chuckster: Have we forgotten WWII so soon? That is precisely what the Recieved Wisdom held among the Fascist countries until America got rolling on two fronts, simultaneously. (Managing a two-front war is a neat trick for any country, and I don’t know if we could have done it without two oceans.)
(Germany wasn’t completely blind to America in 1940, it just thought it could snap up Europe as quickly as possible before any political action in the States could mobilize an effective counter to its whims. The RAF killed the Luftwaffe’s momentum in the Battle of Britain, buying the UK enough time for it to be able to wait for Roosevelt to sell an attack on a distant military base as a Vital Emergency and enter the war under semi-shady pretexts.)
Anyway, you know the history: We took massive casualties, in the Pacific theater especially, and we kept going with a momentum the Germans only wished they could manage. We literally bombed Germany into submission (the next-to-last example of Sherman’s “War is Hell” doctrine) to pave the way for our tanks (which weren’t any great shakes, especially in comparison to their contemporaries), then we focused on finishing up the remnants of the island-hopping, opposing the decimated Japanese Navy (courtesy of some lucky tricks at the Battle of Midway) and deeply-entrenched fight-till-you-die soldiers. Even without the WMDs, the war was a foregone conclusion by 1945.
My point? (Did I ever have one?) The American military can do amazing things if it’s pressured to and if it sees a just and reachable conclusion. That’s why Vietnam floundered and died: The average American saw no point to the fighting, no reasonable conclusion to the war, and no way of accomplishing anything without killing off a bignum of Americans. America, in any reasonable military sense, won every battle of Vietnam until it left. But the leaving is what everyone remembers.
Most effective at what? Different countries design their militaries for different tasks - for example, our military emphasis is really on power-projection ability and absolute unshakeable dominance of what are called the “commons” - the high seas, the air (above 15,000 feet), and space (spy, communication sats). Barry Posen’s article “Command of the Commons” is in the latest International Security, and explains this point very well. pdf-flavored-linkety-link
Posen also points out that other countries focus their abilities on areas outside the commones, which he terms contested zones. For example, Israel is probably far better at littoral (coastal) warfare than the United States is, even though we have a far superior blue-water navy - in fact, so far as I know Israel doesn’t have anything heavier than a destroyer.
Of course, the question was about armies - I mentioned the Posen article because it seemed a good way to talk about how different purposes behind militaries couple make simple comparisons difficult. That said, here’s another thought - a lot of countries, notably in South America, use their armies to police the populace - whether by fighting insurgents or (as in Italy) actually taking on police duties. In terms of ability in counterinsurgent warfare, I wouldn’t be surprised to see that some south american militaries could compare favorably with the United States - our own army, after all, doesn’t have to be proficient at that sort of warfare for our government to stay in power.
Of course, this is all quibling - our military has so much all-around manpower and technological prowess that even in a sort of war where it might not be immediately and obviously more proficient, it can become so very quickly. It’s worth keeping in mind, though, that “what are the top ten armies” is a question that could lend itself to oversimplification.
Okay, let’s change the question slightly. Man for man, which are the best militaries on the planet? Who has the best training, the best soldiers, the best tactics, etc.
In other words, if you were to fight a single battle, and could pick one battle group, who would you pick? Let’s break it down to land, sea, and air, and on land to armor and infantry.
Looked at this way, I think Canada ranks very highly. Canada’s air force is extremely good, and Canada has routinely kicked ass in joint war games and competitions. The international ‘Top Gun’ fighter competition was dominated by Canadians in far greater proportion to the number who participated. There used to be a series of tank games in Europe that came to be known as the ‘Canada Cup’ because of Canada’s habit of winning it. And our strong commitment to peacekeeping means that Canada’s troops are constantly moving in and out of action - we get a lot of practice in logistics and mobilization.
Unfortunately, our Liberal government has gutted our military, to the point where force readiness and maintenance has been degrading. So I’m not sure if we still rank as highly as we once did. But our soldiers are still fantastic. Canadians had the highest kill ratio of any forces in Afghanistan, for example. And American commanders have an open offer to any Canadian snipers that want to serve with them at any time.
But our budgets have been cut so badly that Canadian soldiers had to borrow desert camoflage uniforms from the British, because Canada couldn’t afford our own. We sent our guys into the desert in jungle camo, where they stood out like targets.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by chuckster *
**Here are some candidates. In terms of combat effectiveness they may be:
First Rate:
United States
Germany
Russia
China
France
Britain
Isreal
Italy **
I have a hard time seeing how Russia ranks so far up on the list. They still have a conscript army which is underpaid, poorly trained (particularly lacking a professional NCO corps) and equiped with outdated equipment. pdf-flavored-citetasticness
And considering the fact that in the USSR, the military was highly respected, public opinion of military competence has dropped dramatically, while draft-doging has increased. The Russian military has serious, serious problems - and until they solve them, calling them a great power is problematic. Unless you count the nukes, which are pretty much useless in pursuit of most policy goals, are obsolete, and are aging towards uselessness.
I may be biased (my dad was in the Israeli army) , but I think Israel should be WAY higher on the list. Guys, the Israelis are good. Starting with their war for independence, when ALL the neighboring Arab states attacked, and ever since then, the Israeli Defence Force has taught the Middle East a simple lesson - Israel is not a country with which to f–k. At least, so far as conventional war goes. True, it’s a conscipt army, but it’s unique in a couple ways. First of all, EVERYBODY serves, with very few exceptions. Second, the military is very highly regarded and seen as immediately essential for the survival of the Israeli state.
Also, if we were counting militaries in general and not just armies, I’d want France and Britain right behind the United States, for the very good reason that they’re the only ones other than us with a real ability
to project power on a global scale. China can’t do it, and Russia can barely project power within it’s own borders (Chechnya).
Sort of wondering if the number one army , as most everyone states is the US ,but the next 2 thru 10 , would actually be National Guard forces , rather than the foreign national ones that were mentioned.
Derleth wrote
Is it still concidered a loss , comparing what an average person would have seen in 1967 , as compared to what we see on the map of the world today ?
Some day , everyone is gonna look back ,and see that it was not so.
Granted, this is a pretty stupid line of thought, but you’ve got me wondering how such a conflict would play out. The scenario: the Norwegians invade Edmonton from the North in the dead of winter, so no-one notices until the first round is launched at the mall. How quickly could Canada respond?
I second Mr. Excellent… and Jane’s does too, usually… despite the fact that its a conscripted, rather than professional, army, the Israeli army is by far the most experienced in actual combat. Canada does lots of peacekeeping, but very little shooting, whereas the Israelis ALWAYS have someone to shoot at. Also, keep in mind that it isn’t as if you show up for three years of national service and are suddenly a general after week eight… higher ranking Israeli officers are professional, and have had plenty of opportunity to serve in an honest-to-God war.
The US Army gets lots of combat experience, but since there are never more than 20% of active personnel being deployed, few elements get a great deal of it. The 82nd Airborne, among others, are notable exceptions.
Winning and losing, incidentally, is really no way to measure the effectiveness of any military force; Napoleon got creamed, so to speak, by the Russians, but only because they were smart enough to burn and run, rather than stand and fight. Britain has stood up to invasion better than France over time because of the Channel, not because the French are garlic-eating surrender monkeys (although its a nice phrase, eh?).
If you want a ranked list, it basically goes: US-Russia-France-UK-Israel-China tied for first place, because nobody is going to attack a nuclear state with the clear capability to deploy their weapons. Then you get the semi-nuclear states… clearly nuclear-capable, but iffy on delivery systems: India and Pakistan, and apparently now North Korea. Then you get everyone else. Will that do?
wow, there really are alot of sad, jingoistic wankers out there. Just when I thought the world was changing in that respect. Or maybe it’s just that most people who check this site are from the U.S. Anyway since posting the question I have discovered that the actual manpower figures (which is all I was looking for) are as follows:
China - 2.5 million
USA - 1.5 million
India - 1.3 million
N. Korea - 1 million
Russia - .9 million
Turkey - .8 million
S. Korea - .7 million
Pakistan - .6 million
Vietnam - .5 million
Iran - .5 million
And then there are the sad ignorant wankers who think manpower alone is a deciding factor, while ignoring technology and mobility. If simple numbers were all you wanted, why didn’t you just look them up in the first place? Are you sad, ignorant, wanking and lazy?
Eh? Your op, while it did ask for numbers, was rather vague overall ( i.e. you didn’t specifically ask for the ten largest armies, you just said top ten, a highly subjective call, and asked for numbers ). I don’t see why any of the responses that cited the U.S. were out of order or necessarily jingoistic. In terms of combat power it is the strongest in most respects, even though it is not the largest.
