# How accurate do you think Global Fire Power is?



## RayKalm

1.) USA
2.) Russia
3.) China
4.) India
5.) UK
*6.) Turkey*
7.) South Korea
8.) France
9.) Japan
10.) Israel
11.) Brazil
*12.) Iran*
13.) Germany
14.) Taiwan
*15.) Pakistan
16.) Egypt*
17.) Italy
*18.) Indonesia*
19.) Thailand
20.) Ukraine
21.) Poland
22.) North Korea
23.) Philippines
24.) Australia
25.) Canada
*26.) Saudi Arabia
27.) Malaysia* 
28.) Sweden
29.) Spain
30.) Mexico
31.) South Africa
32.) Argentina
33.) Greece
34.) Switzerland 
*35.) Syria
36.) Iraq*
37.) Finland
*38.) Algeria
39.) Libya*
40.) Norway
41.) Singapore
42.) Denmark
*43.) Jordan*
44.) Ethiopia
45.) Chile
46.) Portugal
47.) Venezuela
*48.) Yemen*
49.) Belgium
50.) Georgia
*51.) Afghanistan
52.) Lebanon
53.) Kuwait
54.) Nepal*
*55.) Qatar*







This list is being used everywhere, and personally, I think this list is quite unaccurate and not a good source for this kind of information. It doesn't take into account the modernity of each country, nuclear weapons, missile technology, intelligence services etc. Above that, this list doesn't include countries like Morocco, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Nigeria etc.. 

What are you thoughts?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Korean

France is ranked below UK, so you know the above list is BS. Europeans know France has the strongest military of the Western Europe.

UK should rank just above Brazil.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Carlos 'Cypher' Renato

Nothing Accurate, North Korea is too High, i can't believe how Chile is in 45 while Argentina is at 33, Argentina is a ****, Chile is at the level of Brazil, that should be lower on that list, Israel is way stronger than France too.


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

Definitely inaccurate...

Reactions: Like Like:
 1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Lol.. GFP is a piece of crap... a JANES WANNABE.


----------



## Korean

Carlos 'Cypher' Renato said:


> Nothing Accurate, North Korea is too High, i can't believe how Chile is in 45 while Argentina is at 33, Argentina is a ****, Chile is at the level of Brazil, that should be lower on that list, Israel is way stronger than France too.


Everyone below top 10 are basically pacifist countries with a military that present no threat to others.

1. US
2. Russia
3. China
4. Korea <= The reason I place Korea here is because Korea is the last country of the list whose army could battle 1 million PLA troops and win.
5. India <= Very strong airforce, and a good navy. but army is lacking.
6. Japan <= Japan has a top class navy second only to the US, but the ground force is a joke so Japan can't project power.
7. Israel
8. France
9. Turkey
10. Germany


----------



## VelocuR

I already know this Global Fire Power is garbage. This is like yahoo fake information. We shouldn't rely too much on this global fire power.

Don't waste time on the countries list issues.


----------



## RayKalm

Korean said:


> Everyone below top 10 are basically pacifist countries with a military that present no threat to others.
> 
> 1. US
> 2. Russia
> 3. China
> 4. Korea <= The reason I place Korea here is because Korea is the last country of the list whose army could battle 1 million PLA troops and win.
> 5. India <= Very strong airforce, and a good navy. but army is lacking.
> 6. Japan <= Japan has a top class navy second only to the US, but the ground force is a joke so Japan can't project power.
> 7. Israel
> 8. France
> 9. Turkey
> 10. Germany



I see a lot of personal biased here Korean. First off, having major victories in war doesn't mean that the said country is suddenly top 10 material. In that case, Pakistan has lost less air pilots in every air-to-air war with India, and the Soviet Union. 

Also, do you honestly believe that Pakistan presents no threats to other with our nuclear missile capability (Since you put it below 10)? The only thing we lack in Pakistan is that we have a weak economy, other than that, we have top class weapons that you wouldn't think a 3rd world country would have (we're the world's 4th country to develop cruise missiles), we have one of the largest man power in the world, and we're constantly building nuclear bombs. In 2015, we will have made an ICBM which can reach up to Germany and near the Korean Penn. 

Here is my list.

1.) US
2.) Russia
3.) China
4.) India
5.) France
6.) United Kingom
7.) Germany
8.) Turkey
9.) Japan
10.) Israel
11.) Pakistan
12.) South Korea

16.) Iran
19.) Saudi Arabia

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Carlos 'Cypher' Renato

Also, how Philipines is ahead of Sweden? as far as i know the Philiphines don't have much of an air force....


----------



## RayKalm

Carlos 'Cypher' Renato said:


> Also, how Philipines is ahead of Sweden? as far as i know the Philiphines don't have much of an air force....



It's quite surprising that Indonesia, which has a very poor and lacking airforce, could be anywhere in the top 18. I would put Indonesia at 25th.

Thus, once again proving how wrong this list is.


----------



## jai231179

RayKalm said:


> 1.) USA
> 2.) Russia
> 3.) China
> 4.) India
> 5.) UK
> *6.) Turkey*
> 7.) South Korea
> 8.) France
> 9.) Japan
> 10.) Israel
> 11.) Brazil
> *12.) Iran*
> 13.) Germany
> 14.) Taiwan
> *15.) Pakistan
> 16.) Egypt*
> 17.) Italy
> *18.) Indonesia*
> 19.) Thailand
> 20.) Ukraine
> 21.) Poland
> 22.) North Korea
> 23.) Philippines
> 24.) Australia
> 25.) Canada
> *26.) Saudi Arabia
> 27.) Malaysia*
> 28.) Sweden
> 29.) Spain
> 30.) Mexico
> 31.) South Africa
> 32.) Argentina
> 33.) Greece
> 34.) Switzerland
> *35.) Syria
> 36.) Iraq*
> 37.) Finland
> *38.) Algeria
> 39.) Libya*
> 40.) Norway
> 41.) Singapore
> 42.) Denmark
> *43.) Jordan*
> 44.) Ethiopia
> 45.) Chile
> 46.) Portugal
> 47.) Venezuela
> *48.) Yemen*
> 49.) Belgium
> 50.) Georgia
> *51.) Afghanistan
> 52.) Lebanon
> 53.) Kuwait
> 54.) Nepal*
> *55.) Qatar*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This list is being used everywhere, and personally, I think this list is quite unaccurate and not a good source for this kind of information. It doesn't take into account the modernity of each country, nuclear weapons, missile technology, intelligence services etc. Above that, this list doesn't include countries like Morocco, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Nigeria etc..
> 
> What are you thoughts?



Dude is this list accurate? It seems skewed to me. Pakistan behind Taiwan and Iran!??! No offence to Iranians here, Iran is very strong as well, but imho, Pakistan should rank higher as they are a nuclear nation and are no less to Iranians in terms of combat experience. And definitely ahead of Taiwan! How did the RoC get ranked higher? Indonesia should not be no 18, in SEA, its Vietnam, followed by Thailand, and then Singapore, Indonesia and then Malaysia. I don't even see Vietnam on the list. Poland ahead of North Korea?? err......I don't know much about Poland though, except that they have never won a single war ever since they re-appeared on the map. I don't get how Poland can be ahead of the DPRK, Australia etc. How are the nations being ranked in this list anyways?


----------



## King Solomon

GFP provides a unique analytical display of data covering global military powers with statistics compiled through various sources. All manner of countries are considered in the ranking, a spectrum helping to produce a near-complete comparison of relative military strengths from across the globe. The user should note that *nuclear capability is not taken into account* for the final ranking for this listing is purely a "numbers game" meant to spark debate and including nuclear weapons would clearly defeat its purpose. Therefore GFP comparisons are for consideration in a conventional war based solely on each individual nation's capabilities on land, at sea and through the air while i*ncluding logistical and financial aspects when waging total war.* Sources are stated whenever possible though some statistics are estimated if official numbers are not available.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In case Nuclear capability is taken into account, *Russia* would top the list.





AND Pakistan would be way above than where it is.

But conventionally, the list is quite accurate I would say, for the first 10 nations.


----------



## IndoUS

There is no way on earth Taiwan or let alone Japan or South Korea(no offense to Koreans or Japanese, or Taiwanese). Countries have nuclear weapons for a reason and they should be taken into consideration. Secondly pretty sure Pakistan has better trained soldiers than these countries because of the recent wars.


----------



## LiberalAtheist

GFP is all about numbers nuclear weapons are not taken into consideration conventional capability only matters outside of the 8 nuclear weapons country (not including North Korea because they have low yielding warheads and a handful of them with very rudimentary delivery systems) not to mention France ranked below Turkey is just a eyesore and a obvious sign of inaccuracy in terms of conventional strength the top 10 list imho would be 

1)USA
2)Russia
3)China (PRC)
4)India
5)France
6)UK
7)South Korea
8)Japan
9)Israel
10)Brazil

11)Germany
12)Turkey
13)Pakistan


----------



## DelhiDareDevil

This list shows how strong Asia could be if India, Russia and China could see eye to eye, being the 2-4th most powerful nations. Could withstand pressure from Nato I say.


----------



## Pak47

Indians love to think its true.


----------



## oFFbEAT

^^^^Well, put Pakistan in top 5....they'll also support it instead of questioning it.......

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Korean

RayKalm said:


> I see a lot of personal biased here Korean.


My standard is pretty simple; can a nation's military battle 1 million Chinese PLA troops, the standard bad guys of our time, and win? Just three countries can say yes to this question; the US, Russia, and Korea. India may win a limited conflict, but would have trouble stopping the advances of 1 million PLA troops in an all out war.

Korea has an unusually powerful military for a country of its size because of the legacy of the Korean War; the primary combatant for the ROK from 1951 to 1953 was the PLA, and the Korean military was designed to battle a combined North Korean-Chinese force of 1.5 million troops in the event of the resumption of the Korean War. 



> Also, do you honestly believe that Pakistan presents no threats to other with our nuclear missile capability


1. Nuclear weapons are useless in almost all war scenarios unless the nuclear state is facing a total destruction similar to Germany and Japan of 1945, and may wish to take out its enemy with it to hell.
2. Aside India, Pakistan doesn't present a military threat to anyone else.



Carlos 'Cypher' Renato said:


> Also, how Philipines is ahead of Sweden? as far as i know the Philiphines don't have much of an air force....


Philippines have a lot of people to be conscripted, as opposed to Sweden short on population.



IndoUS said:


> Countries have nuclear weapons for a reason


Weapons of the last resort upon a state's impending doom and total annihilation. Nukes are tactically useless for all other cases, and the Soviets and Americans would have just nuked Taliban to end their Afghan wars if possible instead of losing tons of troops and equipment.


----------



## Carlos 'Cypher' Renato

Korean said:


> Philippines have a lot of people to be conscripted, as opposed to Sweden short on population.


But if Sweden goes (unlikely) to war with Philipines Sweden would win, so they are stronger, don't ya think?


----------



## Korean

Carlos 'Cypher' Renato said:


> But if Sweden goes (unlikely) to war with Philipines Sweden would win, so they are stronger, don't ya think?


This is why GFP is all wrong and my list is accurate, because I made my list based on respective country's warfighting abilities against a specific hypothetical opponent(1 million PLA troops), not on stuff like economy size and the number of young men to be conscripted.


----------



## fly2012

Korean said:


> My standard is pretty simple; can a nation's military battle 1 million Chinese PLA troops, the standard bad guys of our time, and win? Just three countries can say yes to this question; the US, Russia, and Korea. India may win a limited conflict, but would have trouble stopping the advances of 1 million PLA troops in an all out war.
> 
> Korea has an unusually powerful military for a country of its size because of the legacy of the Korean War; the primary combatant for the ROK from 1951 to 1953 was the PLA, and the Korean military was designed to battle a combined North Korean-Chinese force of 1.5 million troops in the event of the resumption of the Korean War.



Huh? When did ROK army win over PLA? ROK army was almost pushed to the sea by North Korea army alone. If you put Vietnam there at least it is debatable. Both McArthur and Ridgeway were so disspointed at ROK army.

Anyway, move to modern days, do you think ROK can top France, who has a 2.5 time GDP and even export warship to Russia
?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## fly2012

One valuable information from GFR is that it gives detail numbers on a lot of categories from weapon system to infrastructure, so it is good to compare side by side. Modern wars have to consider economic and logistics. 

I think Raykalm's ranking is more convicing although I personally will rank Japan higher, because of the size of their economy, advanced technologies and proved record of fighting wills and skills.


----------



## Korean

fly2012 said:


> Anyway, move to modern days, do you think ROK can top France, who has a 2.5 time GDP and even export warship to Russia?


France resold a warship built by the Korean shipyard STX.


----------



## illusion8

Korean said:


> This is why GFP is all wrong and my list is accurate, because I made my list based on respective country's warfighting abilities against a specific hypothetical opponent(1 million PLA troops), not on stuff like economy size and the number of young men to be conscripted.



Korea above India, u must be joking, what do you think is the size of the standing Indian army, the IAF and the IN and its nukes?


----------



## Korean

illusion8 said:


> Korea above India, u must be joking, what do you think is the size of the standing Indian army


Let me give you the scenario.

You have 1 million PLA troops amassed across Arunachal Pradesh and Pakistani border with India, and they are charging forward. Can India stop 1 million PLA ground forces with tens of thousands of tanks and hundreds of jets?

Now switching the scenario to Korea, you have 1 million PLA troops amassed across Yalu river ready to cross. Can the ROK troops stop 1 million PLA ground forces? The answer to this question is yes. 



> the IAF and the IN and its nukes?


Soviets couldn't use nukes. Americans couldn't use nukes. Indians and Chinese won't be using nukes in their 1 million troop battles.


----------



## illusion8

Korean said:


> Let me give you the scenario.
> 
> You have 1 million PLA troops amassed across Arunachal Pradesh and Pakistani border with India, and they are charging forward. Can India stop 1 million PLA ground forces with tens of thousands of tanks and hundreds of jets?
> 
> Now switching the scenario to Korea, you have 1 million PLA troops amassed across Yalu river ready to cross. Can the ROK troops stop 1 million PLA ground forces? The answer to this question is yes.
> 
> 
> Soviets couldn't use nukes. Americans couldn't use nukes. Indians and Chinese won't be using nukes in their 1 million troop battles.



so what scenario do you envision a million strong Indian army will do, give them a hug?

and u guess the crew of tens of thousands of Indian tanks will be on vacation, and the hundreds of Indian jets will be in their hangars. And the IN will be bombarding Pakistan to kingdom come, and all Chinese ships in and around the Indian ocean will be resting in the bottom of the ocean.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fanling Monk

To appease the master of delusion, twisted logic and avoid direct answer, I put 

1) Koreas (soon combine)
2) US
3) Russia
.
.
.
192) China (don't even bother)

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## joekrish

Scenario? Every country can give one and stop having this d##k meassureing contest.


----------



## Fanling Monk

Korean said:


> My standard is pretty simple; can a nation's military battle 1 million Chinese PLA troops, the standard bad guys of our time, and win? Just three countries can say yes to this question; the US, Russia, and Korea. India may win a limited conflict, but would have trouble stopping the advances of 1 million PLA troops in an all out war.
> 
> Korea has an unusually powerful military for a country of its size because of the legacy of the Korean War; the primary combatant for the ROK from 1951 to 1953 was the PLA, and the Korean military was designed to battle a combined North Korean-Chinese force of 1.5 million troops in the event of the resumption of the Korean War.
> 
> 
> 1. Nuclear weapons are useless in almost all war scenarios unless the nuclear state is facing a total destruction similar to Germany and Japan of 1945, and may wish to take out its enemy with it to hell.
> 2. Aside India, Pakistan doesn't present a military threat to anyone else.
> 
> 
> Philippines have a lot of people to be conscripted, as opposed to Sweden short on population.
> 
> 
> Weapons of the last resort upon a state's impending doom and total annihilation. Nukes are tactically useless for all other cases, and the Soviets and Americans would have just nuked Taliban to end their Afghan wars if possible instead of losing tons of troops and equipment.




Mmm very fine analysis. Since you're living in New York perhaps you're a military attache to the UN.



Korean said:


> Everyone below top 10 are basically pacifist countries with a military that present no threat to others.
> 
> 1. US
> 2. Russia
> 3. China
> 4. Korea <= The reason I place Korea here is because Korea is the last country of the list whose army could battle 1 million PLA troops and win.
> 5. India <= Very strong airforce, and a good navy. but army is lacking.
> 6. Japan <= Japan has a top class navy second only to the US, but the ground force is a joke so Japan can't project power.
> 7. Israel
> 8. France
> 9. Turkey
> 10. Germany




That's for now. When the 2 Koreas reunited, as you envisioned, she will take over the #1 spot.


----------



## gambit

fly2012 said:


> Huh? When did ROK army win over PLA? ROK army was almost pushed to the sea by North Korea army alone. If you put Vietnam there at least it is debatable. Both McArthur and Ridgeway were so disspointed at ROK army.
> 
> Anyway, *move to modern days*, do you think ROK can top France, who has a 2.5 time GDP and even export warship to Russia
> ?


Yes, let us move on to modern days instead of dwelling on the 'glorious' Korean War past where the only tactic the PLA knew was human wave.

Do you think the PLA can handle the RoK Army of today? If we are generous and grant the PLA's its conflict with Viet Nam in 1979, it would make the PLA only marginally more combat experience than the RKA. Marginally -- because by most analyses that removed the Chinese political aspirations of that war, on the military front the PLA got nowhere -- at best. The RoKA of today is not the Vietnamese military of 1979. Your J-20 is so far only a demonstrator so please spare us that boast. So as far as technology goes, that leave the PLA and the RoKA comparable. Same for the PLAAF and the RoKAF. Same for PLAN and the RoKN.

The US generals may have been disappointed with the RoK military of yesterday but our generals are very impressed with the RoK military of today. The South Koreans have sent their troops to support many UN operations and have been supportive of US in Iraq and Afghanistan. What same can be said for the PLA? In fact, when it comes to UN operations, China as a member of the Security Council have been the most stingy in terms of physical actions -- but never from verbiage. Your generals are wiser than you, I can tell. They know from experience in Viet Nam in 1979 that if they are to mess with the South Koreans, they will face several millions angry Koreans no less fanatic in the defense of their homeland than how the Viets were in theirs.

So if you do not want us to compare the modernized PLA of today, then have the same courtesy for the South Koreans. I know that rendering courtesy for us 'inferior' Asians must be very tough for a Chinese -- but try anyway.


----------



## danger007

Korean said:


> Let me give you the scenario.
> 
> You have 1 million PLA troops amassed across Arunachal Pradesh and Pakistani border with India, and they are charging forward. Can India stop 1 million PLA ground forces with tens of thousands of tanks and hundreds of jets?
> 
> Now switching the scenario to Korea, you have 1 million PLA troops amassed across Yalu river ready to cross. Can the ROK troops stop 1 million PLA ground forces? The answer to this question is yes.
> 
> 
> Soviets couldn't use nukes. Americans couldn't use nukes. Indians and Chinese won't be using nukes in their 1 million troop battles.



Except some internet troll's... Fighting a war with India is not that much easy as you think..... Anyways, a military conflict between India won't happen in this century.... As both states have one goal, to become a developed state.... China is advanced than India in alot of things... Both fallows different ways.... a military conflict between two giants will results a world war or back to the stone age.... Unlike north korea a rogue state we( India,China) are not.... May be we have differences and that will be in between GoI and CPC (run by politicians), not in between Indians and Chinese.... so nukes won't take part of war....


----------



## COLDHEARTED AVIATOR

Korean said:


> Let me give you the scenario.
> 
> You have 1 million PLA troops amassed across Arunachal Pradesh and Pakistani border with India, and they are charging forward. Can India stop 1 million PLA ground forces with tens of thousands of tanks and hundreds of jets?
> 
> Now switching the scenario to Korea, you have 1 million PLA troops amassed across Yalu river ready to cross. Can the ROK troops stop 1 million PLA ground forces? The answer to this question is yes.
> 
> 
> Soviets couldn't use nukes. Americans couldn't use nukes. Indians and Chinese won't be using nukes in their 1 million troop battles.



Sorry but your arguements seems very childish plus you are favouring your country way too much and not being neutral.

What makes you think that PLA will commit 1 million troops to the Indian border?Then what makes you think that Indian soldiers wont be able to stop the PLA troops but ROK troops will be successful?

The Indian Army has more experience in fighting wars than ROK and our soldiers are well trained and battle proven and they experience action every day either in Kashmir or North East which cant be said for neither your country and neither for PLA.

Moreover it would only be stupid for the Chinese to fight a land war with India as it would lead to a lot of casualties because of the terrain.I believe a war *IF* it happens with Chinese would be fought mostly by the Airforce and Navy with only very less action taking place on the ground between the Land forces of the two countries and this is the reason which makes me belive that we have a better chance of winning than ROK against the Chinese.

I am not a war monger and normally dont discuss these things plus i dont think a India-China war is gonna happen and nor do i believe in these rating system for the world most powerful countries but your highly partial replies prompted me to bring my fingers to the keyboard.


----------



## fly2012

gambit said:


> Yes, let us move on to modern days instead of dwelling on the 'glorious' Korean War past where the only tactic the PLA knew was human wave.
> 
> Do you think the PLA can handle the RoK Army of today? If we are generous and grant the PLA's its conflict with Viet Nam in 1979, it would make the PLA only marginally more combat experience than the RKA. Marginally -- because by most analyses that removed the Chinese political aspirations of that war, on the military front the PLA got nowhere -- at best. The RoKA of today is not the Vietnamese military of 1979. Your J-20 is so far only a demonstrator so please spare us that boast. So as far as technology goes, that leave the PLA and the RoKA comparable. Same for the PLAAF and the RoKAF. Same for PLAN and the RoKN.
> 
> The US generals may have been disappointed with the RoK military of yesterday but our generals are very impressed with the RoK military of today. The South Koreans have sent their troops to support many UN operations and have been supportive of US in Iraq and Afghanistan. What same can be said for the PLA? In fact, when it comes to UN operations, China as a member of the Security Council have been the most stingy in terms of physical actions -- but never from verbiage. Your generals are wiser than you, I can tell. They know from experience in Viet Nam in 1979 that if they are to mess with the South Koreans, they will face several millions angry Koreans no less fanatic in the defense of their homeland than how the Viets were in theirs.
> 
> So if you do not want us to compare the modernized PLA of today, then have the same courtesy for the South Koreans. I know that rendering courtesy for us 'inferior' Asians must be very tough for a Chinese -- but try anyway.



China cannot handle RoK army today? Compared to 60 years ago, the gap is even larger. I never heard anyone putting China and ROK at the same level other than you two guys. Otherwise why do US choops need to station at SK? On fire power ranking, we are talking about Total war here, not a limited war liket that in 1979. For the same reason US's failure in Vietnam doesn't mean US cannot completely destroy Vietnam. Even it is true that ROK is technology more advanced (no way in every field like missles etc), the sheer land size difference and amount of weaponry are unsurmoutable. China only need to destroy Seoul or maybe another city to trash ROK's economy. On the other hand, even 50 major Chinese cities are destroyed, China could still function, as proved during Japan's invasion.

If the "Korean" guy really believe that ROK are on par with China, he wouldn't have started every single thread to bash China. It is unimaginable for an American, a Russian, or even a Japanese, to pay this much attention to China.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

fly2012 said:


> China cannot handle RoK army today? Compared to 60 years ago, the gap is even larger. I never heard anyone putting China and ROK at the same level other than you two guys. Otherwise why do US choops need to station at SK? On fire power ranking, we are talking about Total war here, not a limited war liket that in 1979. For the same reason US's failure in Vietnam doesn't mean US cannot completely destroy Vietnam. Even it is true that ROK is technology more advanced (no way in every field like missles etc), the sheer land size difference and amount of weaponry are unsurmoutable. China only need to destroy Seoul or maybe another city to trash ROK's economy. On the other hand, even 50 major Chinese cities are destroyed, China could still function, as proved during Japan's invasion.
> 
> If the "Korean" guy really believe that ROK are on par with China, he wouldn't have started every single thread to bash China. It is unimaginable for an American, a Russian, or even a Japanese, to pay this much attention to China.



What's ROK more advanced in in military fields? Everything they have is imported or depends on imported components. Their AWACs are blind and deaf compared to ours. Their air, space and missile forces are far inferior to ours.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Korean said:


> Let me give you the scenario.
> 
> You have 1 million PLA troops amassed across Arunachal Pradesh and Pakistani border with India, and they are charging forward. Can India stop 1 million PLA ground forces with tens of thousands of tanks and hundreds of jets?



First 1 million PLA troops cannot be amassed at Indian borders unless China had them already deployed them in Tibet for months.

The entire Sino-Indian border, except Aksai Chin consists of mountains on an average of 6000m

Rapid deployment troops to Indian borders will result in drop in the effectiveness or fighting capability of the PLA, as most of them will succumb to 

Altitude_sickness

and even result in deaths due to High altitude pulmonary edema, 

Same mistake done by India in 1962.

About Indian tanks and airforce against PLA.

Only in the Aksai Chin theater can they both be of significance. Rest of them are mountainous regions where both airforce and Armour will be ineffective.

Despite limited capability an airforce can wreak havoc over an infantry with no air cover

Battle of Longewala


Comparison of India and South Korea based on GFP is foolish, both nations face different situations when it comes to threats.

What matters is are both in a position to fight and defend their nation from the threats they face.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## fly2012

COLDHEARTED AVIATOR said:


> Sorry but your arguements seems very childish plus you are favouring your country way too much and not being neutral.
> 
> What makes you think that PLA will commit 1 million troops to the Indian border?Then what makes you think that Indian soldiers wont be able to stop the PLA troops but ROK troops will be successful?
> 
> The Indian Army has more experience in fighting wars than ROK and our soldiers are well trained and battle proven and they experience action every day either in Kashmir or North East which cant be said for neither your country and neither for PLA.
> 
> Moreover it would only be stupid for the Chinese to fight a land war with India as it would lead to a lot of casualties because of the terrain.I believe a war *IF* it happens with Chinese would be fought mostly by the Airforce and Navy with only very less action taking place on the ground between the Land forces of the two countries and this is the reason which makes me belive that we have a better chance of winning than ROK against the Chinese.
> 
> I am not a war monger and normally dont discuss these things plus i dont think a India-China war is gonna happen and nor do i believe in these rating system for the world most powerful countries but your highly partial replies prompted me to bring my fingers to the keyboard.



It is not even funny to compare South Korea and India, the latter has a 30 times larger land area and much more human and non-human resources. There's a reason India and China are called major powers and ROK is not. For this reason I don't believe there will be war between India and China, no one can win without spitting guts out.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## fly2012

FairAndUnbiased said:


> What's ROK more advanced in in military fields? Everything they have is imported or depends on imported components. Their AWACs are blind and deaf compared to ours. Their air, space and missile forces are far inferior to ours.



And that's why I put "even if". Even fully equiped with US weapons, there's no way ROK can stop China who is nearly 100 times larger size wise.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## COLDHEARTED AVIATOR

fly2012 said:


> It is not even funny to compare South Korea and India, the latter has a 30 times larger land area and much more human and non-human resources. There's a reason India and China are called major powers and ROK is not. For this reason I don't believe there will be war between India and China, no one can win without spitting guts out.



One more thing..Chinese and Indian govts are very smart and wont risk their economy to fight a war.This is the one thing which is common between both countries which makes me feel there wont be any war.Theres absolutely nothing between India and China which cannot be resolved by dialogue.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

self delete.


----------



## danger007

US and Japan fought a war, and US nuked Japan... now they are allies....China and India fought a war in 1962, it doesn't we are enemies now... just have differences, which can be resolved.... If korea and China joined hand together won't make much difference to west... but If India joined hand to China will cause nightmare to west... and i don't think it gonna happen because India has non-aligned policy.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

fly2012 said:


> It is not even funny to compare South Korea and India, the latter has a 30 times larger land area and much more human and non-human resources. There's a reason India and China are called major powers and ROK is not. For this reason I don't believe there will be war between India and China, no one can win without spitting guts out.



Compared to India ROK has massive industrial capability , if i am correct ROK doesn't import majority of her arms.

But major problem is , ROK doesn't have strategic depth, just like Israel or Singapore , if the enemy forces breach beyond a point, her entire war industries and infrastructure come under range of enemy seige.

For India however, even if somehow entire northern India is under enemy siege, Indian troops can retreat to Southern India and organize a massive counterattack.


----------



## jai231179

Wow ok, this thread is really getting ridiculous. Poland, which does nothing more than whine and whimper whenever Russia gets aggressive is ranked at 21 ahead of N.Korea!? Pakistan which sports a battle-hardened army and is probably the most powerful Muslim nation around is ranked below Turkey and Iran? Not intending to offend the Turks and Iranians here, but I'm sure many posters here would agree that Pakistan is ahead of both nations. As for RoK and India, come on guys......RoK is tough, not saying no. But RoK isn't even the size of an average state (India - eg Tamilnadu) or province (China - Guangdong etc). There is only so much fighting u can do against gigantic nations like China or India, both which have immense resources and manpower. I do agree with some of the earlier posters on one thing though. An all-out war between India and China would be catastrophic to both nations, economically and otherwise. You can't say the same for the RoK. Without international backing, if the RoK is to attempt taking on the PLA on her own...well, good luck really. The RoK wouldn't last a week and yet be unable to cause any kinda significant damage to China. The RoK can only survive a Chinese assault with American help. 

And this thread should be shut down.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

danger007 said:


> US and Japan fought a war, and US nuked Japan... now they are allies....China and India fought a war in 1962, it doesn't we are enemies now... just have differences, which can be resolved.... If korea and China joined hand together won't make much difference to west... but If *India joined hand to China will cause nightmare to west*... and i don't think it gonna happen because India has non-aligned policy.



Numerical superiority as the only factor is obsolete in terms of modern warfare.

Iraq is a good example.

Both India and China are decades behind the West in terms of military capabilities.


----------



## jai231179

Syama Ayas said:


> Compared to India ROK has massive industrial capability , if i am correct ROK doesn't import majority of her arms.
> 
> But major problem is , ROK doesn't have strategic depth, just like Israel or Singapore , if the enemy forces breach beyond a point, her entire war industries and infrastructure come under range of enemy seige.
> 
> For India however, even if somehow entire northern India is under enemy siege, Indian troops can retreat to Southern India and organize a massive counterattack.



U r right, and probably thats why we have been ranked at 41 although the SAF is way more equipped and well-trained than the Malaysian armed forces or the Indonesians. The limited size of our country and population is a huge setback. In a war scenario (if Malaysia is the aggressor for example), our only hope is to strike first and seize enough territory  before we head to the table for talks. If we lose the initiative though, we are finished. 



Syama Ayas said:


> Numerical superiority as the only factor is obsolete in terms of modern warfare.
> 
> Iraq is a good example.
> 
> Both India and China are decades behind the West in terms of military capabilities.



Ideal situation would be Russia + China + India + Pakistan. (India and Pakistan having resolved the Kashmir issue of course and being able to work on a friendship that eventually leads to an alliance. That would be sweet. ) These four countries together would be able to counter the West.


----------



## OrionHunter

GFP comparisons are for a *conventional war* based solely on each individual nation's capabilities on land, at sea and through the air while *including logistical and financial aspects when waging total war*. 

*The final GFP rankings are based on a formula taking some 45 factors into account and compiling totals against each country, applying bonuses and penalties as needed to generate this list.*

Here are the 45 factors taken into consideration...







Pretty comprehensive I must say!


----------



## Amolthebest

Syama Ayas said:


> Compared to India ROK has massive industrial capability , if i am correct ROK doesn't import majority of her arms.
> 
> But major problem is , ROK doesn't have strategic depth, just like Israel or Singapore , if the enemy forces breach beyond a point, her entire war industries and infrastructure come under range of enemy seige.
> 
> For India however, even if somehow entire northern India is under enemy siege, Indian troops can retreat to Southern India and organize a massive counterattack.



Don't waste time on them. They are very curious to wage a war againest Vietnam, India, Korea, Japan, etc. etc. And most important thing they got paid to vomit venom here .


----------



## danger007

Syama Ayas said:


> Numerical superiority as the only factor is obsolete in terms of modern warfare.
> 
> Iraq is a good example.
> 
> Both India and China are decades behind the West in terms of military capabilities.



Every weapon will be obsolete infront of US..... im talking about strategic importance.... India is only one country can give that advantage to US over China.... And US itself can't use all of its advanced weapons....


----------



## BordoEnes

Globalfirepower is just full of crap. Its entirely based on quantity and not quality.

I posted my personnal list several times but here it is...

1.USA
2.Russia
3.China
4.India
5.France
6.S.Korea
7.Turkey
8.G.Britain
9.Israel
10.Pakistan


----------



## IND151

* the Top 10 military power ac cross globe according to me *





1.US
2.China
3.Russia
4.France
5.India
6.UK
7.Pakistan
8.Brazil
9.Japan
10.Israel


*Note> i have ranked France above India only because they have blue water navy and have M 51 SLBMs

I have ranked UK below India despite having trident SLBMs as they don't have blue water navy and are suffering budget problems*


----------



## Fanling Monk

Amolthebest said:


> Don't waste time on them. They are very curious to wage a war againest Vietnam, India, Korea, Japan, etc. etc. And most important thing they got paid to vomit venom here .




Look who's talking, every post you made is to spread venom against China, except you don't get paid for them. For 5 posts a day I'm out of the poverty line ( I'm paid in USD ) but for you they only add to your angers.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Varunastra

Korean said:


> Everyone below top 10 are basically pacifist countries with a military that present no threat to others.
> 
> 1. US
> 2. Russia
> 3. China
> *4. Korea <= The reason I place Korea here is because Korea is the last country of the list whose army could battle 1 million PLA troops and win.
> 5. India <= Very strong airforce, and a good navy. but army is lacking.*
> 6. Japan <= Japan has a top class navy second only to the US, but the ground force is a joke so Japan can't project power.
> 7. Israel
> 8. France
> 9. Turkey
> 10. Germany



are u mad bro???? S.KOREA above India???..................and you say that we have a weak army?? but people in pdf instead say that our army is our main strength........but still read these articles and u will get a breif idea of what india is capable of-
Indian Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indian Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Carlos 'Cypher' Renato

Korean said:


> My standard is pretty simple; can a nation's military battle 1 million Chinese PLA troops, the standard bad guys of our time, and win? Just three countries can say yes to this question; the US, Russia, and Korea. India may win a limited conflict, but would have trouble stopping the advances of 1 million PLA troops in an all out war.


In this case we should be higher in this list, because that if 1 million PLA fights the EB in places like the Amazon Jungle, Pantanal or the Caatinga, we would win as we are the better trained army on these places while PLA never trained there. 
But winning a battle depends from the situation not only training and firepower. Is Vietnam stronger than the US Army because they won the Vietnam War? I don't think so...



IND151 said:


> 1.US
> 2.China
> 3.Russia
> 4.France
> 5.India
> 6.UK
> 7.Pakistan
> *8.Brazil*
> 9.Japan
> 10.Israel


We can't be too high because our navy and our airforce are pretty outdated campared with other airforces around the globe.


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Carlos 'Cypher' Renato said:


> In this case we should be higher in this list, because that if 1 million PLA fights the EB in places like the Amazon Jungle, Pantanal or the Caatinga, we would win as we are the better trained army on these places while PLA never trained there. But winning a battle depends from the situation not only training and firepower. Is Vietnam stronger than the US Army because they won the Vietnam War? I don't think so...
> 
> 
> We can't be too high because our navy and our airforce are pretty outdated campared with other airforces around the globe.



Having gone around the Rio Amazonas basin beyond Manaus and even the Rio Para region, I would agree whole heartedly with the underlined part. Even the Indian Army which trains extensivly in Jungle warfare, will find it hard going there.


----------



## The Great One

OrionHunter said:


> GFP comparisons are for a *conventional war* based solely on each individual nation's capabilities on land, at sea and through the air while *including logistical and financial aspects when waging total war*.
> 
> *The final GFP rankings are based on a formula taking some 45 factors into account and compiling totals against each country, applying bonuses and penalties as needed to generate this list.*
> 
> Here are the 45 factors taken into consideration...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty comprehensive I must say!


http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQzhjhCx0XuHbA2TPWCrvvRRtzfkwWVOOD1AZPlaO8GVj1JpA5GUQ


----------



## LiberalAtheist

South Korea has a well trained and well equipped military not to mention a very well domestic defense industrial base but putting them above India let alone France is just disconcerting for your mental health for them to rank above France India and even Japan is just laughable.


----------



## RayKalm

fly2012 said:


> One valuable information from GFR is that it gives detail numbers on a lot of categories from weapon system to infrastructure, so it is good to compare side by side. Modern wars have to consider economic and logistics.
> 
> I think Raykalm's ranking is more convicing although I personally will rank Japan higher, because of the size of their economy, advanced technologies and proved record of fighting wills and skills.



Hmm, after looking into Japan a bit, I think you are right, Japan is highly underestimated. But, how high would you rank Japan? They have an economy the size of China, while having to worry about 1.2 billion less people. 

1.) US
2.) Russia
3.) China
4.) India
5.) France
6.) Japan
7.) United Kingdom
8.) Germany
9.) Turkey
10.) Israel
11.) Pakistan
12.) South Korea

This seems a bit more accurate.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

RayKalm said:


> Hmm, after looking into Japan a bit, I think you are right, Japan is highly underestimated. But, how high would you rank Japan? They have an economy the size of China, while having to worry about 1.2 billion less people.
> 
> 1.) US
> 2.) Russia
> 3.) China
> 4.) India
> 5.) France
> 6.) Japan
> 7.) United Kingdom
> 8.) Germany
> 9.) Turkey
> 10.) Israel
> 11.) Pakistan
> 12.) South Korea
> 
> This seems a bit more accurate.



Total population doesn't matter as much as population density does. China has a far lower population density than Japan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nair saab

RayKalm said:


> Hmm, after looking into Japan a bit, I think you are right, Japan is highly underestimated. But, how high would you rank Japan? They have an economy the size of China, while having to worry about 1.2 billion less people.
> 
> 1.) US
> 2.) Russia
> 3.) China
> 4.) India
> 5.) France
> 6.) Japan
> 7.) United Kingdom
> 8.) Germany
> 9.) Turkey
> 10.) Israel
> 11.) Pakistan
> 12.) South Korea
> 
> This seems a bit more accurate.


Good 1 but I'll Put Pak above Turkey ...& Israel above PAK & Turkey ... Pakistan is a battle hardened army infact i would say the most experienced Army in world would be US army, Indian army ,Pakistani Army & Israeli army... Chinese have Huge numbers but cant be Compared with Experience of Indian army & Pakistani army ...

Pakistani army & Indian army r enemies best fit to fight each other...Every soldier in both the armies will give there Heart out to defeat each other... the emotions r such high no matter how ill equipped, how ill trained they r ... even the both Airforces r best compared to Chinese... only thing where Pak looses is Navy which is worst ...the Pak navy is a Joke, just meant to surrender ...

My Respect for Pakistan army is such high that i would say if its a limited day war say for 10 days happens... Pakistanis will give a Tougher fight than Chinese...but they will loose eventually due to smaller size & less resources ... & India will Hard hit the chinese but eventually the larger & More equipped will win ...But after that war both countries will reach like they where in there 1940s...both have very efficient government hence will never go for an all out War...


----------



## COLDHEARTED AVIATOR

Nair saab said:


> Good 1 but I'll Put Pak above Turkey ...& Israel above PAK & Turkey ... Pakistan is a battle hardened army infact i would say the most experienced Army in world would be US army, Indian army ,Pakistani Army & Israeli army... Chinese have Huge numbers but cant be Compared with Experience of Indian army & Pakistani army ...
> 
> Pakistani army & Indian army r enemies best fit to fight each other...Every soldier in both the armies will give there Heart out to defeat each other... the emotions r such high no matter how ill equipped, how ill trained they r ... even the both Airforces r best compared to Chinese... only thing where Pak looses is Navy which is worst ...the Pak navy is a Joke, just meant to surrender ...
> 
> My Respect for Pakistan army is such high that i would say if its a limited day war say for 10 days happens... Pakistanis will give a Tougher fight than Chinese...but they will loose eventually due to smaller size & less resources ... & India will Hard hit the chinese but eventually the larger & More equipped will win ...But after that war both countries will reach like they where in there 1940s...both have very efficient government hence will never go for an all out War...



I agree with you that Pakistan Army is battle hardened and can give a tough fight to India but my friend i think you are under estimating the Chinese a little.

They may not have the experience but the weaponry plus the numbers are on their side.They have a disciplined army and are a deadly country to be fighting against.


And yeah experience wise i would put Indian and Pakistani army among the top in the world and better than most European hi-tech armies.


----------



## Nair saab

COLDHEARTED AVIATOR said:


> I agree with you that Pakistan Army is battle hardened and can give a tough fight to India but my friend i think you are under estimating the Chinese a little.
> 
> They may not have the experience but the weaponry plus the numbers are on their side.They have a disciplined army and are a deadly country to be fighting against.
> 
> 
> 
> And yeah experience wise i would put Indian and Pakistani army among the top in the world and better than most European hi-tech armies.



Dude thats what i said ... Pak will give a Tough Fight for India if its a Limited Day war... But eventually will loose... similarly Indians with Superior experience will crush the Chinese at first But eventually the Army with more resources, which is China when Compared to India today... will Prevail ... But even that Victory will be like a Loss for China after all that destruction caused from the Clash of TWO GIANTS...

The West will have real victory here... & About disciplined Army... No army is As disciplined as Indian army... they r not given the respect which they deserve from the political class which treat them like Watchman of a garden ... Still very Loyal toward the Nation... never planned a Coup or even tried to Defend itself from all the abuses they face from the Political Class...


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Nair saab said:


> Dude thats what i said ... Pak will give a Tough Fight for India if its a Limited Day war...* But eventually will loose*... similarly Indians with Superior experience will crush the Chinese at first But eventually the Army with more resources, which is China when Compared to India today... will Prevail ... But even that Victory will be like a Loss for China after all that destruction caused from the Clash of TWO GIANTS...
> 
> The West will have real victory here...



Not true... minus 71 there has been no decisive victory .... Pak army also has evolved and aint the one of 70s era... indian army cant crush Pak army... i accept tht PAK NAVY is a joke as of right now... but things are changing... 6 AIP subs,N.sub project,2 bigger frigs,FACs etc will cause a massive headache for any navy.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## COLDHEARTED AVIATOR

Nair saab said:


> The West will have real victory here... & About disciplined Army... No army is As disciplined as Indian army... they r not given the respect which they deserve from the political class which treat them like Watchman of a garden ... Still very Loyal toward the Nation... never planned a Coup or even tried to Defend itself from all the abuses they face from the Political Class...



Indian Army is very disciplined i know but i was talking of PLA there.


----------



## Nair saab

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Not true... minus 71 there has been no decisive victory .... Pak army also has evolved and aint the one of 70s era... indian army cant crush Pak army... i accept tht PAK NAVY is a joke as of right now... but things are changing... 6 AIP subs,N.sub project,2 bigger frigs,FACs etc will cause a massive headache for any navy.....


Dude u have to accept the fact Conventionally Indian army will Win ... due to our Size... i am not disrespecting Pak army in any way by putting this... i have already said in the other post That Pak army is one of the most battle hardened army in the world...

But when the war lasts for a longer time the Country with larger resources will win eventually Hence India will prevail over Pakistan & China will Prevail over India... thats a Fact ... the Country which has the bigger economy & resources will always prevail over the Smaller 1...



COLDHEARTED AVIATOR said:


> Indian Army is very disciplined i know but i was talking of PLA there.


they r Good at marching parades & will Die in Numbers But will prevail eventually due to there Bigger Size...


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Nair saab said:


> Dude u have to accept the fact Conventionally Indian army will Win ... due to our Size... i am not disrespecting Pak army in any way by putting this... i have already said in the other post That Pak army is one of the most battle hardened army in the world...
> 
> But when the war lasts for a longer time the Country with larger resources will win eventually Hence India will prevail over Pakistan & China will Prevail over India... thats a Fact ... the Country which has the bigger economy & resources will always prevail over the Smaller 1...



Convientially id say IA n PA are almost equal... its the navy im worried about..

You can compare IA n PA equipment.. though indian army is far behind in Artillery.But yes if economy is taken into account... IA can continue much longer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistanisage

Pakistan can jump to number four position unseating India if only it pays attention to its Economy. As I have said earleir, A GDP of one and a half Trillion dollars can give Pakistan the ability of a 50 Billion USD defence Budget and Pakistan can blow India out the competition. The way to do that is only thru making Pakistan a manufacturing giant and turn it into an export engine.


----------



## COLDHEARTED AVIATOR

Pakistanisage said:


> Pakistan can jump to number four position unseating India if only it pays attention to its Economy. As I have said earleir, A GDP of one and a half Trillion dollars can give Pakistan the ability of a 50 Billion USD defence Budget and Pakistan can blow India out the competition. The way to do that is only thru making Pakistan a manufacturing giant and turn it into an export engine.



Can blow out of the competition only if it achieves that.As of now it is our situation you are talking about as we are the trillion dollar economy.


----------



## Desert Fox

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Not true... minus 71 there has been no decisive victory .... Pak army also has evolved and aint the one of 70s era... indian army cant crush Pak army... i accept tht PAK NAVY is a joke as of right now... but things are changing... 6 AIP subs,N.sub project,2 bigger frigs,FACs etc will cause a massive headache for any navy.....



Also Pakistan's artillery is way superior to indian army's artillery both in regards to Self Propelled Guns as well as towed artillery guns, those T-155 Panters are a beast and the best thing about them is we have ToT so we can produce as many as we need.

Our A-100's are superior to indian smerch's and we also have those with ToT, not to mention SH-1 SPG's and the M series SPG's as well.


----------



## COLDHEARTED AVIATOR

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Convientially id say IA n PA are almost equal... its the navy im worried about..
> 
> You can compare IA n PA equipment.. though indian army is far behind in Artillery.But yes if economy is taken into account... IA can continue much longer.



Look i have respect for the Pakistan Army but you are being partial here my friend.Why are you just taking artillery into account why not armoured,infantry,Airforce etc.The numbers are on Indias side plus we can fight a longer war than you.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Desert Fox said:


> Also Pakistan's artillery is way superior to indian army's artillery both in regards to Self Propelled Guns as well as towed artillery guns, those T-155 Panters are a beast and the best thing about them is we have ToT so we can produce as many as we need.
> 
> Our A-100's are superior to indian smerch's and we also have those with ToT, not to mention SH-1 SPG's and the M series SPG's as well.



Im hoping to see a new Arty gun as promised by HIT guys...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nair saab

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Convientially id say IA n PA are almost equal... its the navy im worried about..
> 
> You can compare IA n PA equipment.. though indian army is far behind in Artillery.But yes if economy is taken into account... IA can continue much longer.


Now u got me Some what Correct ... but the Navy is ur Biggest problem ... we have Huge navy that will open a new front with ACs , Subs & Destroyers will bomb from the Sea... after that army can enter from say south cities of Pakistan ... Pakistan would have to fight on too many fronts... Pakistan navy condition is so bad that if they didnt have Subs even our coast guards can defeat them... with our Strong navy even will put a Navel blockage hence cutting the oil supply lines that will further put strain on ur army & Government to accept Defeat...


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

COLDHEARTED AVIATOR said:


> Look i have respect for the Pakistan Army but you are being partial here my friend.Why are you just taking artillery into account why not armoured,infantry,Airforce etc.The numbers are on Indias side plus we can fight a longer war than you.



Navy yes... Airforce almost yes... we will have to catch up with ur 5th gen project though... but army? i dnt think so... manpower? we can gather 1 million armed men from FATA alone in case of a war not to forget 6 Lac reserves,Mujahid battalions n paras... Armour.. u can bet on it... MIB? can count on it... anything else?


----------



## Nair saab

Desert Fox said:


> Also Pakistan's artillery is way superior to indian army's artillery both in regards to Self Propelled Guns as well as towed artillery guns, those T-155 Panters are a beast and the best thing about them is we have ToT so we can produce as many as we need.
> 
> Our A-100's are superior to indian smerch's and we also have those with ToT, not to mention SH-1 SPG's and the M series SPG's as well.


U cant match India with Gun to Gun, Bullet to Bullet... even if we have a artillery of lesser quality ( which although i dont agree with) still with our larger Numbers we will prevail... the gap between 5 billion & 41 billion is huge...


----------



## Desert Fox

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Im hoping to see a new Arty gun as promised by HIT guys...



Yeah i read about that indigenous self propelled artillery gun being produced in HIT, i believe it is our own T-155 mounted on a indigenous chassis.


----------



## Pakistanisage

Nair saab said:


> Now u got me Some what Correct ... but the Navy is ur Biggest problem ... *we have Huge navy that will open a new front with ACs , Subs & Destroyers will bomb from the Sea... after that army can enter from say south cities of Pakistan ... Pakistan would have to fight on too many fronts*... Pakistan navy condition is so bad that if they didnt have Subs even our coast guards can defeat them... with our Strong navy even will put a Navel blockage hence cutting the oil supply lines that will further put strain on ur army & Government to accept Defeat...





*There is only one problem with your Plan, WALTER MITTY.

You are assuming that through all this Pakistan Armed Forces are in deep slumber.

Keep in mind we not only have Strategic Nukes, there is big variety of Tactical Nukes which have the ability to deep fry and fossilize your entire Navy in the sea prior to reaching Pakistani coast line ( like 500 KM out ). 

This is what happens when internet warriors start planning and making strategy.*


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Nair saab said:


> Now u got me Some what Correct ... but the Navy is ur Biggest problem ... we have Huge navy that will open a new front with ACs , Subs & Destroyers will bomb from the Sea... after that army can enter from say south cities of Pakistan ... Pakistan would have to fight on too many fronts... Pakistan navy condition is so bad that if they didnt have Subs even our coast guards can defeat them... with our Strong navy even will put a Navel blockage hence cutting the oil supply lines that will further put strain on ur army & Government to accept Defeat...



I dnt think a naval blockade is even possible now... as for subs... soon we will be operation around 11-12 subs armed with Nuclear warheads etc... a nuclear sub is already under development... 2 type 54 frigs are to be leased from china... 4 stealthy F-22P frig,FACs,other frigs and missile boats are also their... but yes i do agree PN is weak as compared to indian navy.


----------



## COLDHEARTED AVIATOR

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Navy yes... Airforce almost yes... we will have to catch up with ur 5th gen project though... but army? i dnt think so... manpower? we can gather 1 million armed men from FATA alone in case of a war not to forget 6 Lac reserves,Mujahid battalions n paras... Armour.. u can bet on it... MIB? can count on it... anything else?



Although i dont agree with your point but lets say the Army is equal and keep the Army out of it.

In todays war Navy and Airforce are more than enough to give a country the edge and would help the Army in winning the war.


----------



## Desert Fox

Nair saab said:


> U cant match India with Gun to Gun, Bullet to Bullet... even if we have a artillery of lesser quality ( which although i dont agree with) still with our larger Numbers we will prevail... the gap between 5 billion & 41 billion is huge...



What the hell do you mean? You know damn right that our artillery is superior to yours in terms of quality, though you guys do have a large quantity of artillery guns you want to phase out.

There is no Gun in your arsenal that is superior to T-155, and we will mount these babies on a chassis making it a self propelled beast!!













Our SH-1 SPG's as well as M109 series SPG's are superior to your Bofors.


----------



## Nair saab

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Navy yes... Airforce almost yes... we will have to catch up with ur 5th gen project though... but army? i dnt think so... manpower? we can gather 1 million armed men from FATA alone in case of a war not to forget 6 Lac reserves,Mujahid battalions n paras... Armour.. u can bet on it... MIB? can count on it... anything else?


Dude what r u saying u will bring Civilians thugs armed with Kalashnikov to fight against a Trained army ... for ur kind information Indian has the worlds biggest Paramilitary Forces in the world 2.5 million with out counting India army (its Both reserved & active forces which is around in total more than 2.5 million)...

Lets sanity Prevail hence i am exiting from this Debate ...


----------



## COLDHEARTED AVIATOR

Desert Fox said:


> What the hell do you mean? You know damn right that our artillery is superior to yours in terms of quality, though you guys do have a large quantity of artillery guns you want to phase out.
> 
> There is no Gun in your arsenal that is superior to T-155, and we will mount these babies on a chassis making it a self propelled beast!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our SH-1 SPG's as well as M109 series SPG's are superior to your Bofors.



Nice gun!

But my friend wars are fought with money and you cannot afford to go on a long war with India.


----------



## Desert Fox

Nair saab said:


> Dude what r u saying u will bring Civilians thugs armed with Kalashnikov to fight against a Trained army ... for ur kind information Indian has the worlds biggest Paramilitary Forces in the world 2.5 million with out counting India army (its Both reserved & active forces which is around in total more than 2.5 million)...
> 
> Lets sanity Prevail hence i am exiting from this Debate ...



That's because india has a population that is 15 times the population of Pakistan.



COLDHEARTED AVIATOR said:


> Nice gun!
> 
> But my friend wars are fought with money and you cannot afford to go on a long war with India.



Who's to decide if the war will be long or short?, however i don't wish there to be a war.


----------



## COLDHEARTED AVIATOR

Desert Fox said:


> Who's to decide if the war will be long or short?, *however i don't wish there to be a war.*



Amen to that!


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Desert Fox said:


> Yeah i read about that indigenous self propelled artillery gun being produced in HIT, i believe it is our own T-155 mounted on a indigenous chassis.


 




















---------- Post added at 03:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 AM ----------







On an indigenous chasis? i dnt think so... *
The official said that after delivering 50 tank guns, the HMC plans to produce artillery guns for the Pakistan Army.*



Nair saab said:


> Dude what r u saying *u will bring Civilians thugs* armed with Kalashnikov to fight against a Trained army ... for ur kind information Indian has the worlds biggest Paramilitary Forces in the world 2.5 million with out counting India army (its Both reserved & active forces which is around in total more than 2.5 million)...
> 
> Lets sanity Prevail hence i am exiting from this Debate ...



Not civilian thugs but armed,trained Lashkars with their salt worth it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MilSpec

People claiming the lethality of their lashkars should have unleashed them during the previous drubbing(s), were they asleep back then?

IA is the second largest standing army in the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

sandy_3126 said:


> People claiming the lethality of their lashkars should have unleashed them during the previous drubbing(s), were they asleep back then?



Ah .. 48.



> IA is the second largest standing army in the world.



North korea is 3rd.. Pakistan 4-5... whats the big deal?


----------



## Desert Fox

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> ---------- Post added at 03:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On an indigenous chasis? i dnt think so... *
> The official said that after delivering 50 tank guns, the HMC plans to produce artillery guns for the Pakistan Army.*



They would need a Chassis for the indigenous Self Propelled Gun (SP Gun, or SPG) that is under development:

"3). Work on a Pakistani 155mm SP artillery gun has been started at HIT."

Highlights from IDEAS 2002

"Under development

* 155 mm Self-propelled artillery gun - Project revealed at IDEAS 2002 defence exhibition.[17]"

Heavy Industries Taxila - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hope it is true that we are developing our own SPG guns along with regular towed Artillery Guns as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Desert Fox said:


> They would need a Chassis for the indigenous Self Propelled Gun (SP Gun, or SPG) that is under development:
> 
> "3). Work on a Pakistani 155mm SP artillery gun has been started at HIT."
> 
> Highlights from IDEAS 2002
> 
> "Under development
> 
> * 155 mm Self-propelled artillery gun - Project revealed at IDEAS 2002 defence exhibition.[17]"
> 
> Heavy Industries Taxila - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I hope it is true that we are developing our own SPG guns along with regular towed Artillery Guns as well.



thanks silent ninja  im anxiously waiting for an SPG by HIT!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Desert Fox said:


> No problem, and how did you know i was Silent Ninja .
> 
> I didn't think anyone knew!



Lil brother... coz of ur writting style.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Desert Fox

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Lil brother... coz of ur writting style.



Yeah, i know i have a unique style of writing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Henry

Desert Fox said:


> That's because india has a population that is 15 times the population of Pakistan.
> 
> 
> 
> Who's to decide if the war will be long or short?, however i don't wish there to be a war.



India's Population is 6 Times of Pakistan. (200 Million v/s 1.2 Billion)

India's GDP is 10 Times of Pakistan ($185 Billion v/s $2 Trillion)

Also In Other Indicators like Per Capita Income, Per Capita Electricity Consumption, Literacy Rate India is Ahead.

While Pakistan is Ahead in Fertility Rate and Poverty.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Audio

Korean said:


> France resold a warship built by the Korean shipyard STX.



Yo, yo.

Mistral is designed in France by a French company. It has nothing to do with Korea. Koreans just got paid for assembly, the big money/political, military ties all go to DCNS/France.


----------



## Joe Shearer

COLDHEARTED AVIATOR said:


> I agree with you that Pakistan Army is battle hardened and can give a tough fight to India but my friend i think you are under estimating the Chinese a little.
> 
> They may not have the experience but the weaponry plus the numbers are on their side.They have a disciplined army and are a deadly country to be fighting against.
> 
> 
> And yeah experience wise i would put Indian and Pakistani army among the top in the world and better than most European hi-tech armies.



Merely fighting experience is not sufficient. The quality of leadership is also important. Judging by the events since 1971, there is not much depth in the Pakistani military leadership, perhaps partly because they have been so distracted by the attraction of political developments in their country. Neither their attempt to capture Siachen, which was let down by sloppy staff work and poor confidentiality, nor their attempt at redressing the balance in Kargil was particular impressive. 

Further, VERY limited forces were involved in these two efforts, and only tactical thinking was required. Strategic thinking was conspicuous by its absence.

Their action against their own extremist was nowhere near as effective as these counter-insurgency operations can be, perhaps because the Pakistan Army never trained for counter-insurgency; those who might be thought to be insurgents were already auxiliaries of theirs. 

On comparison, the Indian Army has been in a predicament (as usual) largely due to political indecision. The BJP ordered mobilisation, after the attack on Parliament, but had not done the necessary preparation to fight a war, nor was it sure that it wanted to fight a war. As a result, the Indian Army was put to a most uncomfortable alert which lasted for nearly a year. This was disgraceful.

This indecision of the politicians does not surprise me. No section of the Indian political leadership is eager for war. Perhaps that is now true of the Pakistani leadership also, although IK is an unknown quantity.



Nair saab said:


> Dude thats what i said ... Pak will give a Tough Fight for India if its a Limited Day war... But eventually will loose... similarly Indians with Superior experience will crush the Chinese at first But eventually the Army with more resources, which is China when Compared to India today... will Prevail ... But even that Victory will be like a Loss for China after all that destruction caused from the Clash of TWO GIANTS...
> 
> The West will have real victory here... & About disciplined Army... No army is As disciplined as Indian army... they r not given the respect which they deserve from the political class which treat them like Watchman of a garden ... Still very Loyal toward the Nation... never planned a Coup or even tried to Defend itself from all the abuses they face from the Political Class...



I agree. 

The odds for the Pakistan Army would be highest at the outset of hostilities. It is and always has been a quick-reacting force (by and large). With every passing week, its advantage will drop substantially. In case of hostilities lasting over a month, it will be at a serious disadvantage. A reasonable Indian Army strategy would be to engage it in a barren artillery and limited infantry and armour war for two to three weeks, before committing any assault troops to action, or setting out on a plan with objectives, strategy and tactical doctrine taped down.



Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Not true... minus 71 there has been no decisive victory .... Pak army also has evolved and aint the one of 70s era... indian army cant crush Pak army... i accept tht PAK NAVY is a joke as of right now... but things are changing... 6 AIP subs,N.sub project,2 bigger frigs,FACs etc will cause a massive headache for any navy.....



The tea leaves were clear to read. The Pakistan Army had run dangerously short of ammunition and supplies in 65, and in contrast, the Indian Army, while it still had supplies for another three weeks or more, advised its civilian leadership that stocks were running dangerously low, and a ceasefire would be a good thing. It would have been FAR more difficult for Pakistan if hostilities had continued for another twenty days.

That situation remains the same. It is not much better for the Air Force. During the Kargil hostilities, the Air Force bluntly told the Army that it could not intervene because of the very low level of spares and supplies. The Navy leadership famously declared sick en masse on learning about the developments in Kargil.



Nair saab said:


> Dude u have to accept the fact Conventionally Indian army will Win ... due to our Size... i am not disrespecting Pak army in any way by putting this... i have already said in the other post That Pak army is one of the most battle hardened army in the world...
> 
> But when the war lasts for a longer time the Country with larger resources will win eventually Hence India will prevail over Pakistan & China will Prevail over India... thats a Fact ... the Country which has the bigger economy & resources will always prevail over the Smaller 1...
> 
> 
> they r Good at marching parades & will Die in Numbers But will prevail eventually due to there Bigger Size...



All this discussion and debate fails to take certain historical facts into account.



Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Convientially id say IA n PA are almost equal... its the navy im worried about..
> 
> You can compare IA n PA equipment.. though indian army is far behind in Artillery.But yes if economy is taken into account... IA can continue much longer.



Unfortunately for Pakistan, and this is not said in any ironic or sarcastic sense, but as plain, blunt fact, artillery is one of the areas of deficiency which is most easy to make right with the spending of money. Spending more money doesn't speed up the training of an Infantry unit, it doesn't help in speeding up the design of a Main Battle Tank, or of a Light Combat Aircraft. It certainly helps to buy large quantities of tubed artillery at short notice. Or of battlefield missile batteries, for that matter.



Desert Fox said:


> Also Pakistan's artillery is way superior to indian army's artillery both in regards to Self Propelled Guns as well as towed artillery guns, those T-155 Panters are a beast and the best thing about them is we have ToT so we can produce as many as we need.
> 
> Our A-100's are superior to indian smerch's and we also have those with ToT, not to mention SH-1 SPG's and the M series SPG's as well.



This is not a superiority tenable for long.



Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Navy yes... Airforce almost yes... we will have to catch up with ur 5th gen project though... but army? i dnt think so... manpower? we can gather 1 million armed men from FATA alone in case of a war not to forget 6 Lac reserves,Mujahid battalions n paras... Armour.. u can bet on it... MIB? can count on it... anything else?


 


Nair saab said:


> U cant match India with Gun to Gun, Bullet to Bullet... even if we have a artillery of lesser quality ( which although i dont agree with) still with our larger Numbers we will prevail... the gap between 5 billion & 41 billion is huge...



Again, both sides are forgetting historical factors which give India a vast superiority.



COLDHEARTED AVIATOR said:


> Although i dont agree with your point but lets say the Army is equal and keep the Army out of it.
> 
> In todays war Navy and Airforce are more than enough to give a country the edge and would help the Army in winning the war.



True. These two services alone can put enormous pressure on Pakistan.



Desert Fox said:


> What the hell do you mean? You know damn right that our artillery is superior to yours in terms of quality, though you guys do have a large quantity of artillery guns you want to phase out.
> 
> There is no Gun in your arsenal that is superior to T-155, and we will mount these babies on a chassis making it a self propelled beast!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our SH-1 SPG's as well as M109 series SPG's are superior to your Bofors.



All that is just talk. At the end of the day, there is no advantage for Pakistan that cannot be neutralised with expenditure at relatively short notice. At that time, none of these technologies will cancel the superiority of the other side, while the Indian Army will still not have extended itself.



Desert Fox said:


> That's because india has a population that is 15 times the population of Pakistan.
> 
> 
> 
> Who's to decide if the war will be long or short?, however i don't wish there to be a war.



The side that benefits from a short war will try to wind things up in a maximum of ten to fifteen days. The side that benefits from a longer war will try to resist diplomatic pressure and sabre-rattling by interested onlookers to try and extend the war and win major breakthroughs at the end.

When war is fought, it will be fought, sad to say, without either of us being consulted. I, too, hope that there is no war.



Pakistani Nationalist said:


> On an indigenous chasis? i dnt think so... *
> The official said that after delivering 50 tank guns, the HMC plans to produce artillery guns for the Pakistan Army.*
> 
> Not civilian thugs but armed,trained Lashkars with their salt worth it.



They are still civilian thugs, not combat troops able to stand up to regular units in a battle field. They cannot withstand the Pakistan Army, unfamiliar with counter-insurgency warfare as it is; it is difficult to visualise them on a battle field. It will be carnage.



sandy_3126 said:


> People claiming the lethality of their lashkars should have unleashed them during the previous drubbing(s), were they asleep back then?
> 
> IA is the second largest standing army in the world.



With reserves that Pakistan cannot dream of.



Henry said:


> India's Population is 6 Times of Pakistan. (200 Million v/s 1.2 Billion)
> 
> India's GDP is 10 Times of Pakistan ($185 Billion v/s $2 Trillion)
> 
> Also In Other Indicators like Per Capita Income, Per Capita Electricity Consumption, Literacy Rate India is Ahead.
> 
> While Pakistan is Ahead in Fertility Rate and Poverty.



At this stage, I would like to point out that in any of the last three engagements and two skirmishes, the Indian Army has actually, thanks to its own mental lethargy, fought with one hand tied behind its back.

A quick look at the regimental composition of the Indian Army - and the Pakistan Army - will reveal that this was NOT the Army with which the British conquered India. This was the imperial army designed to fight overseas and across the borders that they conceived and executed AFTER 1857. Prior to that, to fight the Carnatic Wars, the campaigns in Bengal, Bihar and what was then Oudh, the Mysore Wars, the Maratha Wars, the Sikh Wars, even the Gurkha Wars, and two out of three Burmese wars were fought with a wholly different force composition. For that matter, even one of the two Afghan wars was fought the same way.

In changing the composition of the Indian Army after 1857, the British almost completely discarded the Bengal, Madras and Bombay Armies. Their key troops, Bihari and Oudh-based Hindus and Hindustani Muslims in the Bengal Army, and similar compositions in the Madras Army and Bombay Army, were suddenly sidelined. The tough fighting regiments that had gained the British such significant success, that had trained generations of their best soldiers, including Field Marshall the Duke of Wellington, were all gone, almost overnight.

When we analyse the relative strength of the Indian and the Pakistan Army, therefore, it would be well to remember that these huge reserves, these inexhaustible soldier mines are available for recruitment, and could possible treble the strength of the standing army today. It may be hoped that in case of such a dismal eventuality, the Indian leadership will remember Lord Kitchener, and bring troops on line as they are recruited and trained, one cohort at a time, as Kitchener had planned his Millions, one Million at a time. Considering the number of troops contributed by India during the Second World War, after discounting the number drawn from currently Pakistani sources, there is still scope for recruitment a force a number of times the size of the present, without resorting to conscription.

This is one reason why it is in Pakistan's interest not to wage war beyond a short period, so that such inauspicious ideas do not float idly by any Indian politician's 'brain'; it is even better for Pakistan not to wage war at all, as bringing this genie out of the bottle would represent a barrier of unthinkable proportions and definitive significance.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeGenD

Rankings are mostly theoratical and subjective in nature.

In modern times, USA is the only nation in the world with impressive power projection capabilities and combat experience. First position is therefore already predetermined. All other nations significantly fall short in comparison. 

The rest is open to debate.



jai231179 said:


> Pakistan which sports a battle-hardened army and is probably the most powerful Muslim nation around is ranked below Turkey and Iran? Not intending to offend the Turks and Iranians here, but I'm sure many posters here would agree that Pakistan is ahead of both nations.


Pakistan is ahead due to nuclear capability. 

- Turkey has more advanced military in comparison but less experience.

- Iran has less powerful military but can sustain a war for longer period.



jai231179 said:


> As for RoK and India, come on guys......RoK is tough, not saying no. But RoK isn't even the size of an average state (India - eg Tamilnadu) or province (China - Guangdong etc). There is only so much fighting u can do against gigantic nations like China or India, both which have immense resources and manpower.


Israel - being a tiny nation - has managed to handle several nations simultaneously. Manpower and resources are important determinants. But so are tactics. Small territory is also easier to defend. 

However, being small has its drawbacks too.

Israel may not be a valid analogy for South Korea but the latter does have decent sized military which is also advanced. South Korean threat perception involves both China and North Korea. The most heavily militarized border in the world is between South Korea and North Korea.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Desert Fox

Henry said:


> India's Population is 6 Times of Pakistan. (200 Million v/s 1.2 Billion)


Pakistan's population is not even 200 million, rest of your post is troll BS and not worthy of reply.


----------



## American Pakistani

I don't agree with the list.

IMHO

1)USA
2)China/Russia
3)China/Russia
4)France/UK
5)France/UK
6)India
7)Turkey/Pakistan
8)Turkey/Pakistan
9)Germany
10)Iran/Israel
11)Iran/Israel
12)Japan/Brazil
13)Japan/Brazil
14)N.Korea/S.Korea
15)N.Korea/S.Korea

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fanling Monk

American Pakistani said:


> I don't agree with the list.
> 
> IMHO
> 
> 1)USA
> 2)China/Russia
> 3)China/Russia
> 4)France/UK
> 5)France/UK
> 6)India
> 7)Turkey/Pakistan
> 8)Turkey/Pakistan
> 9)Germany
> 10)Iran/Israel
> 11)Iran/Israel
> 12)Japan/Brazil
> 13)Japan/Brazil
> 14)N.Korea/S.Korea
> 15)N.Korea/S.Korea




I agree except South Korea can not take on the North without Uncle's helps. She'll be scare shytless if Uncle is not there to hold her hands.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gubbi

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> North korea is 3rd.. Pakistan 4-5... whats the big deal?


The deal? The capability to open a HUGE can of whoopa$$ everytime theres some misadventure. As for the Lashkar jokers, bring them on, they can do squat against the armed forces, those coward jokers know only to target civilians.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Fanling Monk said:


> I agree except South Korea can not take on the North without Uncle's helps. She'll be scare shytless if Uncle is not there to hold her hands.


And what make you think NKR can take on SKR given how starved they are? More likely the North Korean leadership is glad every day that their southern cousins are more interested in making money and getting somewhere in the world than to unify the country. North Korea will collapse in our lifetime and you can bet your future on that.


----------



## Fanling Monk

gambit said:


> And what make you think NKR can take on SKR given how starved they are? More likely the North Korean leadership is glad every day that their southern cousins are more interested in making money and getting somewhere in the world than to unify the country. North Korea will collapse in our lifetime and you can bet your future on that.




Come on, we went over this many times. The Nk military are indoctrinated to hate the South and their government starved the people but not them. Unlike the SK military the North have nothing going for but fight to death. Perhaps the North will fall some day but I don't it's from the SK military alone.


----------



## gambit

Fanling Monk said:


> Come on, we went over this many times. The Nk military are indoctrinated to hate the South and their government starved the people but not them. Unlike the SK military the North have nothing going for but fight to death. Perhaps the North will fall some day but I don't it's from the SK military alone.


Did East Germany collapsed because of West Germany? Without China feeding the North Korean people, that abomination half of Korea would have collapsed a long time ago.


----------



## Fanling Monk

gambit said:


> Did East Germany collapsed because of West Germany? Without China feeding the North Korean people, that abomination half of Korea would have collapsed a long time ago.




You're veering off the course, a course that happens that I to agree with you.


----------



## notorious_eagle

Joe Shearer said:


> Merely fighting experience is not sufficient. The quality of leadership is also important. Judging by the events since 1971, there is not much depth in the Pakistani military leadership, perhaps partly because they have been so distracted by the attraction of political developments in their country. Neither their attempt to capture Siachen, which was let down by sloppy staff work and poor confidentiality, nor their attempt at redressing the balance in Kargil was particular impressive.



It would be a mistake on your part to assume that there is no depth in PA's leadership especially when it comes to a conventional showdown. I wont speak of the past as there have been serious blunders committed by the General Staff of PA but i can also state that serious blunders have also been committed by the General Staff of IA. What i can tell you that as of now PA's General Staff is simply top class. The current batch of Generals is probably the most finest and well trained staff in PA's history. Also, you cannot discount fighting experience as there is no substitute in life for experience. 



Joe Shearer said:


> Their action against their own extremist was nowhere near as effective as these counter-insurgency operations can be, perhaps because the Pakistan Army never trained for counter-insurgency; those who might be thought to be insurgents were already auxiliaries of theirs.



Indeed, PA had to retrain her forces for counter insurgency from the scratch. This itself is a feat as PA retrained herself in record time. PA's COIN operations have been much more successful as compared to that of NATO or even IA's COIN operations inside Kashmir. 



Joe Shearer said:


> On comparison, the Indian Army has been in a predicament (as usual) largely due to political indecision. The BJP ordered mobilisation, after the attack on Parliament, but had not done the necessary preparation to fight a war, nor was it sure that it wanted to fight a war. As a result, the Indian Army was put to a most uncomfortable alert which lasted for nearly a year. This was disgraceful.



Sir please, these lame excuses wont work as Operation Parakram exposed the deficiencies in IA. You cannot hide IA's incompetence by using the political excuse. The order was given out to prepare for war and IA was asked to mobilize in full force, the orders were quite simply but IA failed to execute those orders in the allotted time due to their weak logistics. 



Joe Shearer said:


> This indecision of the politicians does not surprise me. No section of the Indian political leadership is eager for war. Perhaps that is now true of the Pakistani leadership also, although IK is an unknown quantity.



BJP appeared quite eager for war and several prominent politicians and known personalities in India advocated for war. Compare that to Pakistan where there is a consensus among all political parties to avoid a war against India at all costs. 



Joe Shearer said:


> The odds for the Pakistan Army would be highest at the outset of hostilities. It is and always has been a quick-reacting force (by and large). With every passing week, its advantage will drop substantially. In case of hostilities lasting over a month, it will be at a serious disadvantage. A reasonable Indian Army strategy would be to engage it in a barren artillery and limited infantry and armour war for two to three weeks, before committing any assault troops to action, or setting out on a plan with objectives, strategy and tactical doctrine taped down.



The stated new objective of the IA is contrary to that, it wants to fight a fast and fluid war against Pakistan before nukes can be brought into the equation. Any war lasting more than 2 weeks will increase the threshold level because Pakistan can simply not win a static war against India. 



Joe Shearer said:


> The tea leaves were clear to read. The Pakistan Army had run dangerously short of ammunition and supplies in 65, and in contrast, the Indian Army, while it still had supplies for another three weeks or more, advised its civilian leadership that stocks were running dangerously low, and a ceasefire would be a good thing. It would have been FAR more difficult for Pakistan if hostilities had continued for another twenty days.



Lesson learned , trust me we wont be running out of ammunition if God forbid hostilities break out. 



Joe Shearer said:


> That situation remains the same. It is not much better for the Air Force. During the Kargil hostilities, the Air Force bluntly told the Army that it could not intervene because of the very low level of spares and supplies. The Navy leadership famously declared sick en masse on learning about the developments in Kargil.



I wont blame the Air Force or the Navy, the Army treated them like a bunch of fools and paid dearly for it. That being said, the same mistakes wont be happening again. The synergy reached between PA, PAF and PN has been phenomenal. NDU had made it a priority to add courses to syllabus that would emphasize join operations. The theory was exercised on field as PA, PAF and PN have been conducting exercises together regularly. 



Joe Shearer said:


> Unfortunately for Pakistan, and this is not said in any ironic or sarcastic sense, but as plain, blunt fact, artillery is one of the areas of deficiency which is most easy to make right with the spending of money. Spending more money doesn't speed up the training of an Infantry unit, it doesn't help in speeding up the design of a Main Battle Tank, or of a Light Combat Aircraft. It certainly helps to buy large quantities of tubed artillery at short notice. Or of battlefield missile batteries, for that matter.



So far the tender has not gone out. 



Joe Shearer said:


> This is not a superiority tenable for long.



We will see, but keep in mind that the defensive force will always have an advantage in an artillery duel as it is already set up and has marked up the enemy's axis of movement. 



Joe Shearer said:


> Again, both sides are forgetting historical factors which give India a vast superiority.



I would respectfully disagree with the term vast superiority, if that was the case India would have smashed Pakistan's defences. 


Joe Shearer said:


> All that is just talk. At the end of the day, there is no advantage for Pakistan that cannot be neutralised with expenditure at relatively short notice. At that time, none of these technologies will cancel the superiority of the other side, while the Indian Army will still not have extended itself.



Sure new equipment can be purchased on short notice during a time of hostility but that equipment will not arrive with ready made crew. The argument works both ways, any advantage that India enjoys Pakistan can nullify them too. Infact, some of the key war fighting advantages that India enjoyed until recently have been cancelled out. 



Joe Shearer said:


> They are still civilian thugs, not combat troops able to stand up to regular units in a battle field. They cannot withstand the Pakistan Army, unfamiliar with counter-insurgency warfare as it is; it is difficult to visualise them on a battle field. It will be carnage.



Indeed, but these Lashkars can make lift difficult for the IA through unconventional attacks. It wont defeat them but will certainly harass them. 



Joe Shearer said:


> With reserves that Pakistan cannot dream of.



If Pakistan invades India, last i checked PA's doctrine was against this notion. 

If India thinks that she can just run over PA's defences with ease, than she is living in a fools paradise. Looking at the balance of power of both India and Pakistan, there is not much difference between both the countries despite India spending billions of dollars to try and nullify this advantage.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeGenD

notorious_eagle said:


> What i can tell you that as of now PA's General Staff is simply top class. The current batch of Generals is probably the most finest and well trained staff in PA's history. Also, you cannot discount fighting experience as there is no substitute in life for experience.


This is speculative. But yes, current staff is experienced.



notorious_eagle said:


> Indeed, PA had to retrain her forces for counter insurgency from the scratch. This itself is a feat as PA retrained herself in record time. PA's COIN operations have been much more successful as compared to that of NATO or even IA's COIN operations inside Kashmir.


You are forgetting the role of US in training and arming Pakistani military for COIN. Another factor is that Pakistan military is operating in its own territory and knows it and local populace well - therefore, decent performance. This luxury is not available to ISAF in Afghanistan.

The situation is different for ISAF and Pakistan in WOT. ISAF's role is much more complicated in comparison to that of Pakistan in WOT.

ISAF is occupying a large nation (i.e. Afghanistan), combating insurgency, and also trying to stabilize Afghanistan by maintaining its government and security apparatus. The creation of ANA from scratch is an amazing achievement IMO. 

In comparison, Pakistani military is fighting against home-grown insurgency and keeping a vigil on cross-border movements.

Your other points are good. 



notorious_eagle said:


> I wont blame the Air Force or the Navy, the Army treated them like a bunch of fools and paid dearly for it. That being said, the same mistakes wont be happening again. The synergy reached between PA, PAF and PN has been phenomenal. NDU had made it a priority to add courses to syllabus that would emphasize join operations. The theory was exercised on field as PA, PAF and PN have been conducting exercises together regularly.


Absolutely perfect. Pakistani military is currently in good shape and state-of-readiness.


----------



## MilSpec

notorious_eagle said:


> .................
> 
> If Pakistan invades India, last i checked PA's doctrine was against this notion.
> 
> If India thinks that she can just run over PA's defences with ease, than she is living in a fools paradise. Looking at the balance of power of both India and Pakistan, *there is not much difference* between both the countries despite India spending billions of dollars to try and nullify this advantage.



this is as good as sayin there is not much of a difference between Indian and china.... agreed Pakistani military is powerfull, but lets not compare it to India...


----------



## notorious_eagle

sandy_3126 said:


> this is as good as sayin there is not much of a difference between Indian and china.... agreed Pakistani military is powerfull, b*ut lets not compare it to India*...



Apnay mun miya mithu


----------



## RayKalm

BordoEnes said:


> Globalfirepower is just full of crap. Its entirely based on quantity and not quality.
> 
> I posted my personnal list several times but here it is...
> 
> 1.USA
> 2.Russia
> 3.China
> 4.India
> 5.France
> 6.S.Korea
> 7.Turkey
> 8.G.Britain
> 9.Israel
> 10.Pakistan



List could do with Japan replacing S.Korea, and Britain moving up. Other than that, It seems about accurate.


----------



## yyetttt

Global Fire Power is run on $1.99/Month....


----------



## Serpentine

Every one places his own country in top 10 and suddenly the list becomes accurate.Seems legit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Banglar Lathial

It does not matter what any individual thinks in this situation. What matters is the ground reality. The rankings provided by so called "GlobalFirePower" are the concoctions of some amateurs using amateurish methodology and partially correct/incorrect facts. One can decide that the major difference between member opinions on internet fora and the opinions expressed at "GFP" is nil, from a strictly military point of view.


----------



## RayKalm

Era_923 said:


> Every one places his own country in top 10 and suddenly the list becomes accurate.Seems legit.



That's not true for everyone.


----------



## manofwar

Even they accept that this is a very rough list as they do not take quality into account...


----------



## Ottoman-Turk

INDIA MUST ASK THE QUEEN BEFORE THEY GO TO WAR HAHA - SOUTH KOREA will destroy north korea , just because south korea doesnt act agressive they think south koreas weak they have much more advanced weapons etc my list is this

1.USA
HUGE GAP
2.RUSSIA
LITTLE GAP
3.CHINA
4.INDIA.
5.UK/FRANCE
6.GERMANY/JAPAN
7.ITALY/TURKEY
8.BRAZIL/ISRAEL
9.SOUTH KOREA
10.PAKISTAN

ALSO I WANTED TO ASK IF UK GOES TO WAR DOES AUSTRALIA , CANADA AND ALL THOSE JOIN?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Ottoman-Turk said:


> INDIA MUST ASK THE QUEEN BEFORE THEY GO TO WAR HAHA - SOUTH KOREA will destroy north korea , just because south korea doesnt act agressive they think south koreas weak they have much more advanced weapons etc my list is this
> 
> 1.USA
> HUGE GAP
> 2.RUSSIA
> LITTLE GAP
> 3.CHINA
> 4.INDIA.
> 5.UK/FRANCE
> 6.GERMANY/JAPAN
> 7.ITALY/TURKEY
> 8.BRAZIL/ISRAEL
> 9.SOUTH KOREA
> 10.PAKISTAN
> 
> ALSO I WANTED TO ASK IF UK GOES TO WAR DOES AUSTRALIA , CANADA AND ALL THOSE UK A.S LICKING STATES JOIN?


Pak behinf,brazil?south korea?germany?japan,israel n turkey? lol

With more than 1.3 million manpower,3000+ MBTs,4000+APCs, and thousands of arty pieces? nukes, 400+jets,300+helis,50 cobras? 11 conventional subs (6 on order) and 1 nuclear sub under development? and several types of CMs, and SHAHEENII with 3500km range? not to foget an ICBM and MIRV under development? plus remote sensin sats? seriously?


----------



## Ottoman-Turk

OH DAMNN MISTAKE SORRY

1.USA-NO ARGUMENTS- 11 AIRCRAFT CARRIERS , MORE THAN 2000 F35 ON ORDER ( JUST THESE SHOW STRENGTH OF USA , 700 BILLION BUDGET)
HUGE GAP
2.RUSSIA-HUGE LAND ARMY , MANY TANKS , CAPABLE TO PRODUCE WEAPONS
LITTLE GAP
3.CHINA- LARGE LAND FORCE , NOT VERY VERY GOOD NAVY COMPARED TO USA AND RUSSIA
4.INDIA.
5.UK/FRANCE- SMALL BUT ORGANISED AND PROFFESIONAL ARMIES , MODERN EQUIPMENT
6.GERMANY/JAPAN- ONE OF THE BIGGEST EXPORTERS AND BEST TECHNOLOGICAL COUNTRIES , GERMANY EXPORTS MANY DEFENCE PRODUCTS
7.ITALY/TURKEY-ITALY BAD GOING ECONOMY BUT 2 AIRCRAFT CARRIERS MODERN AIRFORCE - TURKEY LARGE LAND ARMY , MANY MODERN F-16 , F-35 ON ORDER , QUITE BIG NAVY , BIG AIR FORCE
8.PAKISTAN/BRAZIL- PAKISTAN VERY GOOD MISSILES , BAD ECONOMY OTHERWISE HIGHER UP, 
9.ISRAEL/SOUTH KOREA- ISRAEL VERY SMALL COUNTRY , SURROUNDED WITH ENEMIES , GOOD AIRFORCE , NOT VERY LARGE NAVY , SMALL POPULATION , 

I MIXED UP THE LIST I ITS LIKE THIS NORMALLY -

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

notorious_eagle said:


> It would be a mistake on your part to assume that there is no depth in PA's leadership especially when it comes to a conventional showdown. I wont speak of the past as there have been serious blunders committed by the General Staff of PA but i can also state that serious blunders have also been committed by the General Staff of IA. What i can tell you that as of now PA's General Staff is simply top class. The current batch of Generals is probably the most finest and well trained staff in PA's history. Also, you cannot discount fighting experience as there is no substitute in life for experience.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, PA had to retrain her forces for counter insurgency from the scratch. This itself is a feat as PA retrained herself in record time. PA's COIN operations have been much more successful as compared to that of NATO or even IA's COIN operations inside Kashmir.
> 
> 
> 
> Sir please, these lame excuses wont work as Operation Parakram exposed the deficiencies in IA. You cannot hide IA's incompetence by using the political excuse. The order was given out to prepare for war and IA was asked to mobilize in full force, the orders were quite simply but IA failed to execute those orders in the allotted time due to their weak logistics.
> 
> 
> 
> BJP appeared quite eager for war and several prominent politicians and known personalities in India advocated for war. Compare that to Pakistan where there is a consensus among all political parties to avoid a war against India at all costs.
> 
> 
> 
> The stated new objective of the IA is contrary to that, it wants to fight a fast and fluid war against Pakistan before nukes can be brought into the equation. Any war lasting more than 2 weeks will increase the threshold level because Pakistan can simply not win a static war against India.
> 
> 
> 
> Lesson learned , trust me we wont be running out of ammunition if God forbid hostilities break out.
> 
> 
> 
> I wont blame the Air Force or the Navy, the Army treated them like a bunch of fools and paid dearly for it. That being said, the same mistakes wont be happening again. The synergy reached between PA, PAF and PN has been phenomenal. NDU had made it a priority to add courses to syllabus that would emphasize join operations. The theory was exercised on field as PA, PAF and PN have been conducting exercises together regularly.
> 
> 
> 
> So far the tender has not gone out.
> 
> 
> 
> We will see, but keep in mind that the defensive force will always have an advantage in an artillery duel as it is already set up and has marked up the enemy's axis of movement.
> 
> 
> 
> I would respectfully disagree with the term vast superiority, if that was the case India would have smashed Pakistan's defences.
> 
> 
> Sure new equipment can be purchased on short notice during a time of hostility but that equipment will not arrive with ready made crew. The argument works both ways, any advantage that India enjoys Pakistan can nullify them too. Infact, some of the key war fighting advantages that India enjoyed until recently have been cancelled out.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, but these Lashkars can make lift difficult for the IA through unconventional attacks. It wont defeat them but will certainly harass them.
> 
> 
> 
> If Pakistan invades India, last i checked PA's doctrine was against this notion.
> 
> If India thinks that she can just run over PA's defences with ease, than she is living in a fools paradise. Looking at the balance of power of both India and Pakistan, there is not much difference between both the countries despite India spending billions of dollars to try and nullify this advantage.



I have left a few days between this post and today's response in order to ensure that there is no suspicion of replying in the heat of the moment.

The points that I had presented were intended to be a dispassionate analysis of the real and supposed strengths and weaknesses of the Pakistani military, with emphasis on the Army. If it is taken to be a fanboy attack with a preconceived idea of the superiority of India in mind, then it has failed in its purpose, and nothing is to be gained by extending the discussion. Only if the good faith of the original criticism is accepted is it worth continuing. 

It is also sad that a very significant point has been completely obscured in seeking a point-by-point rebuttal of my argument. This significant issue is the age-old role of the lower Gangetic plain (including a specific part of western Bengal) in supplying soldiers to all armies. This was the military tradition in south Asia for centuries, and was distorted and twisted by the British, smarting from the effects of the Indian Mutiny. A simple comparison of the military history before 1857 and after will show how great a turn was made. In stating this obvious fact, I am of course indebted to the insights of one of our greatest military analyst, as it happens, a Pakistani ex-soldier, and I am sure that his identity is clearly discernible through the narrative presented.

Like the 'soldier mines' of Anatolia, the soldier mines of present-day UP, Bihar, and bits of Bengal were the foundations of all great armies. However, these were not the armies of the day, loyal to one flag, but mercenary troops offering their services to the highest bidder. The concept of naukri was an old concept in these parts. As happened in Eurasian history, as has been insisted upon - correctly if in an abrasive manner - in another thread, the loss of these soldier mines meant a permanent loss of military superiority to the losing side. Once Anatolia was lost, in the Battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire was doomed to eventual defeat. Here, in south Asia, the result was nowhere near as drastic. The replacement of these soldiers, and those of the Carnatic and of Bombay by the so-called martial races led to no downfall. Instead, this shifting of the base of recruitment twisted and diverted Indian history around itself, and we are still feeling the effects today. 

In the context of the strength of the Pakistani Army, what I sought to say in pointing to this phenomenon was that the Pakistani Army was perfectly positioned to be a resource for gathering armies; so, too, is the present Indian Army. Both have the advantage of recruitment from among the 'martial races' discovered very conveniently by the British after nearly two hundred of experience, including the experience of fighting wars with these soldiers, and fighting them successfully. What Pakistan lacks, and what India has in reserve, unsuspected and untrumpeted, is the soldier mines of yesteryear, soldier mines whose products roam throughout India restlessly, looking for jobs, any jobs, now that they have been cut off from their millennium strong occupation. These states have hardly been touched in the course of recruitment into the Army. However, they supply the bulk of the paramilitary forces, and their ability to fight well enough to defeat the martial races is a matter of historical record.

This has gone entirely unnoticed, and is perhaps a hint to stop raising any issue in a neutral fashion, as that neutrality is always suspect, and with suspect neutrality, such an analysis as mine is bound to be viewed with suspicion as self-seeking and propagandist. 

Pity.



Notorious Eagle said:


> Joe Shearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely fighting experience is not sufficient. The quality of leadership is also important. Judging by the events since 1971, there is not much depth in the Pakistani military leadership, perhaps partly because they have been so distracted by the attraction of political developments in their country. Neither their attempt to capture Siachen, which was let down by sloppy staff work and poor confidentiality, nor their attempt at redressing the balance in Kargil was particular impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a mistake on your part to assume that there is no depth in PA's leadership especially when it comes to a conventional showdown. I wont speak of the past as there have been serious blunders committed by the General Staff of PA but i can also state that serious blunders have also been committed by the General Staff of IA. What i can tell you that as of now PA's General Staff is simply top class. The current batch of Generals is probably the most finest and well trained staff in PA's history. Also, you cannot discount fighting experience as there is no substitute in life for experience.
Click to expand...


This was not intended to be a Pakistan versus India dick-measuring contest. 

What I stated about the Pakistan Army is not connected with any preconceived notion about the Indian Army. It is possible to consider the one without considering the other, or to consider any one of them without thinking in terms of a two-horse race.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Notorious Eagle said:


> Joe Shearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their action against their own extremist was nowhere near as effective as these counter-insurgency operations can be, perhaps because the Pakistan Army never trained for counter-insurgency; those who might be thought to be insurgents were already auxiliaries of theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, PA had to retrain her forces for counter insurgency from the scratch. This itself is a feat as PA retrained herself in record time. PA's COIN operations have been much more successful as compared to that of NATO or even IA's COIN operations inside Kashmir.
Click to expand...


My point was precisely this, that the Pakistan Army was ill-prepared for facing a situation it had created, which is bad forward planning. To assume that all favourable factors will remain favourable is perhaps over-optimistic. Another sign that all was not well. 

Sadly, this too has been seen through a jaundiced filter. Perhaps I would have done better to approach the forum with a disguised identity, and the discussion might have turned out to be less imbued with suspicion and less soaked in testosterone.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rajputana

Who is this Pakistani general?


----------



## Joe Shearer

Notorious Eagle said:


> Joe Shearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> On comparison, the Indian Army has been in a predicament (as usual) largely due to political indecision. The BJP ordered mobilisation, after the attack on Parliament, but had not done the necessary preparation to fight a war, nor was it sure that it wanted to fight a war. As a result, the Indian Army was put to a most uncomfortable alert which lasted for nearly a year. This was disgraceful.
> 
> 
> 
> Sir please, these lame excuses wont work as Operation Parakram exposed the deficiencies in IA. You cannot hide IA's incompetence by using the political excuse. The order was given out to prepare for war and IA was asked to mobilize in full force, the orders were quite simply but IA failed to execute those orders in the allotted time due to their weak logistics.
Click to expand...


I believe that addressing this point by a previous poster was a grievous error. It helped to create the false impression of the matter being couched in an Indo-Pakistani hyphenated context. The mistake lay in responding to all previous posts of interest in one place, rather than segregating them.

I take responsibility for my share in creating this confusion.



Rajputana said:


> Who is this Pakistani general?



You mean the person I look upon as my master? He was not a general, he was a cantankerous, sharp-edged, opinionated Major, cordially disliked by most of his own service, and treated with suspicion by Indians - in public. A sort of cross between Liddell Hart and Fuller (in terms of personality), with the most uncomfortable characteristics of each, but a brilliant, analytical mind. I have reason to believe that he is avidly read, by both sides, in secret; references to his work are far too common. Very amusing.

If I name him after such an introduction, he will kill me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Notorious Eagle said:


> Joe Shearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This indecision of the politicians does not surprise me. No section of the Indian political leadership is eager for war. Perhaps that is now true of the Pakistani leadership also, although IK is an unknown quantity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BJP appeared quite eager for war and several prominent politicians and known personalities in India advocated for war. Compare that to Pakistan where there is a consensus among all political parties to avoid a war against India at all costs.
Click to expand...


Quite early on in boarding school, I made the discovery that all schoolboys make - bullies tend to be cowards. The BJP and its allies are bullies; their actions during Parakram and their words were orthogonal to each other. Yes, there was intense anger in India; we all shared the revulsion at this crime against our country and the obvious involvement of the deep state of Pakistan. But the politicians talked war, they never thought war. It is very unusual for any Indian leadership to seek war, and to my knowledge, it has happened only twice in 65 years, once due to steely determination to relieve ourselves of an intolerable burden, once due to a nauseating hegemonistic attitude which had nothing to do with the Indian political ethos.

I stand by my opinion.



Notorious Eagle said:


> Joe Shearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The odds for the Pakistan Army would be highest at the outset of hostilities. It is and always has been a quick-reacting force (by and large). With every passing week, its advantage will drop substantially. In case of hostilities lasting over a month, it will be at a serious disadvantage. *A reasonable Indian Army strategy would be* to engage it in a barren artillery and limited infantry and armour war for two to three weeks, before committing any assault troops to action, or setting out on a plan with objectives, strategy and tactical doctrine taped down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stated new objective of the IA is contrary to that, it wants to fight a fast and fluid war against Pakistan before nukes can be brought into the equation. Any war lasting more than 2 weeks will increase the threshold level because Pakistan can simply not win a static war against India.
Click to expand...


It was a hypothesis, and it is counterposed to the Cold Start strategy which requires superb coordination and an efficient execution of a well-knit together procurement programme by the combined political-administrative echelons, which is never going to happen. The hypothesis was framed in part by this reality, and in part by the other reality that in a long encounter, the economically weaker nation would go to the wall.



> Any war lasting more than 2 weeks will increase the threshold level because Pakistan can simply not win a static war against India.



Exactly so. Please don't look now, but we seem to be in agreement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hellfire

Korean said:


> Let me give you the scenario.
> 
> You have 1 million PLA troops amassed across Arunachal Pradesh and Pakistani border with India, and they are charging forward. Can India stop 1 million PLA ground forces with tens of thousands of tanks and hundreds of jets?



ever operated in Himalayan region in mountain warfare? first go there and find me place to concentrate more than a few scores of troops at any time and then talk of the numbers you are quoting.

no tankable country there and the heights are from 22000 ft asl on average which renders even your air power susceptible due to ceiling limits!!! 

in addition the amount of payload carried by helicopters (attack) is also limited.

so your number game is unimpressive.

lets get down to ground realities. the PLA would have rolled down into Tawang Valley in Arunachal and taken it decades back if it could. that is the crux .. if it could. In addition the same problems are faced by India hence a detente will be there on that front until and unless either side is too foolish to be able to use military logic
so you can take a time out with ROK forces. You were stuck into Pusan Perimeter till UN forces intervened on your behalf. ROK forces are not worth the trouble for PLA. North Korea is sufficient

Someone had posted about Vietnam defeating(?) PLA. High hopes. PLA thrashed them ... its not the factor of being able to take a few tactical gains that is victory but achieving your stated objects that describes the victory.

in 1965 the PAF had way lesser losses than IAF. So on an isolated aspect it won. But Pakistan lost the war as its aim of taking J&K was defeated and it had to go for peace due to shortage of war fighting materials (and not due to any other reason). 

there is no outright victory ever in war. your victory and defeat is totally your objective at outset and its achievement or inability to achieve.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Notorious Eagle said:


> Joe Shearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tea leaves were clear to read. The Pakistan Army had run dangerously short of ammunition and supplies in 65, and in contrast, the Indian Army, while it still had supplies for another three weeks or more, advised its civilian leadership that stocks were running dangerously low, and a ceasefire would be a good thing. It would have been FAR more difficult for Pakistan if hostilities had continued for another twenty days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesson learned , trust me we wont be running out of ammunition if God forbid hostilities break out.
Click to expand...




Notorious Eagle said:


> Joe Shearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That situation remains the same. It is not much better for the Air Force. During the Kargil hostilities, the Air Force bluntly told the Army that it could not intervene because of the very low level of spares and supplies. The Navy leadership famously declared sick en masse on learning about the developments in Kargil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wont blame the Air Force or the Navy, the Army treated them like a bunch of fools and paid dearly for it. That being said, the same mistakes wont be happening again. The synergy reached between PA, PAF and PN has been phenomenal. NDU had made it a priority to add courses to syllabus that would emphasize join operations. The theory was exercised on field as PA, PAF and PN have been conducting exercises together regularly.
Click to expand...


I have nothing to say to these two comments. It would seem that the Army has learnt from its past. Admirable deviation from the normal obtuse refusal of Armies in general to learn from mistakes. Let us take these statements in good faith, and I hope that the Indian Army while engaged in planning has factored in the possibility that some soldiers do learn their lessons.


----------



## Rajputana

Joe Shearer said:


> You mean the person I look upon as my master? He was not a general, he was a cantankerous, sharp-edged, opinionated Major, cordially disliked by most of his own service, and treated with suspicion by Indians - in public. A sort of cross between Liddell Hart and Fuller, with the most uncomfortable characteristics of each, but a brilliant, analytical mind. I have reason to believe that he is avidly read, by both sides, in secret; references to his work are far too common. Very amusing.
> 
> If I name him after such an introduction, he will kill me.


 
I am sorry I dont know that many Pak army people, you mean to say he is here on this site?




> Sir please, these lame excuses wont work as Operation Parakram exposed the deficiencies in IA. You cannot hide IA's incompetence by using the political excuse. The order was given out to prepare for war and IA was asked to mobilize in full force, the orders were quite simply but IA failed to execute those orders in the allotted time due to their weak logistics.






> Quite early on in boarding school, I made the discovery that all schoolboys make - bullies tend to be cowards. The BJP and its allies are bullies; their actions during Parakram and their words were orthogonal to each other. Yes, there was intense anger in India; we all shared the revulsion at this crime against our country and the obvious involvement of the deep state of Pakistan. But the politicians talked war, they never thought war. It is very unusual for any Indian leadership to seek war, and to my knowledge, it has happened only twice in 65 years, once due to steely determination to relieve ourselves of an intolerable burden, once due to a nauseating hegemonistic attitude which had nothing to do with the Indian political ethos.
> 
> I stand by my opinion.



Gotta give it to you, you have a very deep knowledge of IA.

It was known all along to higher brass that there was going to be no attack in 2001 or 02, the people who did not know it were the Pakistanis and their reaction to the deployment was as expected.

It is absolutely correct that IA was made to make a superhuman effort and had to pay its cost too. but the goal in mind was not military, it was political, and it achieved exactly what it was intended to do.

Those who are not able to understand the cause and effect of that deployment tend to term it as a failure, and its not their fault I believe, Musharraf too realized it only too late how he had been played.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

At this point, I must seek leave of absence, to attend to some work. I shall anaswer the remainder of the observations, or at least respond to them in about six to eight hours time.


----------



## Shinigami

Joe Shearer said:


> At this point, I must seek leave of absence, to attend to some work. I shall anaswer the remainder of the observations, or at least respond to them in about six to eight hours time.



Joe Shearer, 

Pakistan's military has always been, i am told, bold in strategic planning but poor in operational planning and execution, ie at the lower levels. This helped them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, longewala of course being the glaring example. An ex pak major said this is due to favoritism in the PA.

do u have any info on this?


----------



## Joe Shearer

Shinigami said:


> Joe Shearer,
> 
> Pakistan's military has always been, i am told, bold in strategic planning but poor in operational planning and execution, ie at the lower levels. This helped them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, longewala of course being the glaring example. An ex pak major said this is due to favoritism in the PA.
> 
> do u have any info on this?




I would like to recount one incident and leave it at that; it is NOT a good idea to narrate disparaging stories about the PA. In fifteen minutes.


----------



## Hellfire

Shinigami said:


> Joe Shearer,
> 
> Pakistan's military has always been, i am told, bold in strategic planning but poor in operational planning and execution, ie at the lower levels. This helped them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, longewala of course being the glaring example. An ex pak major said this is due to favoritism in the PA.
> 
> do u have any info on this?



A point. Longewala went into history due to the failed military offensive of the PA. But the same night they lost Islamgarh fort to just a batallion of Indian Infantry with just one injured on Indian side and overall 272 sq km of area was brought under control. Had Longewala not taken place you would have been seeing the capture of Islamgarh as it was the biggest victory for India ever in any war.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Shinigami said:


> Joe Shearer,
> 
> Pakistan's military has always been, i am told, bold in strategic planning but poor in operational planning and execution, ie at the lower levels. This helped them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, longewala of course being the glaring example. An ex pak major said this is due to favoritism in the PA.
> 
> do u have any info on this?



Here is the story of that mystifying episode, narrated by T-Faz

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...94-maj-general-akhtar-malik-1965-debacle.html


----------



## Ir.Tab.

Except ignoring the nuclear capability, there is an other important shortcoming at "global fire power" assessment. The site only counts & listing is a "numbers game". In this assessment it is not important to how extend weapons are up to date.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RayKalm

Ir.Tab. said:


> Except ignoring the nuclear capability, there is an other important shortcoming at "global fire power" assessment. The site only counts & listing is a "numbers game". In this assessment it is not important to how extend weapons are up to date.



Rightly said. Iran should be far behind if this was the case, don't you agree?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ir.Tab.

Still, I am not sure to how extend this will help the countries ranked under 12!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Banglar Lathial

Egypt has a very large and modern stash of equipment procured from various sources, it'd be surprising if Egypt is not touted as one of the top 10 or so conventional military powers. Some drawbacks are: lack of 'strong political allies', issues with the economy and lack of indigenous fighter aircrafts, MBTs and other major weapons systems in its armed forces yet. That's why Egypt should be considered amongst the 10 'strongest' militaries, in conventional terms, at the moment, I reckon.


----------



## RayKalm

Notice that it's almost been a year and no updates

Record Last Updated: *7/6/2011* | Authored by Staff Writer

Military Strength of Turkey

Record Last Updated: *7/5/2011 *| Authored by Staff Writer

Military Strength of Pakistan

Record Last Updated:* 6/30/2011* | Authored by Staff Writer

Military Strength of Iran


----------



## King Solomon

Ir.Tab. said:


> Except ignoring the nuclear capability, there is an other important shortcoming at "global fire power" assessment. The site only counts & listing is a "numbers game". In this assessment it is not important to how extend weapons are up to date.



That is wrong. GFP takes into account conventional technology as well, that is why you do not see China above Russia, even though china got more "numbers" so to speak.

The reason why some people are dissatisfied with GFP is that GFP takes into account a myriad of other factors beside military. eg. pakistan may have a good conventional military, but its energy dependancy puts it down to 15. Of course this would dissatisfy many people and hence, the defamation of GFP here. People don't understand that you need energy, infrastructure etc. to sustain war, not only weapons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Birbal

I think GFP is amazingly accurate. Looking through the top 10, I can't really identify any nations that appear significantly out of place.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

S-19 said:


> That is wrong. GFP takes into account conventional technology as well, that is why you do not see China above Russia, even though china got more "numbers" so to speak.
> 
> The reason why some people are dissatisfied with GFP is that GFP takes into account a myriad of other factors beside military. eg. pakistan may have a good conventional military, but its energy dependancy puts it down to 15. Of course this would dissatisfy many people and hence, the defamation of GFP here. People don't understand that you need energy, infrastructure etc. to sustain war, not only weapons.



in electronic warfare, i believe that China is surpassing Russia as we speak. That is because China now has access to huge amounts of resources from our successful ventures in semiconductor, optical communications and signal processing for telecom applications.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RayKalm

S-19 said:


> That is wrong. GFP takes into account conventional technology as well, that is why you do not see China above Russia, even though china got more "numbers" so to speak.
> 
> The reason why some people are dissatisfied with GFP is that GFP takes into account a myriad of other factors beside military. eg. pakistan may have a good conventional military, but its energy dependancy puts it down to 15. Of course this would dissatisfy many people and hence, the defamation of GFP here. People don't understand that you need energy, infrastructure etc. to sustain war, not only weapons.



Your assumptions are wrong.

The reason why Russia is put above China is obviously because of Russia's huge size and huge land forces. Other than that, nothing that site says that it's taking into account would have put Russia above China.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## danger007

RayKalm said:


> Your assumptions are wrong.
> 
> The reason why Russia is put above China is obviously because of Russia's huge size and huge land forces. Other than that, nothing that site says that it's taking into account would have put Russia above China.



so you are saying china is ahead of Russia???? lol in that case...lol...in that case what is the gdp of china, population... you denying Russia's nuclear weapons, air defence , weapons,........ etc.... do you forget who is largest army by military personal????


----------



## RayKalm

danger007 said:


> so you are saying china is ahead of Russia???? lol in that case...lol...in that case what is the gdp of china, population... you denying Russia's nuclear weapons, air defence , weapons,........ etc.... do you forget who is largest army by military personal????



Sigh. I was talking about what the list takes into account, if the GFP rulings were true to their words then China should indeed be above Russia, and India should indeed be above Russia as well.

This is why GFP is highly flawed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## danger007

RayKalm said:


> Sigh. I was talking about what the list takes into account, if the GFP rulings were true to their words then China should indeed be above Russia, and India should indeed be above Russia as well.
> 
> This is why GFP is highly flawed.



if u take military personal wise China is at number 1 and India at 2..... no way we are not even close to russia...


----------



## Ir.Tab.

S-19 said:


> That is wrong. GFP takes into account conventional technology as well, that is why you do not see China above Russia, even though china got more "numbers" so to speak.
> 
> The reason why some people are dissatisfied with GFP is that GFP takes into account a myriad of other factors beside military. eg. pakistan may have a good conventional military, but its energy dependancy puts it down to 15. Of course this would dissatisfy many people and hence, the defamation of GFP here. People don't understand that you need energy, infrastructure etc. to sustain war, not only weapons.



you are right, I know there are more factors in GFP calculation regardless of the "numbers game" section, but I think it is possible to perform more precisely in terms of counting. No problem with the logistical and financial aspects but with "purely a numbers game" attitude.

GlobalFirepower.com reports 22,950 in russian tank inventory. But we know there are well under 1000 T90 MBT as the re-presenter of 3th generation technology among them (ref). For comparison based on the data provided by GlobalFirepower.com USA has 9,573 MBT which more than 8000 are M1 Abrams tanks (one of the most advanced MBTs around). So it is not enough to say Russia has 22,950 MBTs and USA has 9,573 MBTs. 

Other factors should be considered in counting. For example Tank's counting could be classified by their generation. There is an example

I am agreed with GlobalFirepower.com with ranking Russia as the second army in the world. I give these figures to show that "Numbers game" could be very misleading especially for those who are not among the 5 top in the ranking table.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## King Solomon

FairAndUnbiased said:


> in electronic warfare, i believe that China is surpassing Russia as we speak. That is because China now has access to huge amounts of resources from our successful ventures in semiconductor, optical communications and signal processing for telecom applications.


 
Maybe, maybe not. I have studied Russian military and according to me China is still behind Russia. I'd recommend this book: Shopping cart Experts - CCNow Online Credit Card Processing and Merchant Account

china is catchin up pretty fast though. With the recent upsurge in Russian rearmament I guess Russia would pace up as well.



> Sigh. I was talking about what the list takes into account, if the GFP rulings were true to their words then China should indeed be above Russia, and India should indeed be above Russia as well.
> 
> This is why GFP is highly flawed.



You obviously have little or no basic military knowledge. Look again, the only thing Russia is above China in numbers terms in the total land based weapons. In all other stats, if you compare number by number China seems to be superior. So, going by your assumption that GFP only compares "numbers" then obviously China would have been at number 2 not Russia.

The reason why Russia is ranked higher to that of China is:

- Superior technology.

- Energy independence.



Ir.Tab. said:


> you are right, I know there are more factors in GFP calculation regardless of the "numbers game" section, but I think it is possible to perform more precisely in terms of counting. No problem with the logistical and financial aspects but with "purely a numbers game" attitude.
> 
> GlobalFirepower.com reports 22,950 in russian tank inventory. But we know there are well under 1000 T90 MBT as the re-presenter of 3th generation technology among them (ref). For comparison based on the data provided by GlobalFirepower.com USA has 9,573 MBT which more than 8000 are M1 Abrams tanks (one of the most advanced MBTs around). So it is not enough to say Russia has 22,950 MBTs and USA has 9,573 MBTs.
> 
> Other factors should be considered in counting. For example Tank's counting could be classified by their generation. There is an example
> 
> I am agreed with GlobalFirepower.com with ranking Russia as the second army in the world. I give these figures to show that "Numbers game" could be very mistaken especially for those who are not among the 5 top in the ranking table.



As i said in my previous post, GFP takes more into account than numbers. Take for example pakistan and Iran. At a first glance, it would seem pakistan has technological superiority over Iran as well as numerical. Then why is Iran ranked above pakistan? Because:

- Pakistan is energy dependent upon others for its survival and military machine.

- Couple this with a small coastline Pakistan is very much prone to naval blockade. In case of a real war, it is doubtful if pakistan will be able to sustain more than a month.

Iran has plenty of energy resources of its own which it exploits. Similar to Russia. So, Iran is higher than pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ir.Tab.

I am not going to enter that challenging comparison. I said "no problem with the logistical and financial aspects but with purely a numbers game attitude". Consider we have 2 Russias. Both are equal in every aspects but the second Russia uses the upgraded vehicles which the first Russia uses. How does GlobalFirepower.com rank this two cases?


----------



## RayKalm

@S-19, that's what I have said - that GFP takes into account things which are not on the rulings.

Pakistan on the other hand, while dependent on energy, the same thing can be said for almost every other country.


----------



## King Solomon

RayKalm said:


> @S-19, that's what I have said - that GFP takes into account things which are not on the rulings.
> 
> Pakistan on the other hand, while dependent on energy, the same thing can be said for almost every other country.



You seem to believe only superior weaponry and numbers count. Study why Nazi Germany was defeated in WWII. Primary objective of operation Barbarossa was to capture USSR's oilfields because Nazis were in short of oil despite their superior technology and equipment.

As for energy, it is the disparity between production and consumption that counts. Pakistan, Turkey etc have large disparity thus their superior military may be useless in case of a *prolonged* conventional war. Countries like India, China and US have enough oil sources to keep their war machine going even though their economy might be shut off in case of war in homeland. Their challenge is to protect their oil infrastructure in case of a possible conflict.


----------



## Birbal

Ir.Tab. said:


> I am not going to enter that challenging comparison. I said "no problem with the logistical and financial aspects but with purely a numbers game attitude". Consider we have 2 Russias. *Both are equal in every aspects but the second Russia uses the upgraded vehicles which the first Russia uses. How does GlobalFirepower.com rank this two cases?*



So the first Russia spends the same on defense as the second Russia but gets outdated weapons?

The point is that technology level is reflected in the defense budget and gdp size.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ir.Tab.

Birbal said:


> So the first Russia spends the same on defense as the second Russia but gets outdated weapons?
> 
> The point is that technology level is reflected in the defense budget and gdp size.



 We have two country X & Y. they are exactly same as each-other. for example their current defense budget and gdp size. the only difference is: "X uses the upgraded vehicles which Y uses." How does GlobalFirepower.com rank this two cases?
please assume X has been upgraded a long time ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Birbal

Ir.Tab. said:


> We have two country X & Y. they are exactly same as each-other. for example their current defense budget and gdp size. the only difference is: "X uses the upgraded vehicles which Y uses." How does GlobalFirepower.com rank this two cases?
> please assume X has been upgraded a long time ago.



It wouldn't be able to. I'd argue though that such a scenario is extremely unlikely.

From what I've observed, the objective ranking that GFP has matches amazingly well with my own subjective ranking. They've clearly come up with a good formula for ranking countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ir.Tab.

Birbal said:


> It wouldn't be able to. I'd argue though that such a scenario is extremely unlikely.
> 
> From what I've observed, the objective ranking that GFP has matches amazingly well with my own subjective ranking. They've clearly come up with a good formula for ranking countries.



I just want to show a little bug in that evaluation. I have no problem with the ranking there. In other words all the countries upgrading their equipments instead of producing "a new one with an old technology" are losers in this ranking.

An example:
Russian military experts have decided to upgrade their T-72 tanks fleet (option 1). They have had the other option of producing more T-72 tanks with the same budget (option 2). option 2 was more effective than option 1 to heighten the rating at global firepower ranking. But if you ask me I am more with Russian experts idea not the global fire power strategy.


----------



## RayKalm

Birbal said:


> It wouldn't be able to. I'd argue though that such a scenario is extremely unlikely.
> 
> From what I've observed, the objective ranking that GFP has matches amazingly well with my own subjective ranking. They've clearly come up with a good formula for ranking countries.



Highly unlikely? How so? Look at the list - it is not highly unlikely, but very common.


----------



## King Solomon

RayKalm said:


> Highly unlikely? How so? Look at the list - it is not highly unlikely, but very common.



I get where are you coming from, loitering in the past 10 pages trying to prove the "injustice" of GFP. Pray publishing here your "own" list if you are so dissatisfied with it? Let everyone see how meticulous you are? 

Or maybe because Pakistan is not in top 10, that is why the grunt?



> We have two country X & Y. they are exactly same as each-other. for example their current defense budget and gdp size. the only difference is: "X uses the upgraded vehicles which Y uses." How does GlobalFirepower.com rank this two cases?
> please assume X has been upgraded a long time ago.



I'm not a GFP staff so I can't comment accurately. Based on my understanding the country which uses upgraded vehicle will be ranked higher. As in the way Israel is ranked above Egypt.


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

S-19 said:


> Maybe, maybe not. I have studied Russian military and according to me China is still behind Russia. I'd recommend this book: Shopping cart Experts - CCNow Online Credit Card Processing and Merchant Account
> 
> china is catchin up pretty fast though. With the recent upsurge in Russian rearmament I guess Russia would pace up as well.
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have little or no basic military knowledge. Look again, the only thing Russia is above China in numbers terms in the total land based weapons. In all other stats, if you compare number by number China seems to be superior. So, going by your assumption that GFP only compares "numbers" then obviously China would have been at number 2 not Russia.
> 
> The reason why Russia is ranked higher to that of China is:
> 
> - Superior technology.
> 
> - Energy independence.
> 
> 
> 
> As i said in my previous post, GFP takes more into account than numbers. Take for example pakistan and Iran. At a first glance, it would seem pakistan has technological superiority over Iran as well as numerical. Then why is Iran ranked above pakistan? Because:
> 
> - Pakistan is energy dependent upon others for its survival and military machine.
> 
> - Couple this with a small coastline Pakistan is very much prone to naval blockade. In case of a real war, it is doubtful if pakistan will be able to sustain more than a month.
> 
> Iran has plenty of energy resources of its own which it exploits. Similar to Russia. So, Iran is higher than pakistan.



Shopping cart is empty, what is the book name? I'm not so sure about that, because in electronic warfare, China's KJ-2000 already has maximum detection range further than the E-3, we already have phase array radars installed on our destroyers and frigates, we already have the 2nd most amount of supercomputing power in the world, we're one of only 5 countries in the world able to make photolithography machinery, and our programmers are ranked the same as Russian programmers.

Russia is still very powerful though. In addition to its immense strength in conventional and nuclear arms, Russia has unparalleled geography.

Russia only needs a 8000 km range ICBM to strike anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere. China needs a 11000 km range ICBM to do the same.

Russia produces more oil than Saudi Arabia (WOW!) while consuming very little. China produces less than Iran and consumes all of it. Russia has the most natural gas in the world. China has no natural gas.

Russia has 4 sea access routes to 3 oceans. China has 3 sea access routes to 2 oceans, but they're stacked, so its actually 1 to 1. Russia has much more domestic water supplies than China does.

Russia is helped by global warming. That's a major advantage in a world where global warming doesn't seem to be letting up.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ir.Tab.

S-19 said:


> I'm not a GFP staff so I can't comment accurately. Based on my understanding the country which uses upgraded vehicle will be ranked higher. As in the way Israel is ranked above Egypt.



Yes, that's true. they should provide more transparency for such a controversial ranking. The formula of GFP is unknown. The numbers are unreferenced. The fundamentals of estimations are unknown. The categories need to be divided to sub-categories with more mature evaluating. The issues like "post 147" should be answered clearly.


----------



## TopCat

My my where is Bangladesh? We dont shoot that does not mean we are out of bullets. I see Afhganistan is there.. I did not know Taliban head counts were measured as parameter in this GFP BS

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ir.Tab.

For an example:

The Composite Index of National Capability (CINC)

This one could be classified as a scientific Index because it is possible to evaluate it's scope and shortcomings and the required information is officially published by countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RayKalm

Ir.Tab. said:


> For an example:
> 
> The Composite Index of National Capability (CINC)
> 
> This one could be classified as a scientific Index because it is possible to evaluate it's scope and shortcomings and the required information is officially published by countries.



I agree. That list would be much more accurate than this phony list everyone uses.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## alok mishra

Global fire power is ranking is accurate. they consider all the terms which are necessary to fight a war. you can't fight just because you have nuclear weapon and large army. there is also some things which is important in war situation like your economy, economy show your how long you can fight. your land forces, air power, naval power and so on important to face enemy from every side..So i think GFP ranking is accurate.


----------



## RayKalm

alok mishra said:


> Global fire power is ranking is accurate. they consider all the terms which are necessary to fight a war. you can't fight just because you have nuclear weapon and large army. there is also some things which is important in war situation like your economy, economy show your how long you can fight. your land forces, air power, naval power and so on important to face enemy from every side..So i think GFP ranking is accurate.



What about modernity? The quality of weapons rather than the quantity?


----------



## King Solomon

RayKalm said:


> What about modernity? The quality of weapons rather than the quantity?


*
How many times should I say that is ALREADY taken into account? *

Why do you think Russia ranks higher than China and Israel ranks higher than Egypt/Iran?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ir.Tab.

RayKalm said:


> I agree. That list would be much more accurate than this phony list everyone uses.



Dear RayKalm I have no idea about the accuracy but as you see in this case the formula is clearly stated. The inputs validation could be re-assisted. In other words transparency was fulfilled. 

For me it is only an index. If some one really wants to leave this childish game and to realistically compare the countries there are interesting globally accepted indexes which could be found here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RayKalm

S-19 said:


> *
> How many times should I say that is ALREADY taken into account? *
> 
> Why do you think Russia ranks higher than China and Israel ranks higher than Egypt/Iran?



If you read the writings before the list, you will see that GFP does in no way account quality.

Just because Russia is ranked higher than China, doesn't mean that the rules break.


----------



## King Solomon

RayKalm said:


> If you read the writings before the list, you will see that GFP does in no way account quality.
> 
> Just because Russia is ranked higher than China, doesn't mean that the rules break.





> Therefore GFP comparisons are for consideration in a conventional war based solely on each individual nation's capabilities on land, at sea and through the air while including logistical and financial aspects when waging total war



Russia-China

Israel-Iran-Egypt

South Korea-North Korea

US - China

More?

Finally, pray publishing your "own" rankings if you despise GFP so much? Maybe, just because pakistan is not ranked in top 10?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fantasy

Korean said:


> My standard is pretty simple; can a nation's military battle 1 million Chinese PLA troops, the standard bad guys of our time, and win? Just three countries can say yes to this question; the US, Russia, and Korea. India may win a limited conflict, but would have trouble stopping the advances of 1 million PLA troops in an all out war.
> 
> Korea has an unusually powerful military for a country of its size because of the legacy of the Korean War; the primary combatant for the ROK from 1951 to 1953 was the PLA, and the Korean military was designed to battle a combined North Korean-Chinese force of 1.5 million troops in the event of the resumption of the Korean War.
> 
> 
> 1. Nuclear weapons are useless in almost all war scenarios unless the nuclear state is facing a total destruction similar to Germany and Japan of 1945, and may wish to take out its enemy with it to hell.
> 2. Aside India, Pakistan doesn't present a military threat to anyone else.
> 
> 
> Philippines have a lot of people to be conscripted, as opposed to Sweden short on population.
> 
> 
> Weapons of the last resort upon a state's impending doom and total annihilation. Nukes are tactically useless for all other cases, and the Soviets and Americans would have just nuked Taliban to end their Afghan wars if possible instead of losing tons of troops and equipment.


 The war from the South Korean side were primarily fought by UN troops, without the assistance of the UN the North Koreans would have took down the entire Korea with Ease, these are facts, and the Chinese do not have a million men army present at any one time during the war, you shouldn't be revising history like this. It wasn't until the UN troops(no South Koreans) march near the Yalu river that Chinese forces sprang to action and drove the UN all the way back south and even retook Seoul, then retreated back to the 38th parallel. Again no South Korean involved in all the major battles, so stop revising history. If it wasn't for the UN intervention, Korea would have been one country today.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RayKalm

S-19 said:


> Russia-China
> 
> Israel-Iran-Egypt
> 
> South Korea-North Korea
> 
> US - China
> 
> More?
> 
> Finally, pray publishing your "own" rankings if you despise GFP so much? Maybe, just because pakistan is not ranked in top 10?



That in no way says that quality is taken into account. If so, why do you think Pakistan is not above Iran? If you say Russia is up there because of their modernity, then the same thing should be accounted for Pakistan. 

Israel-Pakistan-Egypt-Iran*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

RayKalm said:


> That in no way says that quality is taken into account. If so, why do you think Pakistan is not above Iran? If you say Russia is up there because of their modernity, then the same thing should be accounted for Pakistan.
> 
> Israel-Pakistan-Egypt-Iran*



Ah... so, that is the problem, pakistan is not ranked higher than what it is.

You've got to be impartial when assessing anything. just because *your *country is not ranked higher, does not mean you trash the ranking. 

As far as pakistan not being ranked higher, it could be due to its oil/energy dependency which is a huge disadvantage in case of war.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ir.Tab.

Nope, lack of clearance! (now your turn RayKalm)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## poseidon

Is it not accurate because why???
just because some people do not like their rank lol

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ir.Tab.

And this is an ignite for the next round!


----------



## RayKalm

S-19 said:


> Ah... so, that is the problem, pakistan is not ranked higher than what it is.
> 
> You've got to be impartial when assessing anything. just because *your *country is not ranked higher, does not mean you trash the ranking.
> 
> As far as pakistan not being ranked higher, it could be due to its oil/energy dependency which is a huge disadvantage in case of war.



Nope. My problem is that modernity isn't taken into account. Israel-Pakistan-Egypt-Iran this is the order of modernity between these four countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

RayKalm said:


> Nope. My problem is that modernity isn't taken into account. Israel-Pakistan-Egypt-Iran this is the order of modernity between these four countries.



I already illustrated several times that modernity of weapons IS taken into account but you didn't pay heed.

Again, for your convenience:

Israel-Iran-Egypt = Both Iran and Egypt are numerically superior but technically inferior.

China-Russia and China-US = In many aspects China is superior to them if you consider "numbers game" , yet ranks lower.

South Korea - north korea 

Correction: it is because your country is not ranked higher.

Why is your country not ranked higher? Because of energy dependency and vulnerability to naval blockade with a low coastline area.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ir.Tab.

Is it my turn?
@S19:
Ok, those could not prove exactly it is a result of other parameters or the modernity of weapons. there is a need for clearance!

@RayKalm
My order is Iran - USA - Russia - bunch of others! 

Now your turn RayKalm. Isn't some one to moderate us in this forum for the sake of god!


----------



## RayKalm

S-19 said:


> I already illustrated several times that modernity of weapons IS taken into account but you didn't pay heed.



You don't seem to understand. Just because Russia is ranked higher than China does NOT mean that modernity is taken to account, that's only you telling yourself that. 



> Again, for your convenience:
> 
> Israel-Iran-Egypt = Both Iran and Egypt are numerically superior but technically inferior.



That's quite funny, cause as you've been saying that modernity of weapons is taken into account, so I want you to explain to me without giving the "no oil, or gas" argument of how Pakistan is numerically and modern-wise below Iran and Egypt.



> China-Russia and China-US = In many aspects China is superior to them if you consider "numbers game" , yet ranks lower.





> South Korea - north korea



Once again, you're just putting out names of country out there. This proves nothing.



> Correction: it is because your country is not ranked higher.
> 
> Why is your country not ranked higher? Because of energy dependency and vulnerability to naval blockade with a low coastline area.



Many countries above Pakistan are energy hungry. Israel, China, Brazil, Turkey etc.


----------



## oFFbEAT

Ir.Tab. said:


> For an example:
> 
> The Composite Index of National Capability (CINC)
> 
> This one could be classified as a scientific Index because it is possible to evaluate it's scope and shortcomings and the required information is officially published by countries.


 
Your Index is not exactly *Firepower Index*......It takes many other things into account....it is what it says....the Coyntry's overall capability*(National Capability)*........
Otherwise.....absolute Firepower wise, India is not above Russia, China is not above America, Brazil is not above Germany....and so on....

Global Firepower is NOT total B.S...........Iran is placed above Pakistan for a reason *(*Indiginous military capabilities has to be taken into account--This is the only reason I think India shouldn't be placed high on the list....we import to much*)*......
They have also reasonably excluded *nuclear capability*......in today's world NUKES don't really matter......if any country uses NUKES on any other country*(*be it nuclear/non-nuclear*)* than the perpetrator is doomed......the whole world will go mad...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## King Solomon

RayKalm said:


> That's quite funny, cause as you've been saying that modernity of weapons is taken into account, so I want you to explain to me without giving the "no oil, or gas" argument of how Pakistan is numerically and modern-wise below Iran and Egypt.



Last time I'm attempting to make you understand, pay heed.



> Therefore GFP comparisons are for consideration in a conventional war based solely on each individual nation's capabilities on land, at sea and through the air while including *logistical and financial aspects* when waging total war. Sources are stated whenever possible though some statistics are estimated if official numbers are not available.



Get it? Logistical AND financial aspects.

So, you wishing to see "no oil no gas" argument is avoiding the basic concept of the comparison. WHy do you think the info pages contains those info?

Egypt's oil production and consumption is almost the same. Iran has huge surplus. Even India has enough to cater for war. While pakistan has nominal oil production and has to import most of its oil from abroad. Understand?

Finally, please publish your own rankings. I and everyone would be interested behind the reasoning of your own ranking.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## oFFbEAT

RayKalm said:


> What about modernity? The *quality of weapons* rather than the quantity?





RayKalm said:


> Nope. My problem is that modernity isn't taken into account. Israel-Pakistan-Egypt-Iran this is the order of *modernity* between these four countries.



And if according to your theory, *"modernity of weapons"* is taken into account....then the list will be more deviated....Countries like India, Pakistan, Brazil, China will obviously rank lower than U.S.A, Russia, France, Israel, Germany etc.......*Just think, how can a country have more modern weapons than the countries from which it Imports weapon*......
*Moreover*, what will the Importer country do if the exporter stops exporting weapons in times of wars*(*International politics is highly unpredictable*)*.....therefore, * indigenous capabilities should be of utmost importance....*

For these reasons, I think, GFP Index is fairly accurate......few countries like India, Pakistan, Brazil even China(they still import from Russia) should be placed lower though.........


----------



## ViXuyen

I think the most important criteria of being a great military power is having complete military industries to supply owns weapons; having the ability to produce your own weapons guaranteed you can replace any lost equipment during the war; second is having oil to run the vehicle, and third is manpower.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RayKalm

S-19 said:


> Last time I'm attempting to make you understand, pay heed.
> 
> 
> 
> Get it? Logistical AND financial aspects.
> 
> So, you wishing to see "no oil no gas" argument is avoiding the basic concept of the comparison. WHy do you think the info pages contains those info?
> 
> Egypt's oil production and consumption is almost the same. Iran has huge surplus. Even India has enough to cater for war. While pakistan has nominal oil production and has to import most of its oil from abroad. Understand?
> 
> Finally, please publish your own rankings. I and everyone would be interested behind the reasoning of your own ranking.



Hmm, since when does logistical and financial aspects have anything to do with a modern army?

Logistic wise, India relies on Iranian/Russian oil and weapons. They haven't got that good of an economy compared to the mouths they have to feed, and numerous amount of problems, yet they are 4th on that list.

Same thing goes for Turkey and China. They may have good economies, but they rely heavily on oil.

So, I ask you, once again, prove to me how GFP accounts for modernity. 

I have already published my own rankings countless times.

I'll do it again.

1.) USA
2.) Russia
3.) China
4.) India-France
5.) France-India
6.) Japan
7.) United Kingdom
8.) Germany
9.) Turkey
10.) South Korea
11.) Israel
12.) Pakistan

I would put Iran at 14th.


----------



## Lonely Hermit

> RayKalm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, *since when does logistical and financial aspects have anything to do with a modern army?*
> 
> 
> 
> Mate you really don't know how war's are really fought.
> In a war it does not depend on how many troops you have or number of tanks you have.
> War's are won by how quickly you can mobilize how good your logistics.
> 
> Indeed logistics wins war and it is most important factor which people here do not realize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logistic wise, India relies on Iranian/Russian oil and weapons. They haven't got that good of an economy compared to the mouths they have to feed, and numerous amount of problems, yet they are 4th on that list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope you are aware that many of the weapon system are license manufactured in India like Su 30 or T90 tanks even Rafales will be license manufactured. We are a nation who can build our own Aircraft carrier and nuclear submarine and about oil even India also has oil not enough for civilian but enough for our war machine to wage war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I ask you, once again, prove to me how GFP accounts for modernity.
> 
> I have already published my own rankings countless times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you really think GFP can predict an outcome of war then mate you are quiet wrong war's depend on a lot of factor, if global fire power was reliable then US should have easily won Vietnam war.
> I seriously do not like these comparison thread only meant to satisfy your damn ego.
Click to expand...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

RayKalm said:


> Hmm, since when does logistical and financial aspects have anything to do with a modern army?



You are truly an ignorant person. Go learn how wars are fought. Go study WWII and see why the victor nations won. Then come back.



RayKalm said:


> Logistic wise, India relies on Iranian/Russian oil and weapons. They haven't got that good of an economy compared to the mouths they have to feed, and numerous amount of problems, yet they are 4th on that list.
> 
> Same thing goes for Turkey and China. They may have good economies, but they rely heavily on oil.



Even though India relies on Russian and Iranian oil, their domestic oil production is enough to cater for any of their needs. Same goes for China. India produces about 900k barrels/day and China about 4000k barrels/day. 

Sure, in case of a war , half of their economies may shut down if their oil imports stop but their production is enough to divert resources to their military machine. Same goes for USA. As for turkey, it seems to be an exception there.



RayKalm said:


> So, I ask you, once again, prove to me how GFP accounts for modernity.



I proved many times before but you're too ignorant to pay heed.


----------



## RayKalm

S-19 said:


> You are truly an ignorant person. Go learn how wars are fought. Go study WWII and see why the victor nations won. Then come back.



Funny. I'm ignorant on the basis of asking you what logistical and financial aspects have to do with a modern army - note, I did not say that they are totally useless in war.

You're ignorannce has been shown.




> Even though India relies on Russian and Iranian oil, their domestic oil production is enough to cater for any of their needs. Same goes for China. India produces about 900k barrels/day and China about 4000k barrels/day.



This still doesn't explain as to why Turkey is so high. Last I check, they produced less than 70K barrels of oil a day.

900k a day for India is still not enough for India to last in an actual war. American oil, which amounted in all to 6 billion barrels, out of a total of 7 billion barrels consumed by the Allies for the period of World War Two, was what brought victory to them. 900K a day is child's play.



> Sure, in case of a war , half of their economies may shut down if their oil imports stop but their production is enough to divert resources to their military machine. Same goes for USA.



Look above.



> As for turkey, it seems to be an exception there.



Hmm. Foiled! You can't use 'exception' as an excuse to justify your previous statements only for a few individual countries. 




> I proved many times before but you're too ignorant to pay heed.



No, you have not proven your point.

I'm still waiting. Calling me ignorant won't justify your ignorant claims.


----------



## King Solomon

RayKalm said:


> Funny. I'm ignorant on the basis of asking you what logistical and financial aspects have to do with a modern army - note, I did not say that they are totally useless in war.
> *
> You're ignorannce has been shown.*
> 
> This still doesn't explain as to why Turkey is so high. Last I check, they produced less than 70K barrels of oil a day.
> 
> 900k a day for India is still not enough for India to last in an actual war. American oil, which amounted in all to 6 billion barrels, out of a total of 7 billion barrels consumed by the Allies for the period of World War Two, was what brought victory to them. 900K a day is child's play.
> 
> Look above.
> 
> Hmm. Foiled! You can't use 'exception' as an excuse to justify your previous statements only for a few individual countries.
> 
> No, you have not proven your point.
> 
> I'm still waiting. Calling me ignorant won't justify your *ignorant claims.*


 
Whatever floats your boat, bimbo. 

And... don't worry, just email GFP and beg them to rank pakistan higher. They might do it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RayKalm

Good to see that you're out of any logical arguments, not that you had any to begin with.

As with your 2nd sentence, if you wish to think that then do so. I would only put Pakistan as high/low as 12-13th, and no higher/lower than that.


----------



## King Solomon

RayKalm said:


> Good to see that you're out of any logical arguments, not that you had any to begin with.
> 
> As with your 2nd sentence, if you wish to think that then do so. I would only put Pakistan as high/low as 12-13th, and no higher/lower than that.



I explained that at least 5 times before in this topic. Refer to my previous posts. You seem to always make circular arguments that leads to nowhere, just to satisfy your _*ego*_.

What do I do if somebody has comprehension problem...?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ir.Tab.

Another source! The Military Balance is the International Institute for Strategic Studies&#8217; annual assessment of the military capabilities and defense economics of 170 countries world-wide. It sounds to be beneficial for those involved in security policymaking, analysis and research.

I found a free pdf version of *The Military Balance 2009* at Ebook Search & Free Ebook Downloads - Ebookbrowse.com. hope the link below works for you, too:
Download The-Military-Balance-2009.pdf for free - Ebookbrowse.com - Ebook Search & Free Ebook Downloads

485 pages of military assessment. Unfortunately there is no ranking but chapter 9 has been named as "Country comparisons &#8211; commitments,force levels and economics" and provides valuable information.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RayKalm

S-19 said:


> I explained that at least 5 times before in this topic. Refer to my previous posts. You seem to always make circular arguments that leads to nowhere, just to satisfy your _*ego*_.
> 
> What do I do if somebody has comprehension problem...?



And I've already explained to you how your 'explainations' of the list were wrong.


----------



## King Solomon

Ir.Tab. said:


> Another source! The Military Balance is the International Institute for Strategic Studies&#8217; annual assessment of the military capabilities and defense economics of 170 countries world-wide. It sounds to be beneficial for those involved in security policymaking, analysis and research.
> 
> I found a free pdf version of *The Military Balance 2009* at Ebook Search & Free Ebook Downloads - Ebookbrowse.com. hope the link below works for you, too:
> Download The-Military-Balance-2009.pdf for free - Ebookbrowse.com - Ebook Search & Free Ebook Downloads
> 
> 485 pages of military assessment. Unfortunately there is no ranking but chapter 9 has been named as "Country comparisons &#8211; commitments,force levels and economics" and provides valuable information.



Thank you for the nice book. Yes, it is kind of a fallacy to try to "rank" nations according to their military capability. eg. South Korea may be very advanced militarily but it faces a whole different circumstance (such as relations with neighbours) compared to, say, Chile.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

S-19

You are not getting through. You _will_ not get through. Please surrender and admit that he is right in all respects. Please, please, please, please.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

Joe Shearer said:


> S-19
> 
> You are not getting through. You _will_ not get through. Please surrender and admit that *he* is right in all respects. Please, please, please, please.....



Correction: She... Maybe *that* explains....? 



RayKalm said:


> And I've already explained to you how your 'explainations' of the list were wrong.



Okay, I admit her holy highness of an excellency Miss. RayKalm/Raya/whatever is right in all respects!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

S-19 said:


> Correction: *She*... Maybe *that* explains....?
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I admit her holy highness of an excellency Miss. RayKalm/Raya/whatever is right in all respects!



<phew!>

If you knew, you should have thrown in the towel ages ago. When did any man win an argument against any woman? Silly boy!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PapaDoc23

Well global firepower fails to take in account military technology. For example Iran has a higher number because they have larger population,reserve force,more personnel. but if look at military tech Saudi Arabia has F-15,F-16,and Eurofighter where as Iran is using old F-14 and old MIGs. 
Heres is my list of top 15 :
USA
Russia
China
India
Turkey
France
South Korea
UK
Germany
Japan
Israel
Brazil
Pakistan
Egypt
Saudi Arabia
Iran


----------



## ViXuyen

PapaDoc23 said:


> Well global firepower fails to take in account military technology. For example Iran has a higher number because they have larger population,reserve force,more personnel. but if look at military tech Saudi Arabia has F-15,F-16,and Eurofighter where as Iran is using old F-14 and old MIGs.
> Heres is my list of top 15 :
> USA
> Russia
> China
> India
> Turkey
> France
> South Korea
> UK
> Germany
> Japan
> Israel
> Brazil
> Pakistan
> Egypt
> Saudi Arabia
> Iran


That list is absurd. If you're going to take military technology into account then you need to rank countries with the technology to produce their own fighters higher, not with countries that can only buy fighters . From that list of yours, UK, Germany, Japan, and France deserve to be ranked much higher since those 4 countries have the industrial tech to produce their own weapons from air to sea while some from that list are just buyers of weapons. When you buy weapon, you won't last long in a war vs a country that can produce their own weapons (especially fighters) since they can replace their loss

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## PapaDoc23

5Star said:


> That list is absurd. If you're going to take military technology into account then you need to rank countries with the technology to produce their own fighters higher, not with countries that can only buy fighters . From that list of yours, UK, Germany, Japan, and France deserve to be ranked much higher since those 4 countries have the industrial tech to produce their own weapons from air to sea while some from that list are just buyers of weapons. When you buy weapon, you won't last long in a war vs a country that can produce their own weapons (especially fighters) since they can replace their loss


 
You make a fair point. I guess I did not put that in account. Thank you for pointing that out for me. Having the industrial base to wage war is important then buying weapons but cannot replace them in a prolonged conflict. Here is my new list then
USA
Russia
China
India
France
Germany
UK 
Turkey 
South Korea
and the rest lol


----------



## ViXuyen

I think other countries that should be taken into consideration for their military industrial capabilities are Sweden, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Italy, and Brazil

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RayKalm

PapaDoc23 said:


> You make a fair point. I guess I did not put that in account. Thank you for pointing that out for me. Having the industrial base to wage war is important then buying weapons but cannot replace them in a prolonged conflict. Here is my new list then
> USA
> Russia
> China
> India
> France
> Germany
> UK
> Turkey
> South Korea
> and the rest lol



The first list you posted was actually quite accurate but only IF the said war or wars lasted a few months.


----------



## Banglar Lathial

India can not make its own fighter aircrafts, its MBTs, not even its assault rifles, I reckon. How can India be considered stronger than North Korea? Frankly, if China supported North Korea economically in an all out war between North Korea and India (hypothetical case), I would reckon North Korea has a better chance of winning. 

North Korea is just isolated by the West to a large degree while all of India's misdemeanours are actively supported and/or encouraged by the same bunch.



5Star said:


> That list is absurd. If you're going to take military technology into account then you need to rank countries with the technology to produce their own fighters higher, not with countries that can only buy fighters . From that list of yours, UK, Germany, Japan, and France deserve to be ranked much higher since those 4 countries have the industrial tech to produce their own weapons from air to sea while some from that list are just buyers of weapons. When you buy weapon, you won't last long in a war vs a country that can produce their own weapons (especially fighters) since they can replace their loss




Good point indeed but I do not know if there are any national German fighter aircrafts or civilian planes. Joint ventures or coproduction with other EU members is a different story.


----------



## manofwar

Banglar Lathial said:


> India can not make its own fighter aircrafts, its MBTs, not even its assault rifles, I reckon. How can India be considered stronger than North Korea? Frankly, if China supported North Korea economically in an all out war between North Korea and India (hypothetical case), I would reckon North Korea has a better chance of winning.
> 
> North Korea is just isolated by the West to a large degree while all of India's misdemeanours are actively supported and/or encouraged by the same bunch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point indeed but I do not know if there are any national German fighter aircrafts or civilian planes. Joint ventures or coproduction with other EU members is a different story.


Surely you have heard of INSAS assault Rifle?? It has been a much discussed topic on this forum....
And how is it a North Korean victory, if China provides the money?? Talk sense dude!!
Please!!NK may have numbers but most are worthless junk from 1950's......And unlike India they don't even have developing Defense industry...
And did you know that the combined HAL -DRDO budget is less than $1.5 billion??Still they have developed Tejas, Arjun and what-not....


----------



## kaykay

manofwar said:


> Surely you have heard of INSAS assault Rifle?? It has been a much discussed topic on this forum....
> And how is it a North Korean victory, if China provides the money?? Talk sense dude!!
> Please!!NK may have numbers but most are worthless junk from 1950's......And unlike India they don't even have developing Defense industry...
> And did you know that the combined HAL -DRDO budget is less than $1.5 billion??Still they have developed Tejas, Arjun and what-not....


and whom are you replying this.....???...there are people who cannot digest any thing good about India....we know our country better than those ignorants...


----------



## KRAIT

Banglar Lathial said:


> India can not make its own fighter aircrafts, its MBTs, not even its assault rifles, I reckon. How can India be considered stronger than North Korea? Frankly, if China supported North Korea economically in an all out war between North Korea and India (hypothetical case), I would reckon North Korea has a better chance of winning.
> 
> North Korea is just isolated by the West to a large degree while all of India's misdemeanours are actively supported and/or encouraged by the same bunch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point indeed but I do not know if there are any national German fighter aircrafts or civilian planes. Joint ventures or coproduction with other EU members is a different story.


Read more about Indian LCA to be inducted in 2012, Arjun tank already inducted in IA, warships and nuclear submarine, Indian missile capabilities and Space program.


----------



## Varunastra

Banglar Lathial said:


> India can not make its own fighter aircrafts, its MBTs, not even its assault rifles, I reckon. How can India be considered stronger than North Korea? Frankly, if China supported North Korea economically in an all out war between North Korea and India (hypothetical case), I would reckon North Korea has a better chance of winning.
> 
> North Korea is just isolated by the West to a large degree while all of India's misdemeanours are actively supported and/or encouraged by the same bunch.



*and that^^^ my friends is what i call a troll!!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Banglar Lathial

manofwar said:


> Surely you have heard of INSAS assault Rifle?? It has been a much discussed topic on this forum....
> And how is it a North Korean victory, if China provides the money?? Talk sense dude!!
> Please!!NK may have numbers but most are worthless junk from 1950's......And unlike India they don't even have developing Defense industry...
> And did you know that the combined HAL -DRDO budget is less than $1.5 billion??Still they have developed Tejas, Arjun and what-not....



1. INSAS rejected by indian military 
INSAS Rifles Rejected By Indian Army | India Defence

2. So called Arjun tank not inducted by any country except India, which also plans to use many more T-90 from russia than its own "Arjun" 
3. Does not matter who provides money or supplies, a victory is a victory. Vietnam's victory against USA is Vietnamese victory despite whatever the source of weapons and other forms of support for Vietnam may have been. 
4. North Korea also designed MBTs and other major military equipment and with only 20m people, they have held out successfully against USA for over 5 decades despite most of the world toeing the American line. 
5. North Korean literacy rate is 100%. Indian illiterates are more than any other country in the whole world. 
6. The vast majority of Indian fighter aircrafts, MBTs, or any other major or minor weapons systems are junk from the 1950s also, the difference is most of India's so called latest weapons like "Arjun" and Tejas are junk also, that is why no one trusts them, not even Indian military.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Varunastra

Banglar Lathial said:


> 1. INSAS rejected by indian military
> INSAS Rifles Rejected By Indian Army | India Defence
> 
> 2. So called Arjun tank not inducted by any country except India, which also plans to use many more T-90 from russia than its own "Arjun"
> 3. Does not matter who provides money or supplies, a victory is a victory. Vietnam's victory against USA is Vietnamese victory despite whatever the source of weapons and other forms of support for Vietnam may have been.
> 4. North Korea also designed MBTs and other major military equipment and with only 20m people, they have held out successfully against USA for over 5 decades despite most of the world toeing the American line.
> 5. North Korean literacy rate is 100%. Indian illiterates are more than any other country in the whole world.
> 6. The vast majority of Indian fighter aircrafts, MBTs, or any other major or minor weapons systems are junk from the 1950s also, the difference is most of India's so called latest weapons like "Arjun" and Tejas are junk also, that is why no one trusts them, not even Indian military.



1- seriously a 2007 article??......if it had been B.S. then we would not have made it our standard army rifle!
2-India does not have plans to export it b4 fulfilling our requirements.......T-90 was ordered to fill in the gap b4 more advanced versions like arjun mkii and FMBT etc arrive....see this link-Arjun tank outruns, outguns Russian T-90
3-not relating to india
4-not relating to india
5-blah blah......and our scientists are recruited by NASA 
6-junk from 1950's????i don't know of any weapon except for MIG-21 that was "designed" in 1950's(of course our mig-21 bisons are as strong as f-16's but we have started putting them out of service)......as per as arjun goes it has started to be inducted in the indian army and they consider it the most superior vehicle in their arsenal.....and as per tejas goes it would be officially inducted in our airforce in 2012 and it is a 4.5 gen fighter plane with stealth features(not as much as a 5th gen aircraft by the way).

but b4 u blabber about our millitary i'll suggest you read these articles-
Indian Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indian Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indian Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indian Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AlexAli7

And whats also important is how quickly and easily they can be manufactured... think of the soviet union during WWII if it wasent for their super simple and effective T-34s they probably wouldn't have won
(first post dont kill me)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mav3rick

UDAYCAMPUS said:


> 1- seriously a 2007 article??......if it had been B.S. then we would not have made it our standard army rifle!
> 2-India does not have plans to export it b4 fulfilling our requirements.......T-90 was ordered to fill in the gap b4 more advanced versions like arjun mkii and FMBT etc arrive....see this link-Arjun tank outruns, outguns Russian T-90
> 3-not relating to india
> 4-not relating to india
> 5-blah blah......and our scientists are recruited by NASA
> 6-junk from 1950's????i don't know of any weapon except for MIG-21 that was "designed" in 1950's(*of course our mig-21 bisons are as strong as f-16's* but we have started putting them out of service)......as per as arjun goes it has started to be inducted in the indian army and they consider it the most superior vehicle in their arsenal.....and as per tejas goes it would be officially inducted in our airforce in 2012 and it is a 4.5 gen fighter plane with stealth features(not as much as a 5th gen aircraft by the way).
> 
> but b4 u blabber about our millitary i'll suggest you read these articles-
> Indian Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Indian Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Indian Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Indian Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 
You had to ruin a perfectly acceptable reply with that junk, you just had to didn't you?


----------



## The_Sidewinder

^ Mevrick
toattaly agreed..


----------



## Varunastra

Mav3rick said:


> You had to ruin a perfectly acceptable reply with that junk, you just had to didn't you?





> MiG-21 Bison
> Upgraded version for export, the Indian Air Force being the first customer. Equipped with the Phazotron Kopyo (Spear) airborne radar, which is capable of simultaneously tracking 8 targets and engaging 2 of them with semi-active radar homing air-to-air missiles, such as the Vympel R-27. The radar also enable the fighter to deploy active radar homing air-to-air missiles such as the Vympel R-77 when an additional channel is incorporated. *Russia has claimed that this version is equivalent to the early F-16. It performed well against F-15s and F-16s of the USAF during Indo-US joint air exercises.*





Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 variants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Koovie

Banglar Lathial said:


> 1. INSAS rejected by indian military
> INSAS Rifles Rejected By Indian Army | India Defence
> 
> 2. So called Arjun tank not inducted by any country except India, which also plans to use many more T-90 from russia than its own "Arjun"
> 3. Does not matter who provides money or supplies, a victory is a victory. Vietnam's victory against USA is Vietnamese victory despite whatever the source of weapons and other forms of support for Vietnam may have been.
> 4. North Korea also designed MBTs and other major military equipment and with only 20m people, they have held out successfully against USA for over 5 decades despite most of the world toeing the American line.
> 5. North Korean literacy rate is 100%. Indian illiterates are more than any other country in the whole world.
> 6. The vast majority of Indian fighter aircrafts, MBTs, or any other major or minor weapons systems are junk from the 1950s also, the difference is most of India's so called latest weapons like "Arjun" and Tejas are junk also, that is why no one trusts them, not even Indian military.



still we are among the top powers, where your country will never be (In case BD is still your country since you left it)


----------



## Hello_10

RayKalm said:


> 1.) USA
> 2.) Russia
> 3.) China
> 4.) India
> 5.) UK
> *6.) Turkey*
> 7.) South Korea
> 8.) France
> 9.) Japan
> 10.) Israel
> 11.) Brazil
> *12.) Iran*
> 13.) Germany
> 14.) Taiwan
> *15.) Pakistan
> 16.) Egypt*
> 17.) Italy
> *18.) Indonesia*
> 19.) Thailand
> 20.) Ukraine
> 21.) Poland
> 22.) North Korea
> 23.) Philippines
> 24.) Australia
> 25.) Canada
> *26.) Saudi Arabia
> 27.) Malaysia*
> 28.) Sweden
> 29.) Spain
> 30.) Mexico
> 31.) South Africa
> 32.) Argentina
> 33.) Greece
> 34.) Switzerland
> *35.) Syria
> 36.) Iraq*
> 37.) Finland
> *38.) Algeria
> 39.) Libya*
> 40.) Norway
> 41.) Singapore
> 42.) Denmark
> *43.) Jordan*
> 44.) Ethiopia
> 45.) Chile
> 46.) Portugal
> 47.) Venezuela
> *48.) Yemen*
> 49.) Belgium
> 50.) Georgia
> *51.) Afghanistan
> 52.) Lebanon
> 53.) Kuwait
> 54.) Nepal*
> *55.) Qatar*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This list is being used everywhere, and personally, I think this list is quite unaccurate and not a good source for this kind of information. It doesn't take into account the modernity of each country, nuclear weapons, missile technology, intelligence services etc. Above that, this list doesn't include countries like Morocco, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Nigeria etc..
> 
> What are you thoughts?



there are few things which can't be measured 'accurately', like corruption, military strength, technolocial competitivenss etc. most of the time we find western propagandas behind it. but it does give us an idea on 'first cut' basis, its also true.........

my list would as below:

1.) USA
2.) Russia
3.) China
4.) India
5.) Germany
6.) Japan
7.) France
8.) South Korea
9.) Turkey
10.) Israel
11.) Brazil
12.) UK

guys, UK is now the country who may win the number game only, not any open war. their troops aren't as capable that they may 'alone' win over even Nepal, also . British may now win the war of 'Publicity' only, by using their media, not any face to face war by their own. and if we may take out their only Aircraft Carrier then we wont find Britain even in top 30 also  British army is just not capable enough to win on any part of the world by themselves right now


----------



## Anglosapien

Hello-10, you are, of course, an anti-British imbecile. Not unlike many on this thread. I won't dignify your pathetic attempts to dismiss the British forces with a response, it is apparent your grasp of world affairs is not strong by your list, and i can only attribute this to the lack of electricity in your peasant Russian village, for which you have my sympathies. 

Sweeping statements are made by highly misinformed people on these forums, usually biased towards their own nation and therefore ridiculously inaccurate. There are nations in people's Top 10 that wouldn't even make the Top 50 in real terms. Nations with little or no combat experience against a professional force, who buy all of their hardware from first-world nations because they lack the know how to produce internally, whose ranks are mainly filled with demotivated, ill-disciplined and poorly trained men, and who have either been previously defeated by, or have historically relied on other countries for their defence. 

I believe the Global Firepower list is more or less accurate. If nuclear armament was taken into account then the top four would include The USA, GB, France & Russia, based solely upon the fact they are the only four nations currently able to station SSBN's anywhere in the world without detection.

Great Britain however, remains the only nation since World War 2 to have conducted warfare outside its own hemisphere and returned victorious. 

Conventionally, it is all very well believing a nation would overcome another nation based upon hardware alone, but when it comes down to real terms, there are those nations with experience of warfare and the understanding of how to win, and those without. You have either done it or you haven't. Of course it helps if you able to field the most advanced war machines currently available, such as the Royal Navy with their Type 45 Destroyers and Astute Class Hunter/Killers. There are people on here who claim Britain doesn't have a 'Blue Water Navy'. The Royal Navy may well be smaller in size than any at any time in its 500 year Blue Naval history, but smaller doesn't necessarily mean less effective, and you really shouldn't believe all you read in your national propoganda or the British press anyway. 

The fact remains in the 21st century there are very few (if any) scenarios that would include all-out conventional war between developed, democratic nations. NATO and the UN will seek to resolve conflict in other theatres, and when force is required it will be a coalition force sent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## applesauce

Anglosapien said:


> I believe the Global Firepower list is more or less accurate. If nuclear armament was taken into account then the top four would include The USA, GB, France & Russia, based solely upon the fact they are the only four nations currently able to station SSBN's anywhere in the world without detection.



i disagree with this, if nuclear armament is taken into account its not just SSBN's that determine the top forces, SSBN's are merely one way to achieve a credible second strike (there are other ways, such a road mobile platforms), every member of the P-5 has a credible global second strike capability. others such as israel, india and pakistan have a regional second strike and is actively working on a credible global capability.



Anglosapien said:


> Great Britain however, remains the only nation since World War 2 to have conducted warfare outside its own hemisphere and returned victorious.



ahem, USA in say.. the first gulf war



Anglosapien said:


> The fact remains in the 21st century there are very few (if any) scenarios that would include all-out conventional war between developed, democratic nations. NATO and the UN will seek to resolve conflict in other theatres, and when force is required it will be a coalition force sent.



there has been no direct wars(exception maybe in korea, but china was not really a that great of a power then) between great powers since ww2

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Anglosapien

applesauce said:


> i disagree with this, if nuclear armament is taken into account its not just SSBN's that determine the top forces, SSBN's are merely one way to achieve a credible second strike (there are other ways, such a road mobile platforms), every member of the P-5 has a credible global second strike capability. others such as israel, india and pakistan have a regional second strike and is actively working on a credible global capability.
> 
> QUOTE=ahem, USA in say.. the first gulf war
> 
> - SSBN's are not only the ultimate first strike weapon, unrestricted by geography and range, but they are also THE ONLY credible second strike option. If you cannot remove the opponents SSBN's from the equation then you cannot possibly win any nuclear conflict. You can destroy a nation with ICBMs and destroy their land-based weapons in the process, but will face your own annihilation in return. China is the only member of the P5 I did not mention because they do not currently have undetectable SSBN's.
> 
> - The Gulf War was a coalition effort including 30+ nations and therefore does not count as stand-alone action.
> 
> - I agree with your last point, we were making the same point.....


----------



## ThePingu

Of course this website is complete bullshit and deserves no credit.
Many figures are false and some countries (like France) have their stats "sabotaged" while others (like Britain) are overranked.
To stay with the France-Britain case, I noticed that defence budgets were both false for a long time.
France's budget according to globalfire was 44 billions and the British one was 73 billions, this while in reality they both have the same budget: 62 billions.
France's budget was recently fixed (without upgrading its ranking, of course) but Britain's is still false.
I have come to think that the guy who made this ranking really dislike France since he also pointed that France have no destroyers at all while the Horizon class frigate are destroyers.
You could think that he just wasn't aware of it, right? Actually no, because he did count the Italian ones as destroyers.
So yes, this is voluntary.
Also when you compare France and Britain's stats, there is nothing (except maybe the false British budget) that would justify Britain to be ranked two countries higher.
I only talked about France and Britain's cases, but if you really look at it, there are many countries with "sabotaged" or overrated stats and ranking.
So yes, this website is ****, and also I really don't know why people give it so much credit since it uses no source and have no kind of legitimity at all.
A big mystery to me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shivansps

Argentina 32? Argentina should be a NEGATIVE number on that list...

We have NOTHING operational, no planes, ships, anything, the democratic goverments are anti-military here, they give $0 money to maintain the material operational, let alone update them.

Right now Argentina is on a very bad situacion with Ghana(they are probably puppets of the world official pirate country), they have illegally detained A.R.A. Libertad, with is a unarmed training vessel, a floating embassy, flagship of the navy and a symbol.
And ship has diplomatic inmunity, and Ghana is commiting a act of war, on December 15 will known what is the ITLOS will determine about it, but Ghana already said they will not release it.
The only way to recover it is a direct military intervention, but we can do nothing about because we have absoluting nothing operational... and we are talking about GHANA! they have what? patrol boats? two Meko 360 destroyers and they are done, but no one of them are operational, plus no logistic ships to operate at 7500Km from out borders.

So yeah, Argentina does not even qualify to enter the list.


----------



## RayKalm

Global Firepower Military Ranks - 2013

Ethopia above North Korea.

That says it all.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ir.Tab.

RayKalm said:


> Global Firepower Military Ranks - 2013
> 
> Ethopia above North Korea.
> 
> That says it all.



We really missed S-19 here. We have a great time once.


----------



## thisisme

Why do people not post reliable info anymore, how hard can it be?


----------



## Koovie

Banglar Lathial said:


> 1. INSAS rejected by indian military
> INSAS Rifles Rejected By Indian Army | India Defence
> 
> 2. So called Arjun tank not inducted by any country except India, which also plans to use many more T-90 from russia than its own "Arjun"
> 3. Does not matter who provides money or supplies, a victory is a victory. Vietnam's victory against USA is Vietnamese victory despite whatever the source of weapons and other forms of support for Vietnam may have been.
> 4. North Korea also designed MBTs and other major military equipment and with only 20m people, they have held out successfully against USA for over 5 decades despite most of the world toeing the American line.
> 5. North Korean literacy rate is 100%. Indian illiterates are more than any other country in the whole world.
> 6. The vast majority of Indian fighter aircrafts, MBTs, or any other major or minor weapons systems are junk from the 1950s also, the difference is most of India's so called latest weapons like "Arjun" and Tejas are junk also, that is why no one trusts them, not even Indian military.




You have obviously no clue what you are talking about kiddo. Majority of our equipment if of the 50s???? do you research before posting BS.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ayush

Banglar Lathial said:


> 1. INSAS rejected by indian military
> INSAS Rifles Rejected By Indian Army | India Defence
> 
> 2. So called Arjun tank not inducted by any country except India, which also plans to use many more T-90 from russia than its own "Arjun"
> 3. Does not matter who provides money or supplies, a victory is a victory. Vietnam's victory against USA is Vietnamese victory despite whatever the source of weapons and other forms of support for Vietnam may have been.
> 4. North Korea also designed MBTs and other major military equipment and with only 20m people, they have held out successfully against USA for over 5 decades despite most of the world toeing the American line.
> 5. North Korean literacy rate is 100%. Indian illiterates are more than any other country in the whole world.
> 6. The vast majority of Indian fighter aircrafts, MBTs, or any other major or minor weapons systems are junk from the 1950s also, the difference is most of India's so called latest weapons like "Arjun" and Tejas are junk also, that is why no one trusts them, not even Indian military.


----------



## PakistaniandProud

Global Firepower Military Ranks - 2015


----------



## Menace2Society

Not very.


----------



## AsianLion

https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

*2018 Military Strength Ranking*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

This source have considerably improved over the course of years. We can draw meaningful information from it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Malik Alashter

Iraq is 47?!
a country with formidable fighting force
with decent fire power way behind these countries?!

Ukraine 
Argentina 
Netherlands ...... and so on


----------



## AsianLion

Malik Alashter said:


> Iraq is 47?!
> a country with formidable fighting force
> with decent fire power way behind these countries?!
> 
> Ukraine
> Argentina
> Netherlands ...... and so on



Honestly I cannot believe Israel and Pakistan now 16 and 17th in global ranking, both Nuclear and Missile Power. I mean there are countries above Pakistan and Israel who had no fighting experience last 15 years, I donot know what really is the basis of it: 

*2018 Military Strength Ranking:*

https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp


----------

