Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Top Ten Armies of today

Discussion in 'Non-World War 2 History' started by Castelot, Nov 19, 2004.

  1. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    I'm not sure about that... in Australia we use West European equipment a bit more than US/UK stuff; Steyr Augs, Minimi's, tiger helicopters, lepoard 1 MBT's... the only USA stuff we have is F-18's, M113's and (soon) some M1A1's
     
  2. Gunter_Viezenz

    Gunter_Viezenz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Windsor, Ontario
    via TanksinWW2
    Right I stand corrected, bad example. But also Canada uses the Leopard 2 istead of teh Abrams. Although Australia did use the M-16's and the L1A1 before teh Steyr Aug.
    M4 Carbine
    F89=M249
    FN MAG 58 replaced the M-60
    Browning Hi-Power same as Canada
    Javelin ATGM, M72 LAW both American weapons.

    They also use some vehicles, M113 APC, BlackHawk, Iroquis, Chinook.
     
  3. Baron

    Baron New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I didnt know the USA was giving M1A1's(well M1A2's now} to different countries .I dont like the idea of doing that I mean better to keep the good equipment to ones self
     
  4. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    Well when you sell tanks to other countries you usually strip them of the high tech guidance systems, range finders e.t.c. so they're never as good... thats patly why iraqi T-72's sucked so bad. besides, since Australia helped invade Iraq they needed a modern MBT so the USA sold us some :)
     
  5. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Baron:
    Selling. There's a slight difference... :lol: Selling more equipment means that the overall cost reduces, so it's a "good thing" to sell weapons.
    Smeghead: (keep wanting to write Smeeeg, Smeeeg, Smeghead :grin: )
    Plus the fact that the then-current Leopards that the Aussies had were so old and degraded they were vulnerable to 30mm rounds on the frontal arc, not really a nice thing for a main battle tank.
     
  6. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    haha Oli, speaking of smmmeeegheeeds, :p i dont know whose idea it was to give the leopard 1 only 70mm of armor... isnt that useless even by ww2 standards?
     
  7. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I think they were prizing mobility above all...
     
  8. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    It was a case of putting mobility at the top of the wish list, as did the French (AFAIK both AMX-30 and Leo 1 were the results of an aborted common Franco-German AFV project). Although when it first came out it wasn't vulnerable to 30mm.
    The Aussie versions have suffered badly due to age and use (possibly some fatiguing of the metal) and huge advances in AP ammo since WWII.
    One way of looking at is that in WWII Germany had heavier tanks than the allies (in general) and lost... so they went with a combination that had beaten them.
     
  9. Gunter_Viezenz

    Gunter_Viezenz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Windsor, Ontario
    via TanksinWW2
    Actually I ahve read that the Soviets just sent them the parts, manuals, and instructions to assambly the tanks.
     
  10. Revere

    Revere New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Iowa, US
    via TanksinWW2
    http://www.globalfirepower.com/


    1

    United States of America
    2

    China
    3

    Russia
    4

    India
    5

    Germany
    6

    France
    7

    Japan
    8

    Turkey
    9

    Great Britain
    10

    Brazil
    11

    Italy
    12

    South Korea
    13

    Indonesia
    14

    Canada
    15

    Iran
    16

    Spain
    17

    Egypt
    18

    North Korea
    19

    Australia
    20

    Pakistan
    21

    Mexico
    22

    Saudi Arabia
    23

    Israel
    24

    Argentina
    25

    Greece
    26

    Syria
    27

    Iraq
    28

    Taiwan
    29

    Poland
    30

    Philippines
    31

    Ukraine
    32

    Venezuela
    33

    Libya
    34

    Afghanistan
    35

    Nepal
     
  11. Gunter_Viezenz

    Gunter_Viezenz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Windsor, Ontario
    via TanksinWW2
    I doubt Iraq has 7000+ armor which I assume tanks.
     
  12. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    concering
    http://www.globalfirepower.com/

    i dont agree with all of it, Israel, Poland, and the Ukraine all have large well-equipped militaries and should be shot right up there (i mean, the phillipines beating the Ukraine??! these guys had to de-militarise to comply with NATO standards for gods sake!)
     
  13. Gunter_Viezenz

    Gunter_Viezenz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Windsor, Ontario
    via TanksinWW2
    That site us not that great because it does not consider many things and have many unknowns, just look at the Polish mostly all 'Not Reported'.
     
  14. liang

    liang New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2003
    Messages:
    830
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Best army as most likely to win a war? Or best army as in quality, man for man, gun for gun, tank for tank?
    For instance, pound per pound, the Israelis are probably better than most. But it's not going to win a conventional war against US, Russia, or even the lowly PLA.
     
  15. Killertankkiller

    Killertankkiller New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    In a barrel
    via TanksinWW2
    Just got to say, America has the largest and most modern army, well trained to, but still need to fix a few things, like making everything EMP safe, Faster information transmission, the super medicine, and some weapon updates. Not like we need them now, but when we get to be a combined civilization, the others will be wanting to get rid of all of us, so we will need better tech. I just hope some of the others will be friendly, though. And by others, I mean other inteligence. Yes, aliens must exist, or those stars in the sky are just painted there.
     
  16. majorwoody10

    majorwoody10 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    ca.usa
    via TanksinWW2
    aliens do exist...they do all the hard manual labor here in california....pick the fruit ,dig the ditches, clean the houses...if all the aliens went home cali would collapse overnite....and they come over by starlite and moonlite and even in broad daylite,tankkiller...its true.
     
  17. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    Killertankkiller, America does have the most modern and expensive army its true... But it's only the third largest.
    China's army is enormous, but only in terms of infantry; they have a striking absence of equipment... USA has many more tanks IFV's than China, and those are the most important things on the battlefield ;)
    Russia has a similar sized army to the US (slightly larger)... only they have much much more ground equipment... however alot of that is oudated or lower-quality supplements like the T-72 or the Shilka, designed merely to complement their best units.
     
  18. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    I'd still say the infantry is the most important thing on the battlefield, smeghead! No matter how high-tech your army, you still can't claim a victory without having at least some footsoldiers on the spot. And since infantry these days is perfectly capable of dealing with tanks and armoured vehicles through the use of RPGs, I wouldn't exactly put sheer number of tanks as an advantage over sheer numbers of infantry.
     
  19. Zhukov_2005

    Zhukov_2005 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toothless Capital of the World
    via TanksinWW2
    Expertly put, Roel. Infantry are the main component to any military (ancient or modern) because it is they who do the most fighting. Diverging from this belief has become an appearent problem for US troops in the Middle East. While the US Department of Defense spends billions of dollars on F22 raptors, bunker-busting bombs, and hellfire AT missles, the soldiers on the ground are going without proper armour (both personal and for vehicles) and are equipped with weapons in need of retirement. The infantry is being downgraded and pushed aside so that the development of "super" battlefield weapons can go ahead fullforce. The ironic part is that stealth planes and anti-tank missles do very little to deter an enemy motivated by religion and viewed as a liberator.
     
  20. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    Well, Ok then...
    by that logic China's army is actually probably superior to America's :-? as their equiptment deficiencies are hardly negligable. I personally wouldn't believe this as the Americans leared to counter the 'Mass Infantry Wave' effect of the Chinese army in the Korean War, which was fought in the most suitable terrain for infantry effectiveness (steep hills, and lots of trees for cover)
    heres a fun little guide. http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries_comparison.asp
    judge for yourself...
     

Share This Page