Military strength?

[Levex]

I was taking a look at this site :

http://www.globalfirepower.com/

anyone know how accurate their stats are? I have a really hard time believing that Brazil is ranked higher than UK, and Israel is 26th..if you look at the specific stats on the left side it just doesnt seem right.

whats your thoughts?

 

[Five To One]

Im shocked israel is 26th..., I always thought it was one of the big ones, atleast top 10.

I guess it doesnt matter what Israel is ranked, the US wouldnt let it fall.

 

[Inquisitus]

They might be going for straight numbers vs quality.


Here's an example:
Navy
UK has 3 combat proven carriers & airwings, 8-12 of the best nuclear attack submarine crews & boats, and a bunch of combat proven frigates & destroyers

Brazil has 1 unproven carrier with an obsolete airwing, only diesel subs, and 2nd hand surface vessels.

Winner --> definitely UK in any blue water and some brown water theatres.

Airforce
UK has Harrier GR.9 & Tornados IDV for bomb trucks & Tornado ADV & Typhoons for air to air combat.

Brazil has mirages which are a full generation behind the Typhoon and F5E's which are a full generation behind the Mirage.

Winner ---> UK

Army
UK troops are significantly more combat experienced than their Brazilian counterparts due to Afghanistan, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Falklands. In addition, the UK has better tanks & AFV's.

Brazil has not had a major conflict of the same scale as Iraq & A-stan. Brazil probably has more troops though.

Winner ---> depends on whether numbers can be brought to bear

Special Forces
UK has SBS, SAS, & Paras
Brazil does not have an SF unit that is at the same level as SAS.

Advantage ---> UK

So... in any conflict that requires Brazil to fight the UK outside of Brazil or South America, the UK will win. Within Brazil, Brazil will obviously have an advantage.

Take these rankings with a grain of salt.

EDIT: Brazil has one of the craziest police forces though. Look up BOPE or watch these vids.... http://www.youtube.com/user/militaryvids. These guys are like military level special forces in a city!

 

[Captain Harlock]

Im shocked israel is 26th..., I always thought it was one of the big ones, atleast top 10.

I guess it doesnt matter what Israel is ranked, the US wouldnt let it fall.

Israel wouldn't stand a chance against a big country simply because they don't have the numbers to match it. Plus their last major performance in the Lebanon war was just awful. In the end they took as much military losses as their enemies (a modern country with advanced weaponry vs a bunch of beard-monkeys armed with AKs and RPGs) while completely destroying a countries infrastructure and thousand of civilian lives just to prove a point.

 

[teagan]

I suggest you check your numbers. Last time I checked Israel's casualty count was well below 20 (of which around 10 were military) while inflicting thousands of deaths.

They've held their own against most of the countries in the Middle East. Their military is quite impressive for such a small country.

 

[Inquisitus]

Well, for one thing, Israel's military is actually designed for conventional warfare. A "Big" nation's military would be built for the type of fighting that the Israeli's would be good at. The war against Hizbollah was anything but conventional. Any "Big" nation's military would've probably had similar results, even the US & Russia (witness Iraq/Afghanistan & Chechnya).

 

[daring wraith]

From what i have seen of Israel and having a brief training period over there some time ago, i thought they had pretty good infrastructure. Israel was only really founded in 1948 and since then, with American backing have turned themselves into quite an effective military state. They're population and military resources may be small in comparison to the western powers, but they can still hold their own especially when they develop nuclear weapons (American backed). From what i have seen their biggest asset is their ideological determination and again, American backing.
I think its quite funny that Russia is ranked up there at no.2 considering half their stuff doesn't work.

 

[Captain Harlock]

I suggest you check your numbers. Last time I checked Israel's casualty count was well below 20 (of which around 10 were military) while inflicting thousands of deaths.

They've held their own against most of the countries in the Middle East. Their military is quite impressive for such a small country.

Looks like your numbers are off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War

Well, for one thing, Israel's military is actually designed for conventional warfare. A "Big" nation's military would be built for the type of fighting that the Israeli's would be good at. The war against Hizbollah was anything but conventional. Any "Big" nation's military would've probably had similar results, even the US & Russia (witness Iraq/Afghanistan & Chechnya).

True. Plus there's also a big difference between offense and defense. the IDF is obviously much better at defense than that they would fare at offense. They could never launch a full scale attack against for example Iran.

@daring wraith: the soviet era weapons used bij thousands of solders all around the world beg to differ. And even if it were true, a lot:2 = still a lot. And lets not forget their nuclear capabilities. Though I'd say China is a much bigger threat than Russia.

 

[Levex]

I think its quite funny that Russia is ranked up there at no.2 considering half their stuff doesn't work.

Did you see the hardware rolling into Georgia few months ago? Its brand new, with same if not better technology than US counterparts. Their military is nowhere near as crappy as it was 10 years ago, they poured a lot of money into it over the years.

 

[Captain Harlock]

Did you see the hardware rolling into Georgia few months ago? Its brand new, with same if not better technology than US counterparts. Their military is nowhere near as crappy as it was 10 years ago, they poured a lot of money into it over the years.

the Georgia war was a showcase of their new material, a big nation flexing their biceps just to show the world they've still got it. Doesn't mean there aren't some other muscles lagging behind. I must agree on that Russia is improving more and more as their economy is improving.

 

[teagan]

Im referring to the recent conflict in Gaza, and if you use wikipedia, my numbers are pretty much right.

 

[Julian]

Americaaa

Fukk Yeah

 

[Evzone]

Three things surprise me:
1. The fact that Russia is so high on the list. Their technology isn't as close as it was during the Cold War. I'd still place Russia significantly high on the list, but not number two.
2. The fact that Mexico outranks so many. Sheer equipment doesn't mean military strength. Just read the news; Mexico is having all kinds of trouble with the narco crisis.
3. The fact that Lebanon even made the list. I can pretty much set my watch to when they have some kind of civil war; simply having a lot of equipment doesn't matter if they're pointing their guns at each other.

 

[daring wraith]

Did you see the hardware rolling into Georgia few months ago? Its brand new, with same if not better technology than US counterparts. Their military is nowhere near as crappy as it was 10 years ago, they poured a lot of money into it over the years.

Afraid i gotta disagree with you, Russian tech is still as unreliable as ever, when they walked into Georgia, they're entire communcations systems and infrastructure broke down and they were forced to use mobile phones. Any wonder why the west knew exactly what they were doing.

 

[daring wraith]

Though I'd say China is a much bigger threat than Russia.

Definitely, but perhaps not through the use of weapons, they own over 20% of America's national debt and have the biggest exchange reserve in the world. They wouldn't attack America as much as bankrupt it, especially in the days of recession/depression.

"Wars are not fought on the battlefields anymore, but in the boardrooms of banks"

I forget who said that.

 

[OTB]

anyone know how accurate their stats are? I have a really hard time believing that Brazil is ranked higher than UK, and Israel is 26th..if you look at the specific stats on the left side it just doesnt seem right.

whats your thoughts?

Read what the official site says about itself

So enjoy the numbers! It is hardly a super-accurate scientific measurement of military strengths but still entertaining to consider at the very least.

I began immedietly disbelieving it as soon as I read that:
1. Turkey is more powerful than the United Kingdom?!
2. Mexico is more powerful than Canada?!
3. Thailand is more powerful than both Greece & Israel?!?!

^^^^Did they pull those three statistics right out of their ass??? :crackup:

 

[Captain Harlock]

Definitely, but perhaps not through the use of weapons, they own over 20% of America's national debt and have the biggest exchange reserve in the world. They wouldn't attack America as much as bankrupt it, especially in the days of recession/depression.

"Wars are not fought on the battlefields anymore, but in the boardrooms of banks"

I forget who said that.

China could just 'zerg rush' all of Europe anyway. It doesn't matter that their weapons are a bit less advanced.

 

[OTB]

anyone know how accurate their stats are? I have a really hard time believing that Brazil is ranked higher than UK, and Israel is 26th..if you look at the specific stats on the left side it just doesnt seem right.

I think its quite funny that Russia is ranked up there at no.2 considering half their stuff doesn't work.

Three things surprise me:
1. The fact that Russia is so high on the list. Their technology isn't as close as it was during the Cold War. I'd still place Russia significantly high on the list, but not number two.
2. The fact that Mexico outranks so many. Sheer equipment doesn't mean military strength. Just read the news; Mexico is having all kinds of trouble with the narco crisis.
3. The fact that Lebanon even made the list. I can pretty much set my watch to when they have some kind of civil war; simply having a lot of equipment doesn't matter if they're pointing their guns at each other.

I absolutely LOVE how all of you don't even bother to take 5 minutes to read the introductory paragraphs to the actual ranking system. If you did, many of the issues raised above would have been easily answered....
Ahhhhh, the laziness of people these days

Here is what the official site says on the topic of how they came up with the rankings and what they actually took into account when making up the list:

Things You Should Know
The user should note that nuclear capability, combat experience, equipment quality and levels of training are not taken into account. This listing is purely a "numbers game" meant to spark debate and including such game-changers as nuclear weapons would clearly defeat the purpose of such an experiment. In any case, most any nation going to war would more than likely refrain from using such destructive warfare being that since the atomic bombs dropped in 1945, no nation has utilized this form of warfare for at least 60+ years despite there being a good amount of conflicts since then and more nuclear powers at play in the world. If there is a World War 3, it will most likely still be of the conventional sort.

 

[Inquisitus]

I absolutely LOVE how all of you don't even bother to take 5 minutes to read the introductory paragraphs to the actual ranking system. If you did, many of the issues raised above would have been easily answered....
Ahhhhh, the laziness of people these days

Here is what the official site says on the topic of how they came up with the rankings and what they actually took into account when making up the list:

The guy also said on the site that he wanted to provoke discussion, which, if i'm not mistaken, is what we're doing here.

 

[Inquisitus]

China could just 'zerg rush' all of Europe anyway. It doesn't matter that their weapons are a bit less advanced.

Not if the Europeans have significant defense in depth that's covered by lots of artillery and air superiority. Make no mistake, at this time, the Europeans would have air superiority.

In StarCraft terms, Zergs don't have morale and self preservation to worry about. Plus, the Human air units would be able to bomb the zerglings instead of trying to zap them.