Someone probably already asked this question already, but I can’t seem to find the answer when I searched. What are the 10 largest army’s (military power) in the world. I want to know manpower and firepower (excluding nukes).
For manpower, I’d say China wins.
Firepower: definitely the US.
i’m more interested in a list of the top 10 and where n koria and irac fall in that list.
Top 10 is subjective and hard to pin down based on firepower. In terms of manpower, I can’t find a current list and don’t want to spend hours looking ;). But one can assume the U.S., China, India, the two Koreas, and Russia would be on it.
For Iraq, a recentt estimate according to the following report is 429,000 ( probably not top 10 material even in terms of manpower, not even close in terms of effectiveness ):
http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/mbmeX.html
For North Korea, a recent estimate according to the following report is 996,000, which would probably qualify them in terms of manpower. However the South Korean army is better armed and fed and has twice the available national manpower and way more than twice the industrial capacity to draw on. Just based on the capacities of two nations alone, South Korea has a strong edge IMHO:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/agency/army.htm
- Tamerlane
Here’s an article that makes the claim that the South Korean Army is ‘five times more powerful’ than North Korea’s, at least in terms of actual firepower, and that North Korea is in fact not a conventional threat to the South:
http://www.g2mil.com/korea.htm
- Tamerlane
In terms of sheer manpower…(according to Janes)
- China
- United States
- India
- Russia
- North Korea
- South Korea
- Pakistan
- Vietnam
- Turkey
- Taiwan
In terms of firepower, there is no handy list 
My WAG’s, (minus nukes)
- USA
- Israel
- GB
- France
- Germany
I am just swagging it. I figure man-for-man, these represent the most effective armed forces in the world. I’ll look into Janes and GD a little more, but I don’t think there are objective figures on firepower.
(Quick and Dirty Guide to War, by J.Dunnigan, may have such a list, now that I think about it. I will check that.)
Brutus: I don’t remember why off-hand ( it’s been years ), but I remember thinking Dunnigan’s list was flawed in some respects. Even “fantasy league” stuff it had its problems. At any rate that book is probably a little bit out of date.
The problem is that “firepower” has too many variables attached to it. For example I might not argue with your above list if we were talking a simple man for man European battlefield situation. But Russia, for instance, even in it’s current decrepit state, has more force projection capability than either Israel ( more geared to exclusively regional conflicts ) or Germany ( ditto ).
And that’s man for man. If we talk overall firepower, Great Britain’s smallish ( compared to some, anyway ) army for example, would probably be overwhelmed by the less accomplished, but reasonably competent and far larger South Korean army if both were magically transported to some supernatural arena ( I think we can safely conclude that in real world terms, neither could or would attempt an invasion of the other ).
It’s really not a quantifiable category, until you start subdividing it ( and even then it is highly debatable ).
- Tamerlane
Even as “fantasy league” stuff…
- Tamerlane
I would have thought that the Indonesian armed forces (TNI) would have made top ten, though they are as much a military police and political organisation.
Too true. But that is half the fun of wargaming it (ToAW, BCT, etc), and finding out 
You would need a seperate list for ‘fighting a war near your country’, and one for fighting ‘overseas’. Also, short war vs. long war would be a major divider.
Hrmmm…Q&DGtW is up for a reprint it seems, but Dunnigan has another book coming out first.
Yes, it would be nearly impossible to put together some lists that everyone agrees with, due to the vague and arbitrary nature of them, but military science is one of the most enjoyable debates I can think of
The Chinese military made a bargain about 5 years ago with the top leadership, in return for the PLA getting out of the business world, they would receive funding to create a modern force. Since then, the Chinese military has drastically reduced their size, but upped training and equipment.
China does not have a deep water navy, and therefore can’t really project force out too much. The Russian Far East would be the target.
Here is why we are #1.
Here are the military budgets for the United States, its allies and other nations with major military capabilities:
U.S.: $343 billion
NATO ALLIES: $147.1 billion, including Britain, $34.5 billion; France, $27 billion; and Germany, $23.3 billion
RUSSIA: $56 billion
JAPAN: $45.6 billion
CHINA: $39.5 billion
INDIA: $15.9 billion
SOUTH KOREA: $12.8 billion
AUSTRALIA: $7.1 billion
PAKISTAN: $3.3 billion
“http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/front2002/0528militarysider9369_2002.shtml”
Budget may be a reasonable indicator of firepower, but should always be taken with a pinch of salt. A nation could spend billions on small numbers of advanced vehicles or aircraft and still be overwhelmed by numerical superiority.
[Hijack]
In another thread, I mentioned the tale told by the British Royal Navy.
One Christmas, the US Mediterranean Fleet was passing the British Fleet. The US fleet signalled -
“Merry Christmas from the biggest navy in the world”.
After a short pause, the British fleet replied -
“Merry Christmas from the best navy in the world.”
(Probably apocryphal but it makes a good point.)
[/Hijack]