 user created polls & quizzes |
Rate this ballot.
Vote on the ballot listed to the left, and rate the ballot below.
Submitted by : US_MarineCorp69 Submitted on : Jul 29,2006 2:34:13 am ballot title: What are the three strongest armies in the world?ballot number:98749
You can't leave votes in the way you are asking, but I will say the USA, Russia, and China. Which are more powerful depends on what you mean, the most manpower, expertise or most lethal?
by Steelhamster
[+]
there are alot of problems with this ballot. Because looking at it from a participation level then you might have to say Switzerland or maybe Israel. Isreal surely is a strong nation but it isnt up there with the world powers. Switzerland could be consisting of its number of troops and small area to occupy but im talking about the strongest nation like if every country was fighting each other in a world war. Also i messed the question up and it was to late to change it. British army is not the largest in the world but it's professionalism and extreme lethality for an army of its size puts it up there. Even the TA is a very well trained and equipped fighting force. Don't give me Russia or China, Russia has no power in the world anymore and China's only strengh is numbers.
by spartan001
[+]
I would list it like this:1.US 2.UK 3.Israel 4.China 5.Russia
by spartan001
[+]
^I agree with spartan fully except that I think as of now Russia has a stronger army than China...as of now. I would say the USA and Russia remain the top two powers. China is infamous as a RISING power, but it is definitely not more powerful than Russia. It has to buy a lot of high tech stuff from teh Russians. Britain? No, not in the top 3 at all. spartan001- "British army is not the largest in the world but it's professionalism and extreme lethality for an army of its size puts it up there." - Completely irrelevant. A realist approach doesn't bother with 'but for its size...' For example, per capita, Luxembourg has one of the top performing economies- but is irrelevant if the question were asked of which were the most powerful economies in the world. Size matters in the real world. Britain does not fit in the top three at all, and neither does Israel. And Russia is clearly more powerful (presently) than China. Could Britain and Israel beat Russia or China in a one-on-one war? No. Could Britain or Israel have a better chance at taking on the United States than the Russians or Chinese? No. Britain and Israel are not in the top three at all. By the way, I think 4) Britain and 5) France I know, I know... you are thinking- 'Britain?! and especially France?!??!! Shouldn't it be a big populous nation like India?' - I'll explain my criteria for how I measure global military power: - Quality of organisation and training. - Technological capabilities. - Numbers- number of troops is very important. - Geographical influence- that is the ability to deploy troops to any part of the world the quickest. - Independence- ability to maintain military on ones own, and not through purchasing from others and relying too much on foreign cash for the military. - Destructive capability- how capabable are they of destruction? What extent? - Economic weight: Being rich is useful in backing up a miiltary. FROM THIS: I got 1)USA 2) Russia 3) China 4) Britain 5) France "- Quality of organisation and training." - On this USA and Britain would rank highest. Israel may even rank among the highest on this one criteria alone. Russia is quite well organised, more than you would think. China is modernising and is reasonably organised. The French are very well organised, although not as much as its allies- the US and Britain. India- not ranked very high here from my analysis. "- Technological capabilities." - The USA, Russia, Britain, China, and France dominate here definitely. They have the largest stock of high-tech weapons. The US ranks on top here in terms of both quality and quanitity. Russia definitely ranks on quantity. Britain and France are actually both very strong on this and are very advanced technologically. China as a rising industrial power is very significant here. " - Numbers- number of troops is very important." - Here China dominates. India also dominates here. The USA has quite a large military personnel. Britain and France seriously lag here. Israel is far too small. "- Geographical influence- that is the ability to deploy troops to any part of the world the quickest." - The USA and Russia are definitely world powers. China has climbed its way to somewhat reaching this level. Britain and especially France at first glance give the impression of being regional and limited in their geographic capabilities and influence. But that is wrong. Both Britain and France could deploy troops to the Caribbean, to East Asia, Africa, the Middle-East, and the Pacific- They have bases all over the place, and the ability to deliver their troops and technology to any corner of the globe. Israel and India lag here, and are clearly regional in their influence. "- Independence- ability to maintain military on ones own, and not through purchasing from others and relying too much on foreign cash for the military." - My top five all stand confidently under this test, although China is probably the weakest of the five, relying on some Russian know-how and technical support. Other nations? Israel? Dependent on other nations definitely- not only for cash, but even equipment- eg, planes, etc. "- Destructive capability- how capabable are they of destruction? What extent?" - Rank on this would be 1) USA 2) Russia 3) China 4) France and 5) Britain. Israel is quite much further down the hierarchy here. - - Economic weight: Being rich is useful in backing up a miiltary. "- Economic weight: Being rich is useful in backing up a miiltary." - Britain, France and the USA of course have strong economic success to back them. China is slowly rising, and Russia is relative okay. Besides which, both Russia and China have large GDPs due to their size, and due to China's role in manufactuing and Russia's role as a provider of natural resources in international trade. Therefore, under my analysis, the permanent 5 UN Security Council members is justifiable. Numbers mean nothing when it comes to warfare, a small but highly trained and organized force will beat larger, less trained armys. History tells us that. Battle of Thermopylae: 7,000 Greeks to 500,000 persons. battle of watling street:12,000 romans to 400,000 Britons Battle of Agincourt: 5,900 English to 36,000 French Battle of falkirk; 14,000 English to 10,000 scots Trafalger: 27 british ships to 33 French/Spanish Battle of Britain: 700 RAF to 2665 luftwaffe Germany out numbered Britain almost 3 to 1 during ww2 and we held them off for almost 3 years. Numbers mean nothing when you have a well trained and equipped and reliable fighting force.
by spartan001
[+]
We can deploy lots of soldiers anywhere in the world too, not as many as the US but more than any other force. Back to numbers. British soldiers came under fire recently in Afganistan being outnumbered and out guned they killed 41 taliban to 1 wounded. 8 British SBS stormed a Taliban fort about a year ago to rescue a C.I.A agent i think. casualties: 800 Taliban to ZERO SBS and were bombed by US forces aswell. Somalia: 18 US to over 1000 Militia. What does that tell you about numbers. Battles can be won with just numbers but numbers will never a deciding factor in warfare.
by spartan001
[+]
- "Quality of organisation and training" that is britain at the top second US. - "Technological capabilities." 1)US 2)Britain followed very, very closely by Russia. - Numbers- number of troops is very important. China, Russia, US (numbers are not important) - "Geographical influence- that is the ability to deploy troops to any part of the world the quickest." 1)US 2)Britain 3)Israel - "Independence- ability to maintain military on ones own, and not through purchasing from others and relying too much on foreign cash for the military." 1)US 2)China 3)Britain - Destructive capability- how capabable are they of destruction? What extent? 1)US 2)Britain 3)china 4)Israel 5)russia - Economic weight: Being rich is useful in backing up a miiltary. 1)US 2)Britain 3)China That puts Britain second.
by spartan001
[+]
"Geographical influence- that is the ability to deploy troops to any part of the world the quickest." 1)US 2)Britain 3)Israel I like to change that to 1)US 2)UK 3)Russia 4)israel.
by spartan001
[+]
The US may be tops on paper but don't let that make your heads big which all these ballots seem to do to some people because it means jack shit in the real world. I don't care if my country comes fucking last in the pile because no country including the US will ever beat or occupy it. I'm not sure what Britain's history in WW2 has to do with today's capability. That is living in "glory days". USA is number 1, Russia is probably 2, and probably Israel at three because they have had to defend themselves against several countries at one time and have quickly won each time. They have also shown the ability to deploy anywhere in the world on short notice. They were even ready to help with the Katrina damage before the US was able to send national guard troops in. Unfortunately, the US only accepted partial help. The UK would be close behind at 4. They certainly have a good deal of capability. China mostly has a large number of soldiers, but not a lot of ability to be anywhere throughout the world immediately. The number of troops and nuclear weapons would put them in the top 5. ^I'd put the UK slightly ahead of Israel mainly based on the fact that Israeli tactics are based on Britain's, and the UK has fought in a much wider range of environments. I'm also not convinced about the quality of the professional militaries of the countries surrounding Israel at all, though the Israelis are still very impressive and have performed well against the seemingly far more highly-motivated militant groups. It wouldn't surprise me if China has the BIGGEST military in the world. It wouldn't surprise me if China has the BIGGEST military in the world. I agree with Kishkumen.
by spartan001
[+]
spartan001- "Numbers mean nothing when it comes to warfare, a small but highly trained and organized force will beat larger, less trained armys. History tells us that." - There are several factors that need to be taken into account in your example. It is not just merely that those examples of those who outnumbered winning were caused by better organisation alone. There is also the issue of who is the better technology/armaments. Who was on the offensive and who was on the defensive. These factors are also important. Numbers certainly don't mean everything. However, they certainly don't mean completely nothing either. Numbers can be a very important factor. Could Britain invade and occupy Russia? No. Could they invade and occupy China? No. Numbers is one of the factors for this. This makes Britain militarily inferior to both Russia and China. It would be easier also for the US to invade and occupy Britain then it could China. Britain is very much lower down the hierarchy. Just because I like Britain won't stop me from analysing this objectively. I completely disagree with your assertion that numbers mean absolutely nothing. They certainly mean something when invading and attempting to occupy a country. In fact, even the size of the country becomes a factor. " "Quality of organisation and training" that is britain at the top second US." - I would put the US at the top, and Britain second on this one factor. - "Technological capabilities." 1)US 2)Britain followed very, very closely by Russia." - I would say that the United States and Russia have both developed the most advanced weaponry. Britain, France and China lag quite a bit. "- Numbers- number of troops is very important. China, Russia, US (numbers are not important)" - Numbers are important. Britain is incapable of occupying Russia or China by itself. But they could probably occupy each other if they had to. This displays British inferiority to them in this factor. "- "Geographical influence- that is the ability to deploy troops to any part of the world the quickest." 1)US 2)Britain 3)Israel" - I completely disagree with your idea that Israel somehow is a global power. It is not. It is a regional power. It could not attakc all the different regions of the world. It sinfluence is greatly restricted- revealing it as nothing more than a minor power. Its greatest asset is its WMD's, but it doesnt have that many. It could not launch an attack on Haiti tomorrow if it wanted to. It could not launch an attack on East Timor tomorrow if it wanted to. Britain, France, USA, Russia, China really do have global influence and capabilities and movement. They outdo Israel indeed on this. I don't consider Israel to be a global power, but a regional one. And region which is full of more backward nations. - "Independence- ability to maintain military on ones own, and not through purchasing from others and relying too much on foreign cash for the military." 1)US 2)China 3)Britain " - I would say Russia is far more self-reliant than Britain or China. In fact, I would say China is NOT self-reliant to any large extent. It relies on Russia a lot of the time. "- Destructive capability- how capabable are they of destruction? What extent? 1)US 2)Britain 3)china 4)Israel 5)russia" - You are entirely wrong here. The idea that Britain could cause more destruction of the world is just... what can I say, wrong. Destructive capability has to do with the number of weapons, especially WMD. The USA has the most WMD. Russia has the second most WMD. China has the third. And even France has more nuclear weapons than Britain. Britain is ranked five, as the other four could destroy more than what they can. "- Economic weight: Being rich is useful in backing up a miiltary. 1)US 2)Britain 3)China" That puts Britain second." - How are you measuring 'richness'? By GDP or GNP? All in all Britain from my perspective is outdone by Russia and China. Britain has less people, has less weaponry (including less WMD). Israel is not a global power at all, and doesn't rank anywhere in the top five for me at all. It is very limited. France outclasses Israel. France has more WMDs, France has greater capability to launch attacks on greater global scale, wehreas Israel is constrained to a region. France is independent, while Israel must buy its technology and weapons. In fact during the 6day war, Israel relied heavily on the French manufactured Mirage. France could completely eliminate Israel's existence, Israel would probably only get a swipe at Marseilles. I would say India even ranks higher than Israel as a military power. The United States is easily number one. To determine the following powers, the simple question needs to be asked 'What countries would the US find most difficult to aggressively invade and occupy?' The US could easily defeat Israel more than MANY countries. Russia and China obviously would be the greatest challenge. Israel could not invade and occupy USA, Russia, China, Britain, France or India. Israel is quite militarily inferior. We should just accept its position as a regional power. It dominates a region which is backward technologically. By the way, underestimating Russia and China is exactly what Russia and China would like. I also don't think it is very intellectualist to pick countries that one LIKES or personally FAVOURS. Don't let emotions or preferences cloud judgement. Throw sentiment aside and look objectively. Wait you guys are under estimating us manpower and over estimating Russian. The USA has second largest military in the world just under China's. USA has a population that is 3 times that of Russia. Us military is 2.4 million personnel. Just under China's 2.6. India is 3rd with over a million and Russia is 4th with also over a million. I agree with pretty much every thing socrates is saying except Russian technology. They really are behind on that I would say Britian is ahead of them on tech. But if you want to see some scary new tech go to the us army's fcs page. future combat systems. it is all under development now and its a ton of robotics and new vehicles. Just google it. "Numbers certainly don't mean everything. However, they certainly don't mean completely nothing either. Numbers can be a very important factor. Could Britain invade and occupy Russia? No. Could they invade and occupy China? No. Numbers is one of the factors for this. This makes Britain militarily inferior to both Russia and China. It would be easier also for the US to invade and occupy Britain then it could China. Britain is very much lower down the hierarchy. Just because I like Britain won't stop me from analysing this objectively. I completely disagree with your assertion that numbers mean absolutely nothing. They certainly mean something when invading and attempting to occupy a country. In fact, even the size of the country becomes a factor." Britain managed to subdue 1/4 of the world and the army then was smaller than it is today. Britain has better tech than Russia or China. "Numbers are important. Britain is incapable of occupying Russia or China by itself. But they could probably occupy each other if they had to. This displays British inferiority to them in this factor." And how many soldiers in the Peoples Army are actually trained to the standards of British soldiers? a few hundred thousand maybe, most are just armed thugs and militia. "I would put the US at the top, and Britain second on this one factor." It is well known around the world that the British army is the most professional fighting force on the Planet. The US has a better navy and airforce but Britain rules land combat. Then add the SAS, SBS, Gurkhas, Royal Marine Commandos and the Black watch. US special forces are modeled around ours. so when you have 12 soldiers that can kill 41 taliban with out losing a soul (and lets face it the taliban are not bad) 230,000 to 1,000,000 are good odds. "You are entirely wrong here. The idea that Britain could cause more destruction of the world is just... what can I say, wrong. Destructive capability has to do with the number of weapons, especially WMD. The USA has the most WMD. Russia has the second most WMD. China has the third. And even France has more nuclear weapons than Britain. Britain is ranked five, as the other four could destroy more than what they can." lol. Destructive capablity is NOT measured by how many nukes you've got 'cos in a conventional war you wont be using them will you. Destructive capablity is measured by the kill to death ratio of a war (if squad A fights Squad B but Squad B loses all its men and only kills half of squad A that would make Squad A more destructive than squad B. Correct?) Also destuctive capablity is not measured by the amount of guns you have got, for example, 9/11 was a destuctive act and it involved no conventional weapons at all. Planning, efficiency, reliablity and leadership are more important than the size of ones arsenal (Squad A and B both have the same training but squad B is better lead than squad A making squad B more efficent and their for more destructive.) Nukes are just an deterrent. "I completely disagree with your idea that Israel somehow is a global power. It is not. It is a regional power. It could not attakc all the different regions of the world. It sinfluence is greatly restricted- revealing it as nothing more than a minor power. Its greatest asset is its WMD's, but it doesnt have that many. It could not launch an attack on Haiti tomorrow if it wanted to. It could not launch an attack on East Timor tomorrow if it wanted to. Britain, France, USA, Russia, China really do have global influence and capabilities and movement. They outdo Israel indeed on this. I don't consider Israel to be a global power, but a regional one. And region which is full of more backward nations." I did move israel down the list, Britain has two large aircraft carriers on the way that are second only to the Nimitz which goes towards Geo-influence. Britain is quite capable of fighting conflicts on its own but help will always increase the chance of success, the US can easely take iraq on its own but has the UK helping, does that mean the the US is incapable of fighting without allies? Economic weight: Being rich is useful in backing up a miiltary. 1)US 2)Britain 3)China" I'd put China ahead of Britain on that one come to think of it. "I would say Russia is far more self-reliant than Britain or China. In fact, I would say China is NOT self-reliant to any large extent. It relies on Russia a lot of the time." I agree with what you said about China but i don't think the Russian war machine is very efficent. "By the way, underestimating Russia and China is exactly what Russia and China would like." I don't underestimate either of them but i don't think China will try anything that would get itself noticed and i think the People's Armys first port of call would be Taiwan and might have its sights on Korea too. Russia is to busy with chechen rebels to want to roll over a border anytime soon.
by spartan001
[+]
I have to say that I find the idea that American soldiers man-for-man are as highly trained (or better?!) as the British quite incredible. They've really done nothing to suggest that. I am British, yes, but I'm also not someone who's got their head up their arse with patriotism or hates America and American things. You can accuse me of bias and that's fine, I don't mind that. But nearly all the best elite forces appear to be based on British models, and the American soldier never seems to look top drawer to me. They're good soldiers for sure, but not in the same league as the Israelis, Brits or South Africans. That's simply an honest viewpoint. spartan you are not understanding warfare to much. No special forces on the planet could take down a large armoured force. They are kill squads, espionage. Thats it. In the olden days numbers were less important than today in the era of high technology combat. Highly trained guys could take on larger forces but only because they were basically armed the same way. What they hell are a few special forces guys gonna do against a highly armed armoured regiment. You say the world has modeled its special forces around Britains? What the hell do you think you invented the wheel or something. There is nothing to model from, its a squad of highly trained soldiers with damned good tactics. Then you say economic weight with the US first Britain second and china 3rd. Where the hell did you get those figures? China has a gdp of almost 7 times that of the Uk. their gdp is 8 trillion while Uk's is like 1.5 trillion. USA is close to 13 trillion. Japan 4, Germany about 3, India another 3, Russia 1.5 trillion and so on. Higher GDp means that China can out purchase you. You say Britain can fight conflicts on its own. Against who? I don't want to bash you man but having 2 aircraft carriers does not come with geo influence. Since you would only have 2 they would be virtually doing the same things as the carriers they are replacing. USA has a fleet of 12 carriers 9 of which are nimitz with 1 nimitz under contruction making 13 then whith a whole new carrier design on the way after it called cvn-21...That is what it takes for geo influence. Also having battle groups to sail next to those carriers. That takes hundreds of thousands of personnel something I am afraid Britian can not do. Although I wish that it could over other countries. Special forces in the us military are used primarily for intellegence. Then the light wieght fast moving land forces or airpower take it out. Let me ask you this. Does Britian have special forces that can exit a nuclear submerine swimb into a tiny sub latched on the side. Travel a good amount of distance plant a mine on an enemies propeller swim back to the minni sub then back to the nuclear sub all without detection and sufacing the water. I am pretty damn sure that the Navy seals who do that did not model themselves off of the Brits who don't have such vehicles such as the SEAL Carrier which by the way I did not make up. "Destructive capablity is measured by the kill to death ratio of a war (if squad A fights Squad B but Squad B loses all its men and only kills half of squad A that would make Squad A more destructive than squad B. Correct?" Wars are not won with squads they are won with land suppremacy, air suppremacy, naval suppremacy, communications, and surveillance. Britian and Isreal do not have the numbers both in personnel and money to do this. The Uk may have the communications down but only do to the fact that the US favours the Uk with large amount of both civilian and military satellites. The Uk does not have large precessing centers such as the CIA or powerful spy satellites. But the US government allows them to use these things as long as they input information. This is not just the Uk. Most nation states do not have these capabilities. Alright enough I am done for now. ^I'm assuming you were referring to me about most of the world's best elite forces being modelled on Britains? Sayeret Matkal Selous Scouts Recces Australian SAS New Zealand SAS The Selous Scouts are now disbanded, but they proved themselves one of the very best in their short career with many devastating missions. As for the SEAL's, I wasn't referring to them and I don't consider that unit amongst the top echelon of elite forces. ^not just you I have heard a few people here say it. Anyway the navy seals kick some serious ass so I don't know what you condider the top. consider lol ^Well it's pretty much a fact. The five units I mentioned were based on the British SAS and they have stunning combat achievements. Despite that I think it's improbable that Britain's military is in the top 3 simply because it's so relatively small. Almost everything you have said i agree with but we all know that the US is tops and we are not comparing Britain to China and Russia not the US. I don't rate US ground troops at all but i do rate the USAF as the best in the world whilst Britain rules ground based combat, no arguements. Britain and the US make a good team because of that. GDP:US 13 trillion Japan 4 trillion Germany 2.7 trillion China 2.22 UK 2.20 Britain doesn't need a large military to fight in conflicts because all it needs to do is defend herself and fight overseas. Why does the US need such a large military that would be my question. "Wars are not won with squads they are won with land suppremacy, air suppremacy, naval suppremacy, communications, and surveillance." Yes but my arguement is that a smaller but highly trained and well equipped force can and most probably will gain land suppremacy over a larger but less well equipped and trained force, like the Iraq War, casualties: coalition 2780 dead 2643 US 107 UK 40 other 4966+ Iraq police (post saddam) Iraq:30,000 soldiers plus 67,000 insurgents dead or jailed) Britain will gain land suppremacy and is quite capable of getting air and naval aswell against any country apart from the US.
by spartan001
[+]
For USRocks TYPO "Almost everything you have said i agree with but we all know that the US is tops and we are comparing Britain to China and Russia not the US."
by spartan001
[+]
ok ok Ill agree with you spartan. Just out of curiosity where did you get those gdp figures cause cia world factbook says china's gdp as of 2006 was 8 trillion. Not telling you :P
by spartan001
[+]
i think mine are from 2005.
by spartan001
[+]
Yours are more accurate i think and i'd probably put China second ahead of the UK just by sheer waight of numbers.
by spartan001
[+]
alright but even if yours are from 2005 there is no way they can jump to 8 trillion in less a year. Have you ever seen the website cia world factbook? google it, it is an awesome site. spartan- I saw nowhere in the ballot question any reference to sepcifically 'conventional' wars. And I disagree that nuclear weapons exist as only deterrents. IF they rae only deterrents, why not let everyone have them? Because they are and can be more than deterrents. Of course nukes are not just deterrents but thats what they are used for, one's nuclear arsenal is used only in the most desperate of circumstances. If nukes were used in conventional combat 8/10 of the world would be wasteland by now. USRocks- I have been to the site when you last mentioned it and it is a great site thats why I moved China above Britain.
by spartan001
[+]
And it says nowhere in the ballot question anything about a total war either. I assumed that a conventional conflict would be more likely than a all out total war.
by spartan001
[+]
I'd like to add that despite my praise of Israel's soldier quality, I disagree with the occupation. Voted : 1) USA 2) Russia 3) China As most powerfull armed forces alone goes its clearly 1) USA 2)Russia 3) China. But man for man the isreali army is probably the best equipped and best motivated in the world. Britain probabably has some of the best trained troops but are shamefully badly equipped Rorke's Drift. 100 men of Harlech making a desperate stand against 10,000 Zulu warriors, outnumbered... surrounded staring death right in the face and not flinching for a moment... Balls of British steel. A great victory for Britain, what does that tell you about numbers.
by spartan001
[+]
Tell me ads21, how is having the world's best rifle, the world's best battle tank, among the world's best planes and among the world's best ships being badly equipped? Now there is power! LOL
by phillypinz
[+]
Actually lemming i dont know if you have military channel or even tv in britain but your tank is not the best. Its like the third best in front of the frenchs tank. The united states abram is ranked number two and wasnt ranked higher because it has never been in a march tank battle with other high tech tanks before. The german tank from world war 2 was ranked number one so please dont downgrade america like your better. Your guns could be better but i would much rather use an m4 or m16 a gun used by other nations also so it must not be bad. I dont know any plane that outranks an f-22 and i believe britain has some also so tremmings how could you say your planes are better? And for the whole navy thing there is no navy that outranks ours buddy. Nuclear powered ships that are said to rule the worlds oceans for the next twenty years and your navy is better than ours? I dont know what the information they give you in britain is but they must be lieing. Im not against britain the least bit but only against the people from there who think they are better than the world and that goes the same for americans. And for ads21 i dont know how you could say britain has the worst equipment ever? It may not outrank americas but i disagree its not the worst equipment its actually very good. Actually, I said AMONG the best navy, airforce, planes and ships in the world. I agree, the American navy and airforce are the best in the world, but our navy comes 2nd and our airforce is joint 2nd with Israel. Yes, the L85A2 is the best rifle in the world, but the M4 and M16 are very good also. Not as good, but still good. And yes, we do have the best tank in the world. It's very often voted the best by tank experts, it has the thickest and best armour of any tank in the world (Chobham 2 armour, aka Dorchester armour, which American tanks don't have), and our targetting system's better. It has an incredible track record record as well. And that military channel is just plain wrong if they think a tank from WWII could take on a Challenger 2 and win. Yes, the Tiger tank was incredible for its time and blew every other tank of the time away, but the Challenger 2 could easily take it, trust me. By the way, I'm surprised the French Leclerc came above the German Leopard, I would have said they have the 3rd best tank. Lol i didnt say it could take on the challenger it was put at number one because of its durability during world war 2. Im not trying to fight with you because everyone has there own opinion. Afghanistan beat russia during the cold war and noone would have ever seen that coming. Things change its all about the reason for war. Also they did put the abram over the challenger but i think they are equal. Abram tanks have way better technology though trust me they all keep track of each other anywhere on the battle field. I dont know about your gun or what ever but really if the gun shoots bullets its basically the same thing. But your comparing the challenger to tanks from world war 2. That doesnt make it any stronger only worse. Im talking about an abram verses a challenger. I strongly agree the abram would fire on the challenger before the challenger knew the abram was there. Voted : China The 5 LARGEST, but not necessarily strongest are China 2,840,000 U.S. 1,431,000 Russia 1,200,000 India 1,145,000 N. Korea 1,055,000 In my humble opinion, I would rate the STRONGEST military as U.S. Russia China but do not underestimate the strength of North Korea. US_MarineCorp69, I'd think that it'd be the other way around, considering that our tank has such a great targetting system. But I also agree that rating China and Russia so highly is madness. Both armies are poorly trained, and have poor outdated equipment. Russia's army is broke, and wouldn't be able to function. China has no worldwide projection capabilities whatsoever; they don't even have a carrier yet. Basically, US is first, followed by Britain, and then either France, Germany or Israel. Saying Russia or China is just ignorant. Size does not equal strength, and their supposed might is an urban legend. we can only go with an army that has been proven. USA has never fought a decent army on its own, they needed to get on their hands and knees to FRANCE,SPAIN,HOLLAND etc in order to gain independence. they couldnt beat vietnam.its all well and good having the large armies but history has shown it doesnt always work like that. the RAF was outnumbered 6-1 by the GERMANS and they couldnt defeat GREAT BRITAIN,and this was before the USA even came into the war.
by simplythebest
[+]
Russia because of their chemical weapons 1/20 of a milligram on your skin kills you. That's less than the amount of saturated fat in a glass of water Totally agree lemming, the challenger tank could whoop the abrams arse, longer range, dadadadada all that. Also, a small sas COULD take out an armoured regiment. Take out their officer. Then, enemy troops are confused, demoralised, and there is a power void. |