How accurate do you think Global Fire Power is?

[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.

 

[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]

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?

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

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 -

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

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.

 

[Rajputana]

Who is this Pakistani general?

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Hellfire]

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.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

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.

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.