Largest Army, Navy, and Airforce

[gmlevan]

Can someone give me the rankings of the worlds largest, Army, Navy, and Airforce? thankss

[Snayke]

China has the largest standing army, and I think the US have the largest navy and airforce.

[ThInK TaNk]

this all i can find about the biggect and smallest armies!!!!

Rank Nation Active troops Active troops per
thousand citizens
1 People's Republic of China 2,250,000 1.72
2 United States 1,427,000 4.79
3 India 1,325,000 1.20
4 North Korea 1,022,000 44.6
5 Russia 960,600 6.70
6 South Korea 686,000 14.2
7 Pakistan 620,000 3.82
8 Iran 540,000 7.94
9 Turkey 514,850 7.39
10 Myanmar 488,000 11.4
11 Vietnam 484,000 5.79
12 Egypt 450,000 5.81
13 Syria 319,000 17.3
14 Thailand 314,200 4.80
15 Indonesia 302,000 1.25
16 Ukraine 295,500 6.23
17 Republic of China 290,000 12.7
18 Brazil 287,600 1.55
19 Germany 284,500 3.45
20 France 259,050 4.27
21 Japan 239,000 1.88
22 United Kingdom 212,660 3.52
23 Eritrea 202,000 44.3
24 Colombia 200,000 4.66
24 Italy 200,000 3.42
26 Morocco 196,000 5.99
27 Mexico 192,770 1.82
28 Greece 177,600 16.6
29 Israel 167,600 24.3
30 Poland 163,000 4.22
31 Ethiopia 162,500 2.22
32 Sri Lanka 152,300 7.59
33 Spain 150,700 3.49
34 Angola 129,000 - 131,000 11.5 - 11.7
35 Algeria 127,500 3.92
36 Bangladesh 125,500 0.870
37 Cambodia 125,000 9.19
38 Saudi Arabia 124,500 4.71
39 Philippines 106,000 1.21
40 Sudan 104,500 2.60
41 Malaysia 104,000 3.97
42 Jordan 100,500 17.4
43 Peru 100,000 3.58
44 Democratic Republic of the Congo 97,800 1.63
45 Romania 97,200 4.35
46 Venezuela 82,300 3.24
47 Nigeria 78,500 0.610
48 Chile 77,300 4.75
49 Libya 76,000 13.2
50 Serbia and Montenegro 74,200 6.85
51 Belarus 72,940 7.08
52 Singapore 72,500 16.4
53 Lebanon 72,100 18.8
54 Argentina 71,400 1.81
55-56 Yemen 66,700 3.22
56-57 Azerbaijan 66,490 8.40
57-58 Kazakhstan 65,800 4.33
55-60 Afghanistan 60,000 - 70,000 2.00 - 2.34
58-59 Nepal 63,000 2.28
60 Uganda 60,000 2.20
61 Ecuador 59,500 4.45
62 Czech Republic 57,050 5.57
63 South Africa 55,750 1.26
64-65 Australia 53,650 2.64
65-66 Netherlands 53,130 3.24
64-71 Uzbekistan 50,000 - 55,000 1.86 - 2.05
66-67 Canada 52,300 1.61
67-68 Bulgaria 51,000 6.85
67-68 Rwanda 51,000 6.04
69-70 Burundi 50,500 7.93
69-70 United Arab Emirates 50,500 19.7
72 Cuba 46,000 4.05
73 Portugal 44,900 4.25
74 Armenia 44,660 15.0
75 Oman 41,700 13.9
76 Belgium 40,800 3.94
77 Tunisia 35,000 3.47
78 Austria 34,600 4.23
79 Hungary 33,400 3.31
80 Bolivia 31,500 3.56
81 Guatemala 31,400 2.14
82 Chad 30,350 3.09
83 Laos 29,100 4.68
84 Turkmenistan 29,000 5.86
84 Zimbabwe 29,000 2.28
86 Sweden 27,600 3.07
87 Finland 27,000 5.17
87 Tanzania 27,000 0.734
89 Norway 26,600 5.79
90 Dominican Republic 24,500 2.74
91 Kenya 24,120 0.713
92 Uruguay 24,000 7.03
93 Cameroon 23,100 1.41
94 Denmark 22,880 4.21
95 Albania 22,000 6.17
95 Slovakia 22,000 4.05
97 Croatia 20,800 4.63
98 Bosnia and Herzegovina 19,800 4.92
99 Paraguay 18,600 2.93
100 Zambia 18,100 1.61
101 Georgia 17,500 3.74
102 Côte d'Ivoire 17,050 0.99
103 Mauritania 15,750 5.10
104 El Salvador 15,500 2.31
104 Kuwait 15,500 6.64
106-107 Nicaragua 14,000 2.56
107-109 Senegal 13,620 1.22
108-110 Madagascar 13,500 0.748
106-110 Sierra Leone 13,000 - 14,000 2.16 - 2.33
106-115 Liberia 11,000 - 15,000 3.16 - 4.31
110-111 Republic of Macedonia 12,850 6.28
111-112 Lithuania 12,700 3.53
112-113 Qatar 12,400 14.4
113-114 Honduras 12,000 1.72
114-115 Bahrain 11,200 16.3
116 Kyrgyzstan 10,900 2.12
117 Burkina Faso 10,800 0.776
118 Ireland 10,460 2.53
119 Cyprus 10,000 12.8
119 Republic of the Congo 10,000 3.29
121 Djibouti 9,850 20.7
122 Guinea 9,700 1.02
123 Guinea-Bissau 9,250 6.53
124 Botswana 9,000 5.49
124 Namibia 9,000 4.43
126 New Zealand 8,610 2.10
127 Mongolia 8,600 3.08
128 Togo 8,550 1.50
129 Mozambique 8,200 0.423
130 Mali 7,350 0.598
131 Brunei 7,000 18.8
131 Ghana 7,000 0.333
133 Moldova 6,910 1.55
134 Slovenia 6,550 1.21
135 Tajikistan 6,000 0.838
136 Estonia 5,510 4.13
137 Malawi 5,300 0.436
138 Latvia 4,880 2.13
139 Gabon 4,700 3.38
140 Benin 4,550 0.610
141 Niger 4,300 0.369
142 Fiji 3,500 3.92
143 Switzerland 3,300 0.441
144 Papua New Guinea 3,100 0.559
145 Jamaica 2,830 1.04
146 Trinidad and Tobago 2,700 2.48
147 Central African Republic 2,550 0.671
148 Malta 2,140 5.37
149 Lesotho 2,000 1.07
150 Suriname 1,840 4.20
151 Guyana 1,600 2.09
152 Equatorial Guinea 1,320 2.46
153 Cape Verde 1,200 2.87
154 Belize 1,050 3.76
155 Luxembourg 900 1.92
156 Bahamas 860 2.85
157 Gambia 800 0.502
158 Timor-Leste 650 0.624
159 Barbados 610 2.18
160 Seychelles 450 5.54
161 Antigua and Barbuda 170 2.47

[Dr Phobus]

Thanks for the list. The UK were better off than i originally thought. The USA, USAF, USMC & USN I think you will find these 2 "air-forces" are in the top 4 of the worlds air-forces. And certainly the best equipped and supported, with large numbers of F-16, F-15, F-18, B1, B2, B-52, EW planes, and the list goes on.

The USN is the worlds only tier one navy I truly believe it could take on the rest of the world navies and win. It has the number, the weapons, the training, the largest carrier force (11), sub force and among the best weapons systems and sensors in the world. Also, a massive number of towed array ships with plenty of up to date ASW helos

US-Army, it not as big as others, however, it is the best supported and overall best equipped and supported. Net work centric systems, there Armour has been somewhat neglected, but so has the rest of the worlds, save the Chinese. Also, remember the Americans;s have lots of combat experience, even on a medium to large scale and they have the money to train more.

any thoughts

[Crusader2000]

Thanks for the list. The UK were better off than i originally thought. The USA, USAF, USMC & USN I think you will find these 2 "air-forces" are in the top 4 of the worlds air-forces. And certainly the best equipped and supported, with large numbers of F-16, F-15, F-18, B1, B2, B-52, EW planes, and the list goes on.

The USN is the worlds only tier one navy I truly believe it could take on the rest of the world navies and win. It has the number, the weapons, the training, the largest carrier force (11), sub force and among the best weapons systems and sensors in the world. Also, a massive number of towed array ships with plenty of up to date ASW helos

US-Army, it not as big as others, however, it is the best supported and overall best equipped and supported. Net work centric systems, there Armour has been somewhat neglected, but so has the rest of the worlds, save the Chinese. Also, remember the Americans;s have lots of combat experience, even on a medium to large scale and they have the money to train more.

any thoughts

I would add that the US is also very good at fighting in combined operations. Funny, how many compare one weapons system to another. In reality its much more complicated. With many factors to consider..................The US fights as a combined force. (i.e. Land ,Sea, and Air) Attacking from all directions. Thereby overwhelming its enemies defenses!:rolleyes:

[gf0012-aust]

Ranking armies under such titles as the "biggest and smallest" is an absolute waste of time.

there are a myriad of factors that determine battle competency. Size is the least important.

[Crusader2000]

Ranking armies under such titles as the "biggest and smallest" is an absolute waste of time.

there are a myriad of factors that determine battle competency. Size is the least important.


I agree to a point! While much smaller armies have fought and won against much larger adversaries. Yet, in the final out come. They usually the end up losing....................:unknown

[adsH]

We could try talking about Logistics and Training for once, Something I’d rather talk about.

[LancerMc]

I agree we should discuss training and logistics. China mite have a larger airforce and army then India and the UK, but both are far more effective because having more modern aircraft and tanks, much better training, and effective logistics.

It goes back to the Cold War ideas, the Soviets had the numbers, the US and NATO had the quality.

[aaaditya]

I agree we should discuss training and logistics. China mite have a larger airforce and army then India and the UK, but both are far more effective because having more modern aircraft and tanks, much better training, and effective logistics.

It goes back to the Cold War ideas, the Soviets had the numbers, the US and NATO had the quality.

i doubt if tanks would be of any use to china against india or taiwan since they have to cross natural barriers(mountains and the ocean),where china realy lacks as of now is that they dont not have large quantities of genuine heavy attack helicopters.

[chinawhite]

You guys might actually be surprised what askin chin looks like.:)

[Rich]

In many ways the Gulf War was the corner stone for the ranking of modern militaries. Iraq could have been many armies in the top 20, from many countries. It was also the military alliance that would have stopped the Soviets from over-running western Europe. The Gulf War was also NATO at its most powerful. It should come as no surprise that "quality wise" the military's aligned with the USA are the finest in the world in terms of equipment,doctrine,training, and logistics.

The Generals in China were aghast when they saw the 21'st century juggernaut of the Gulf Alliance slaughter the Iraqis in a manner that wasnt even entertaining. Up till then they thought sheer "numbers" still meant something and they rushed pell-mell into the technology race. They figured out that to strangle them all an enemy had to do was strangle their sea lanes. And it was only technology/training that could save them.

But for sheer "capability" ? From A to Z? The only military's that can match the countries in the NATO and ANZUS ,or other, alliances would probably be Israel and, at one time, South Africa. I wouldn't even add the Russians to the list.

[Havoc]

China is not that bad off. It doesnt only have numbers but is growing in the terms of technology. Not only that, it has the worlds second largest defense budget. That means it could buy about any new technology that is coming out. No need to under estamate the Chinese.

[faheem]

China has the largest standing army, and I think the US have the largest navy and airforce.

Yes you are right USA has the largest navy as well as largest in the world.
I want to tell that It,s navy largest no. of subs in the world which are more then 80 and it has largest no. of aircrafts.

[Patzek]

I don't know about other countires, but

29 Israel 167,600 24.3

what the hell?
167,000?

Israel's " Sadir " ( Active ) Forces each year is between 350,000-400,000 ( including monthly " Miluiem " ) and a total of 1,600,000 with reserves.

167,000, its almost insulting.


and i didn't know our forces per X is MUCH bigger than every nation in the world :O
good to know

[ThunderBolt]

Israel's " Sadir " ( Active ) Forces each year is between 350,000-400,000 ( including monthly " Miluiem " ) and a total of 1,600,000 with reserves.

Patzek, can you please give the source of these numbers such as "1,600,000" i mean like a well known website should do it. I would really apreciate that...;) .

[Patzek]

Patzek, can you please give the source of these numbers such as "1,600,000" i mean like a well known website should do it. I would really apreciate that...;) .


I didn't found any source for now, i'll keep searching tomorrow maybe i'll found.

but its a known fact here in Israel that the number of Active troops is between 330,000 - 400,000, depends on the time, and the year ( including current active reserves ).

and the total number of available troops the IDF can recruit in a matter of hours ( again depends on the time ) is between 1,250,000 to 1,600,000, depends on the year.

[ThunderBolt]

I didn't found any source for now, i'll keep searching tomorrow maybe i'll found.

but its a known fact here in Israel that the number of Active troops is between 330,000 - 400,000, depends on the time, and the year ( including current active reserves ).

and the total number of available troops the IDF can recruit in a matter of hours ( again depends on the time ) is between 1,250,000 to 1,600,000, depends on the year.

I don't live in Israel, and so i wouldn't know... :confused:

Alright i will check back soon, and yeah thnx again for searching for a source. I don't know maybe try Global Security, i checked there but it was just a quick glance maybe you can find something there.

[Patzek]

I don't live in Israel, and so i wouldn't know... :confused:

Alright i will check back soon, and yeah thnx again for searching for a source. I don't know maybe try Global Security, i checked there but it was just a quick glance maybe you can find something there.

i wouldn't count on Global security.
All the Data they have on Israel is incorrect.

[thegoldenhorde]

You guys might actually be surprised what askin chin looks like.:)

Yeah...its flat, mostly, with massive, steep hills rising up here and there. Looks like Lord of the Rings.

The US is the most effective fighting force in the world because it has the capability to deploy tis troops anywhere. Who else can do that? No one!. Some European countries can, but not in multiple places at once and not in huge numbers. The same goes for Japan, China, and maybe India.

[srev2004]

The Indians did this in 1947. 550 thousand troops to be exact.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ykonR7QRznQ&search=kashmir

[agentstahn]

Hi I'm from the Philippines, I just want to say you cannot win with just numbers you must use strategies to win.. Yeah people may think that U.S have the advantage because of the advance technology, but consider the vietnam war, what happened to the U.S great power?

[swerve]

I didn't found any source for now, i'll keep searching tomorrow maybe i'll found.

but its a known fact here in Israel that the number of Active troops is between 330,000 - 400,000, depends on the time, and the year ( including current active reserves ).

and the total number of available troops the IDF can recruit in a matter of hours ( again depends on the time ) is between 1,250,000 to 1,600,000, depends on the year.

Lemme see . . . . Jewish population just over 5 million, proportion of military age both sexes) ca 35-40%, depending on how you define military age. Hmm.

I imagine the estimates you cite are actually the total numbers who have done military service & might still be reckoned capable of handling a gun. Calling up all of them would mean closing down most of the civilian economy, & there probably wouldn't be enough transport to deploy them, even with commandeered civilian vehicles. Not really an army, more like an armed population, with half confined to guarding their home towns in case the fighting gets that far.

BTW, your estimate of standing forces is contradicted by all the official, semi-official, & reputable private sources. They all agree on active forces of half what you say with mobilisation of first-line reserves taking it to ca 550000, & up to ca 700000 in dire need. The 330-400000 figures you give may be the total numbers who serve at some time in each year, including recalled reserves, not the numbers active at any one time. That would be consistent with the other figures.

[Patzek]

Lemme see . . . . Jewish population just over 5 million, proportion of military age both sexes) ca 35-40%, depending on how you define military age. Hmm.

I imagine the estimates you cite are actually the total numbers who have done military service & might still be reckoned capable of handling a gun. Calling up all of them would mean closing down most of the civilian economy, & there probably wouldn't be enough transport to deploy them, even with commandeered civilian vehicles. Not really an army, more like an armed population, with half confined to guarding their home towns in case the fighting gets that far.

BTW, your estimate of standing forces is contradicted by all the official, semi-official, & reputable private sources. They all agree on active forces of half what you say with mobilisation of first-line reserves taking it to ca 550000, & up to ca 700000 in dire need. The 330-400000 figures you give may be the total numbers who serve at some time in each year, including recalled reserves, not the numbers active at any one time. That would be consistent with the other figures.


wow this is some old discussion.

Anyway, it really depends on what numbers those sources are reffering to.

Some reffer to active combat troops which is about 170,000, and I was reffering to all active troops, which is everyone who currently serve in the military. which is about 330,000 yearly.

And the reserve troops are the same, active combat reserve troops are about 550,000, I really have no exact figures those numbers are cllasified, but the number of reserves who have a job, this kind or another, is more then a Million, and it makes sense if the age of serving is 18-40+ ( depends ).

The front cannot operate without the neck.

[swerve]

wow this is some old discussion.

Anyway, it really depends on what numbers those sources are reffering to.

Some reffer to active combat troops which is about 170,000, and I was reffering to all active troops, which is everyone who currently serve in the military. which is about 330,000 yearly.

And the reserve troops are the same, active combat reserve troops are about 550,000, I really have no exact figures those numbers are cllasified, but the number of reserves who have a job, this kind or another, is more then a Million, and it makes sense if the age of serving is 18-40+ ( depends ).

The front cannot operate without the neck.

You seem to be confusing two categories.
1) those in the armed forces now.
2) those who serve in the course of a year, including reservists recalled for part of the year.

1) is the usual measure. When it fluctuates as a result of 2) not being spread evenly throughout the year, the usual practice is to average it, e.g. 300,000 reservists at 3 months each = 75,000.

Are there estimates which you can post on those bases?

Then you start counting the mobilised strength. This is sometimes split into first line & total. The total is usually approximate, because the second line reservists often aren't tracked too well, & many, particularly older ones, are no longer fit for service (deteriorating eyesight, heart conditions, etc, etc).

Civilians doing jobs that are needed to keep the armed forces running aren't usually counted, regardless of whether they have a reserve obligation. This produces anomalies (for example, Royal Navy supply ships, & even some of our amphibious ships, are manned by civilians, while many other navies man them with sailors, so the RN looks smaller compared to some other navies than it actually is), but fewer than doing it the other way round, because of the near impossibility of deciding where to draw the line.

[Defender]

The US is the most effective fighting force in the world because it has the capability to deploy tis troops anywhere. Who else can do that? No one!. Some European countries can, but not in multiple places at once and not in huge numbers. The same goes for Japan, China, and maybe India.

As whats been emphasized... its never about size. Its about record.

[contedicavour]

Well if you are planning on sending troops overseas, it's all about how many well equipped easily deployable troops you have.
If you are on the defensive and reacting against an invasion of your own territory, it's all about numbers of motivated soldiers willing to go underground and fight guerrilla type wars, who are obviously inflicting huge pain on even the strongest of armed forces.

Anyway, did we really need to bring this old thread back to life :rolleyes: ...

cheers

[gf0012-aust]

Anyway, did we really need to bring this old thread back to life :rolleyes: ...

cheers

No, I'm locking the thread as it goes against the forum rules anyway.