Countries Ranked by Military Strength (2016)

[cnleio]

Sufficient funds, Domestic Weapons, Huge population ... today China has them to deal with a world war.

 

[SrNair]

for that matter all armies spend maximum on salaries of the soldiers but not to forget thats the best invesment also. At the same time more defence budget does not guarantee a better defence force eg. Russia spends far lesser than China yet they are superior rated. perhaps chinese are over burdened with a large number of soldiers and reserves. Saudi Arabia is another example. their defence budget is more than India's.

Saudi defence funding are totally opaque .They are spending a lots for their forces but cant see that much effectivness among their forces .Even at the Yemen' case they asked Pak support .

 

[ito]

The Gap in between them may vary .And there would be huge gap between these top 4 and rest in coming decades

Yes...but in coming years I feel, Russia will become fourth with US, China and India occupying top three slots.

In top 10, Japan, South Korea and Turkey will improve their rankings with UK, Germany and France going down.

 

[true]

Good to see India still staying in the strong 4

 

[SrNair]

@dadeechi
As per my opinion top ten best armed forces list will be like that....
1 USA
2. Russia
3. China
4. UK
5. France
6. Turkey
7. Pakistan
8. Germany
9. Italy
10. UAE

I did't include India because they did't deserve any ranking.

Says who ?
You ?
Does any one cares about your list ?

Yes...but in coming years I feel, Russia will become fourth with US, China and India occupying top three slots.

In top 10, Japan, South Korea and Turkey will improve their rankings with UK, Germany and France going down.

According to current pace ,three nations would be dominate different regions in this world US,China and India.
US will always maintain their advantage .But in future they have to consider next 3 nations for their military engagements in the other parts of the world.

 

[xunzi]

True rank vs observable rank are two very different metric. What I mean by that is most military, especially the world powers, hide their true weapons and capabilities. These ranks are mostly based on speculative quantity and quality that is not easily access by a third party. For instance, we get penalized for not having solider abroad. This has nothing to do with our capabilities but it is a matter of political will and determination.

I like to rank country purely based on a head-to-head match. For this China/Russia can be interchangeable. If a war is fought between China/Russia, it is likely difficult to see a winner. We can certainly chunk out more weaponry and in the long run, I feel we can defeat Russia. Of course we assume no nuke is used. Russia will defeat us in battle, but the war is won by industrial might and manpower. It is similar to Nazi losing to the Red Army.

I think the Britain and France can defeat India force without much issues. India is known to have a lot of weapons systems and ammunition, but these are fixed numbers. It will run out eventually. Though, a prolong war, India will likely have an advantage. I like to think of in this scenrio. If Britain/France doesn't defeat India in one year, then they are likely to lose. Germany is also a country with a lot of potential if they want to revive Reich. If they do, they could easily been #4 behind USA/China/Russia. Japan could have a tie with Britain. So in a real war match-up or called it potential real strength if you will. I would rank...

1. USA
2. China
3. Russia
4. Germany
5. Japan
6. Britain
7. France
8. India
9. Turkey
10. South Korea

 

[vayuputhra]

for that matter all armies spend maximum on salaries of the soldiers but not to forget thats the best invesment also. At the same time more defence budget does not guarantee a better defence force eg. Russia spends far lesser than China yet they are superior rated. perhaps chinese are over burdened with a large number of soldiers and reserves. Saudi Arabia is another example. their defence budget is more than India's.

You are correct big budgets do not guarentee good armies, ex:- saudhi arabia, even though they spend more money on military, they have become lazy, they always expect others to do their jobs, thats why they gave billions to pakistan as an insurence, but truth is otherwise, compared to other major militaries Indian soldiers get peanuts, and paramilitary forces don't get even peanuts, and police get the boots, only from the aftermath of kargill war martyrs are getting good money, and are provided with good stuff, but there is lot to be done, we are fortunate that we have a large young population, we can recruit men for less payments.
In the mountainous regions men is a nessisity, for ex:- in Himalayas no stuff however modern maybe is ineffective, see what problems the Americans had to face in Afghanistan, so when India has a lot of mountains to look after we need men in boots, and a well trained troops can't be raised over night, ex:- Iraq even though they had a so called army they ran away when they were needed.
India being a huge country with two adversaries we need enough men to fight both if need arises, only tech doesn't suffice,
As for the military ranking india is a true power the sheer number of soldiers is mind boggling, if we put active, reserve, paramilitary, state special police, NCC then it makes a total of 5 million.
India is and should be rightly placed at fourth position.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

I am not still convinced for such a list. When a war comes, no one is going to win by this list or something. Depends upon the wits of commanding officers, bravery of his soldiers under him. The world has seen wonderful generals such as Hannibal, Caesar, Napolean, Nelson, Bismarck, Goring etc and the world is now being designed in a way that we wont have any large scale wars anymore.
Only like low intensity conflicts like ISIS or civil wars.

 

[dadeechi]

True rank vs observable rank are two very different metric. What I mean by that is most military, especially the world powers, hide their true weapons and capabilities. These ranks are mostly based on speculative quantity and quality that is not easily access by a third party. For instance, we get penalized for not having solider abroad. This has nothing to do with our capabilities but it is a matter of political will and determination.

I like to rank country purely based on a head-to-head match. For this China/Russia can be interchangeable. If a war is fought between China/Russia, it is likely difficult to see a winner. We can certainly chunk out more weaponry and in the long run, I feel we can defeat Russia. Of course we assume no nuke is used. Russia will defeat us in battle, but the war is won by industrial might and manpower. It is similar to Nazi losing to the Red Army.

I think the Britain and France can defeat India force without much issues. India is known to have a lot of weapons systems and ammunition, but these are fixed numbers. It will run out eventually. Though, a prolong war, India will likely have an advantage. I like to think of in this scenrio. If Britain/France doesn't defeat India in one year, then they are likely to lose. Germany is also a country with a lot of potential if they want to revive Reich. If they do, they could easily been #4 behind USA/China/Russia. Japan could have a tie with Britain. So in a real war match-up or called it potential real strength if you will. I would rank...

1. USA
2. China
3. Russia
4. Germany
5. Japan
6. Britain
7. France
8. India
9. Turkey
10. South Korea

Where is Pakistan?

 

[ito]

True rank vs observable rank are two very different metric. What I mean by that is most military, especially the world powers, hide their true weapons and capabilities. These ranks are mostly based on speculative quantity and quality that is not easily access by a third party. For instance, we get penalized for not having solider abroad. This has nothing to do with our capabilities but it is a matter of political will and determination.

I like to rank country purely based on a head-to-head match. For this China/Russia can be interchangeable. If a war is fought between China/Russia, it is likely difficult to see a winner. We can certainly chunk out more weaponry and in the long run, I feel we can defeat Russia. Of course we assume no nuke is used. Russia will defeat us in battle, but the war is won by industrial might and manpower. It is similar to Nazi losing to the Red Army.

I think the Britain and France can defeat India force without much issues. India is known to have a lot of weapons systems and ammunition, but these are fixed numbers. It will run out eventually. Though, a prolong war, India will likely have an advantage. I like to think of in this scenrio. If Britain/France doesn't defeat India in one year, then they are likely to lose. Germany is also a country with a lot of potential if they want to revive Reich. If they do, they could easily been #4 behind USA/China/Russia. Japan could have a tie with Britain. So in a real war match-up or called it potential real strength if you will. I would rank...

1. USA
2. China
3. Russia
4. Germany
5. Japan
6. Britain
7. France
8. India
9. Turkey
10. South Korea

Jealousy is bad.

I believe if you discount technological advantage that Chinese army enjoy over Indian army , Indian army can easily over run Chinese army.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

True rank vs observable rank are two very different metric. What I mean by that is most military, especially the world powers, hide their true weapons and capabilities. These ranks are mostly based on speculative quantity and quality that is not easily access by a third party. For instance, we get penalized for not having solider abroad. This has nothing to do with our capabilities but it is a matter of political will and determination.

I like to rank country purely based on a head-to-head match. For this China/Russia can be interchangeable. If a war is fought between China/Russia, it is likely difficult to see a winner. We can certainly chunk out more weaponry and in the long run, I feel we can defeat Russia. Of course we assume no nuke is used. Russia will defeat us in battle, but the war is won by industrial might and manpower. It is similar to Nazi losing to the Red Army.

I think the Britain and France can defeat India force without much issues. India is known to have a lot of weapons systems and ammunition, but these are fixed numbers. It will run out eventually. Though, a prolong war, India will likely have an advantage. I like to think of in this scenrio. If Britain/France doesn't defeat India in one year, then they are likely to lose. Germany is also a country with a lot of potential if they want to revive Reich. If they do, they could easily been #4 behind USA/China/Russia. Japan could have a tie with Britain. So in a real war match-up or called it potential real strength if you will. I would rank...

1. USA
2. China
3. Russia
4. Germany
5. Japan
6. Britain
7. France
8. India
9. Turkey
10. South Korea

A big lol to u. How can UK and France even when combined can "invade" India? Its not medieval periods where armies can travel long distances uncontested and fight with some other king.
There is no scope for an war. UK and France. cannot defeat India simple as that.

As for India invading them, there is no scope. We do not have such a large navy for that.

Ur reply is so much of fantasy.

 

[Fenrir]

But Sweden is known for its defence products and Pakistan uses some of them too (eg Mushak, Saab Erieye). I can't think of a single product representing Norway in the International defence market from the top of my head.

@A.P. Richelieu ......

Then pull your head out of where ever it's stuck and give Kongsberg a look.

Protector:

Remus:

MCT-30:

The skin of the F-35 is a Norwegian product too:

That includes its stealth formula.

Penguin:

Which is being replaced by NSM in Norwegian service:

We also produce high end electronics for military systems, including the mission control system of the F-35 and satellite control and support architecture:

All are being used by foreign nations.

And if this isn't impressive... remember, each of these is not only a product of Norway, but in service with the US military. If it's good enough for the US, it's good enough for the world.

...

We also have more combat experience then Sweden who's only war in the last 100 years was fought against puberty.

 

[xunzi]

Where is Pakistan?

11th. I don't see any force can defeat Pakistan outside of the top 10.

 

[dadeechi]

11th. I don't see any force can defeat Pakistan outside of the top 10.

What about Israel? Can't they defeat Pakistan?

 

[xunzi]

Jealousy is bad.

I believe if you discount technological advantage that Chinese army enjoy over Indian army , Indian army can easily over run Chinese army.

You know me. I'm not a bias person by nature. I always speak the truth and has nothing against India.

Yeh, if it is in your dream. You just not a strong industrial power right now. I admit, you are like us in WWII in which you lack the industrial might to produce weapons to fight but has a lot of potential in manpower and strategic depth (land and resources) to prolong that can tire out any opponents.

A big lol to u. How can UK and France even when combined can "invade" India? Its not medieval periods where armies can travel long distances uncontested and fight with some other king.
There is no scope for an war. UK and France. cannot defeat India simple as that.

As for India invading them, there is no scope. We do not have such a large navy for that.

Ur reply is so much of fantasy.

I like to think of scenario where the war is fought on neutral country where both sides bring their stuff and just fought it out. All of their stuff and resources and see who win.

What about Israel? Can't they defeat Pakistan?

Not Israel. They are too small. Their force is design for defense. Lbs for lbs, it might have been a different story.