The 10 Largest Armies in the World

[ganesh177]

P.S: I was thinking that if most Muslim Countries make unilateral pact and defence force like NATO then they would be the largest or biggest armies in the world.. hope they can work on this track...

If that ever happens then be sure Non muslim defence force will also come into existence.
Lets have a look how it will look like.
USA+Russa+China+India+France+UK+Germany+Japan.
Now that does not look good, does it ?

 

[Jf Thunder]

I think India is on second position.

It is surprise that Iraq Iraq has 5 lakh + man to fight but they are not able to defeat ISIS.

my thoughts exactly

 

[Koovie]

It is considerably higher that the figure shown above.

Armed forces personnel, total | Data | Table

Active personal: 2.7 million
On reserve: 2.1 million

That list includes paramilitary units

Regarding India ; The REAL figures are much different than the officially declared ones

And from where do you know that?

 

[ito]

That list includes paramilitary units



And from where do you know that?

Yes it include paramilitary units. But I don't consider paramilitary units to be different from military units. After all paramilitary units are trained to fight. The distinction is thin between the two.

 

[OrionHunter]

Here are the actual figures and rankings from Global Firepower (GFP). The OP has quoted some vague website.

Global Firepower - 2015 World Military Strength Rankings

 

[Koovie]

Yes it include paramilitary units. But I don't consider paramilitary units to be different from military units. After all paramilitary units are trained to fight. The distinction is thin between the two.

Of course they are different. They are meant for different roles, they have different training, different physical standards, different command structures, different equipment, different logistics, different doctrines, different salary etc etc etc

You get the point.

The BSF could not carry out large scale offensives like infantry divisions of the Army could..

 

[ito]

Of course they are different. They are meant for different roles, they have different training, different physical standards, different command structures, different equipment, different logistics, different doctrines, different salary etc etc etc

You get the point.

The BSF could not carry out large scale offensives like infantry divisions of the Army could..

I don't think they are that different. May be their duties defer. In the end they are all killing machines. That was the reason why World Bank clubbed them all together. Many countries don't differentiate military from paramilitary. US is an example. In case of war, I have no doubt they are the second line of defense or even fight along with the military in the first line of defense.

 

[Koovie]

I don't think they are that different. May be their duties defer. In the end they are all killing machines. That was the reason why World Bank clubbed them all together. Many countries don't differentiate military from paramilitary. US is an example. In case of war, I have no doubt they are the second line of defense or even fight along with the military in the first line of defense.

Yes they are different, and I have given you examples and the reason for it. BSF units could not mount large scale offensive operations like infantry divisions, they could not hold territory in enemy territory because they dont have the training, logistics, weapons etc etc

Thus, they are NOT THE SAME.

What some World Bank guy think on that does not matter much and obviously they are being distinguished from regular forces. Thats why they have different command structures parent ministries etc etc etc

And they are not "killing machines"... real life infantry duties have nothing to do with what you see in movies.

 

[ito]

Yes they are different, and I have given you examples and the reason for it. BSF units could not mount large scale offensive operations like infantry divisions, they could not hold territory in enemy territory because they dont have the training, logistics, weapons etc etc

Thus, they are NOT THE SAME.

What some World Bank guy think on that does not matter much and obviously they are being distinguished from regular forces. Thats why they have different command structures parent ministries etc etc etc

And they are not "killing machines"... real life infantry duties have nothing to do with what you see in movies.

When I was saying "killing machines". I literally doesn't mean that. And yes, there could be a bit of difference, but I feel they are part of armed forces of the country.

 

[That Guy]

Regarding India ; The REAL figures are much different than the officially declared ones

That goes for every country with a sizable military force. India isn't alone in the regard.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

That goes for every country with a sizable military force. India isn't alone in the regard.

That is true ; what matters is two things

Degree and extent of understatement

AND the analysis that happens on PDF

For instance several times ; Pakistani members compare Indian And Pakistani Armies
on the basis of Wikipedia and say that

Pakistani army is only slightly smaller than Indian Army
That is what is really amusing

 

[That Guy]

That is true ; what matters is two things

Degree and extent of understatement

AND the analysis that happens on PDF

For instance several times ; Pakistani members compare Indian And Pakistani Armies
on the basis of Wikipedia and say that

Pakistani army is only slightly smaller than Indian Army
That is what is really amusing

Those members know very little. The numerical advantage has always been with India, Pakistan has always compensated with buying the latest tech that it could afford, and investing in deterrence.

 

[xyxmt]

How many times we are going to do this crap.

 

[ito]

Those members know very little. The numerical advantage has always been with India, Pakistan has always compensated with buying the latest tech that it could afford, and investing in deterrence.

I think till 90's Pakistan was doing great with respect to the deterrence against India. After 1990's Pakistan lost its plot. Now, the only 'deterrence' that Pakistan is investing is nukes. I guess this is because before 1990 the ratio of defense expenditure between India and Pakistan is 2:1 and now it is 7:1

 

[That Guy]

I think till 90's Pakistan was doing great with respect to the deterrence against India. After 1990's Pakistan lost its plot. Now, the only 'deterrence' that Pakistan is investing is nukes. I guess this is because before 1990 the ratio of defense expenditure between India and Pakistan is 2:1 and now it is 7:1

That's fine, Pakistan only really needs to have enough capability to make India think twice, which is a reason why Pakistan still refuses to bring forth a no-first-use policy of its own.