4) Russia
5) Israel
6) India
7) Pakistan
8) North Korea
9) Turkey
10) South Korea

/Bjorn

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol at anyone putting UK above Russia.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My guess

1) U.S.
2) U.K.
3) China
4) Russia
5) Israel
6) India
7) Pakistan
8) North Korea
9) Turkey
10) South Korea

/Bjorn

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol at anyone putting UK above Russia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. They beat the crap out of Argentina.

[Bjorn]

Well it all depends on what you wanna use your land forces for I guess. My guess is that the russians even in their current state are awesome for defending their own turf but pretty much useless to do much of anything elsewhere due to lack of logistical support and poor troop morale.

But I guess it depends on what you mean by "Land combat power", the question is so general to be almost meaningless but I took it to mean more or less "abilty to win a war where naval power is not a key issue".

I also didn't take into account "home field advantage" mostly because I think almost all the countries (maybe not south korea) on that list could defend an attack by any of the others except if the aggressor was the US. (Again, logistics would be a huge factor in this.)

/Bjorn

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
includes land based air power

[/ QUOTE ] This alone makes me want to put the U.S. first. Anyways, tell us the answers and the point.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Well it all depends on what you wanna use your land forces for I guess. My guess is that the russians even in their current state are awesome for defending their own turf but pretty much useless to do much of anything elsewhere due to lack of logistical support and poor troop morale.

But I guess it depends on what you mean by "Land combat power", the question is so general to be almost meaningless but I took it to mean more or less "abilty to win a war where naval power is not a key issue".

I also didn't take into account "home field advantage" mostly because I think almost all the countries (maybe not south korea) on that list could defend an attack by any of the others except if the aggressor was the US. (Again, logistics would be a huge factor in this.)

/Bjorn

[/ QUOTE ]

Furry Muff.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
includes land based air power

[/ QUOTE ] This alone makes me want to put the U.S. first. Anyways, tell us the answers and the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely correct. In sheer numbers perhaps not but many of the numbers in foreign countries , esp. China and NK are inflated by large amounts of obsolete aircraft.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
includes land based air power

[/ QUOTE ] This alone makes me want to put the U.S. first. Anyways, tell us the answers and the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely correct. In sheer numbers perhaps not but many of the numbers in foreign countries , esp. China and NK are inflated by large amounts of obsolete aircraft.

[/ QUOTE ]well plus we just run things, haven't you seen Top Gun? /images/graemlins/grin.gif


We have the best technology, the best planes, the best pilots. We have Air supremacy, which enables the most absurd close air support out of anyone.

[fluff]

[ QUOTE ]
Taken from the book How to make War in the 21st Century



Put these countries in order in terms of military land power: (includes land based air power)



U.K.
Turkey
South Korea
China
Israel
U.S.
Russia
India
Pakistan
North Korea

[/ QUOTE ]

Without a more specific criteria, it's hard to quantify "combat power". Some of those countries have huge standing armies, with poor equipment and poor mobility, others have smaller but much more efficient forces.

Anyway, going by the definition of "combat power" by http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/

(numbers are a metric explained at the above website)

US 2488
China 827
Israel 617
India 564
Russia 369
S. Korea 289
N. Korea 274
UK 259
Turkey 240
Pakistan 235

[JackWilson]

Link is dead. I'm waiting to see it before I weigh in on a seemingly ridiculous ranking.

[sam h]

As far as I understand it, you just need to think in terms of four categories:

1) US - The global military hegemon.

2) China - Military monster, albeit still way behind #1, that is hemmed in by the US strategically.

3) S. Korea, N. Korea, Taiwan, India, Russia, Turkey, Israel, Pakistan, and several more - countries that have been investing in armed forces in order to achieve or defend dominant positions in local theaters. They have zero chance against numbers 1 and 2, are much stronger than 4, and often are trying to balance against each other.

4) Everybody else - Trusting that nobody will attack them and that, if they get attacked, great powers are coming to the rescue.

US 2488
China 827
Israel 617
India 564
Russia 369
S. Korea 289
N. Korea 274
UK 259
Turkey 240
Pakistan 235

Does this mean that the US and China will play in the ROSE BOWL??

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this mean that the US and China will play in the ROSE BOWL??

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if the US is willing to run 4th and long over Taiwan.

One thing important to remember is that we control the worlds oceans so there is a zero percent chance we could ever be invaded.

[ACPlayer]

The fear of attack inthe US cannot be based on military power-- at least not by a capable foe. A capable foe which is either defending itself or attacking preemptively will use tactics that may render the military power null and void.

We have found that foe, we dont understand the tactics they are using.

Ah, clearly you were not responding to me.

[BillUCF]

The U.S. is easily the number one so 2-10 don't really matter.

[Girchuck]

Why is Japan missing from this list?

[BCPVP]

You're kidding, right?

[TM1212]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is Japan missing from this list?

[/ QUOTE ]

they technically dont have an army douche

[TM1212]

Their are currently over 15 active war plans for possible future invasion of China if they were to invade Tawian. You have to consider the incredable power of the sea. Cut off chinas ports let them strave to death.

[TM1212]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is my guess:
Russia
China
U.S.
North Korea
India
South Korea
U.K.
Israel
Pakistan
Turkey

You need to tell us the correct answer AC. This is bugging the hell out of me.

[/ QUOTE ]

...HOW WOULD RUSSIA OR CHINA BE OVER THE US?

i mean man power maybe china but their morale and technology easily puts them well below the US

[TM1212]

[ QUOTE ]
My guess from top to bottom is that we're about 8th, probably...

The countries with the largest populations will have the largest standing armies - followed by countries who have to maintain combat like readiness...

I'm not counting our nuclear arsenal because quite frankly, I think it's unusable - the M.A.D. doctrine is a pretty damned solid one.

China
Russia
North Korea
India
Pakistan
South Korea
Turkey
USA
Israel
UK

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! are u crazy ur kidding right? YOu need to read How to Make War go pick it up. You clearly have no real understanding of the military or war for that matter

While you are right that no nation could ever invade the US, we could quite capably invade China. We would first establish complete dominance over all seas (Yellow, East China, Japan, etc) and could lauch massive bombing campaigns from both Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan to destroy all means of supply into China. With little regard for innocent life, we could break the will of the Chinese leadership, its military, and its people by wreaking total destruction on the infrastructure of their cities of Shanghai and Beijing. China's border would not be defendable up and down the entire coast, and we could establish a ground presence on mainland China of 100+ divisions (a draft would be necessary).

Furthermore, once we started our propaganda campaign, droves of Chinese people, whose computers currently disable any succession of letters that form "Capitalism," or "freedom", among others, they will accept us as liberators. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Ok maybe that's far fetched, but one thing is for certain, they don't have a religious doctrine that bars foreign infidels from stepping foot on their holy soil, so a freedom/capitalism/porn based propaganda campaign could possibly work miracles.

[A_C_Slater]

US 2488
China 827
Israel 617
India 564
Russia 369
S. Korea 289
N. Korea 274
UK 259
Turkey 240
Pakistan 235


Yes, this is the answer taken from the book. Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but I thought this thread had just died.

I didn't have a point. I just thought it was interesting.

[jokerthief]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is my guess:
Russia
China
U.S.
North Korea
India
South Korea
U.K.
Israel
Pakistan
Turkey

You need to tell us the correct answer AC. This is bugging the hell out of me.

[/ QUOTE ]

...HOW WOULD RUSSIA OR CHINA BE OVER THE US?

i mean man power maybe china but their morale and technology easily puts them well below the US

[/ QUOTE ]

This question is irrevelent. The reality is land, air, and sea power is one in today's day and age. If you take air and naval power out of the question Russia's 50,000 tanks would overwelm the superior US technology. I have changed my mind on China.

[doppler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is Japan missing from this list?

[/ QUOTE ]

they technically dont have an army douche

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, what? Japan is one of the strongest military powers in the world.

Just because their constitution limits the use of the military doesn´t mean they don´t have an army.