World’s Most Powerful Militaries


Thanks to Joe for this one.

Hello everyone,

this is not directly related to tanks, but still, pretty interesting. A list of world’s 35 most powerful militaries – first is USA of course (dat spending o.O). Oddly enough, Czech Republic is 30th, while the Norks are 35th with 30 times the manpower. One can only wonder what kind of junk they must be using to get so low…


140 thoughts on “World’s Most Powerful Militaries

      • Well neither is Finland, and we actually have a real army, with a quite substantial artillery force compared to our size.

      • here in Sweden there is a huge debate over the state of the swedish defenses. We’re THIS close to removing it all together…. and yet we are in the top 35?

  1. it have no sense…on the last 35. place is country much more military powerfull than for example Czech which is on 30. place…

    • Also, i wonder what rthey count as a tank, since us, Czech Republic, have currently only 27 T-72M4

      • Well we still have some old 72s in reserves. Question is, what is their battle value on modern battlefield (if any).

        • It is the same with alot of stuff on that list, except maybe the USA (military fiscal complex ftw). Russia has 15k tanks in the list. That includes thousands of mothballed unmodernised T-72s and the entire T-80 fleet which was put into storage because they were far too expensive to run in the 90s. Actual active tanks of T-90 or modernised T-72 Russia has like 3k. China is in a similar situation, as is India and you will find the same in older lists where Germany had like 5k tanks. It recently scrapped or sold of all its tanks in storage. Then there is the countrys where they have a few hundred modern tanks and thousands of ancient ones, like Turkey (yay Pattons and Leopard 1s). This is why countrys like Uk or France look quite weak militarily on paper, but all their stuff is actually in working order with crews and stuff.

  2. What a daft chart. Numbers mean nothing. Comparative fighting qualities of the men, machines and infrastructure is what is important. No point having 1 million soldiers if they’re conscripts, poorly trained, poorly led, poorly equipped and badly paid.

      • Yup, look at the Iraqis. They had the third largest armoured force before desert storm. Did them no good… Syria and Iraq that would propably be on this list 10 years ago are now in shatters…NK armed forces would propably desintegrate if faced with a real war (thats one reason why NK invests so much in nuke deterrent) , mass surrender in order to get some food in captivity.

        Military power is derived directly from stability in the country and economic strenght. A country that have the two latter parts can quickly jump up by purchase of equipment and hiring “advisors” and foreign personell…

    • No point having the best soldiers either when 20 nuclear bombs are headed your way. Poor Pakistan could wipe out German, France, Spain, Italy from the face of the earth for example.

      • France got their own nukes to retaliate with. Thus, pakistan would be wiped out also. In case of the other non-nuke countries, as members of NATO any nuclear attack on them would be retaliated by GB/USA/FR. USA guarantess an nuclear “umbrella” for all member states. How much that guarantee is worth when the shit hits the fan I hope never to find out.

        + i dont believe Pakistan has the range on their missiles to hit anything in europe?

        • Yeah, how well armed conflicts works nowadays. Just look at russia for example – they just flexed their muscles towards EU and now they are heading for a bankruptcy in a few months.

          Armed conflicts only work between (or rather against) undeveloped countries. Anything that involves EU, USA, CH (in this order) will likely result in the total economic annihilation of the enemy country even before the actual war starts. It’s hard to wage ware if your money suddenly worths nothing.

          And this is a good thing actually. War sucks. Anyone that was near one can tell you what to do with the romantic picture about it.

          • Well unlike Russia China can play serious hard ball in economic terms. Russias economic power was all based one thing, fossil fuels and it was gone the second the US opened the taps on shale.

      • It isn’t viable to attack with nukes because you would get wiped out as well. That’s the whole thing about the Cold War, neither side was willing to fire nukes, because they weren’t stupid.

    • ‘Numbers mean nothing’ yea if I remember the last time it was quality vs quantity, quantity won… E.g German vs USSR, Russians weren’t the best trained or well equipped against the well equipped battle hardened German troops, but when you outnumber an enemy 10 to 1 I’m pretty sure that’s when numbers matter…

  3. SS, I want to point out that it says: “Quality of equipment, training, and professionalism of each military is not taken into account”
    This means that it’s not clear, if they have junk or not.
    My guess is, that they are not very influential or indeed active on the global stage, so they get ranked low, but it’s just a guess.

    • What’s the point in ranking militaries like that if you don’t take those things into account?

      Also that chart says Japan has an aircraft carrier… LOL

      If you’re going to count helicopter carriers for one country then count them for every country?

      • If they were counting Heli carriers then it would be at least Three… The Hyuga class made up of the Hyuga and the Ise and the Izumo class made up of the Izumo and apparently later in 2015 another ship will be added…

        I could be wrong but this is what i seem to have gathered…

        • I should probably also mention the Haruna and Shirane classes but those don’t look like carriers compared to the other classes I listed.

    • This list is full of errors. Russian Army is only 380000 not 766000. Russians have 2500 tanks and 12500 reservetanks (t54, without personnel or staff), but in case of germany and Netherlands, the reserves aren’t counted (german Army has 220000 reservists). In Israel everybody including women have had extensive military training. Etcetera.
      But lists are fun!

    • It’s not so simple. Objective of war can be many things : influence, natural ressource, religion…

    • And how much money to teach the endlessly breeding 3rd world to learn about family planning? You can spend your and end world hunger, just to create more survivors that will create the next round of world hunger, until the world is “consumed” and destroyed. A better quality of life for everyone is preferable. And lets not forget that unfortunately war is the greatest impetus for human technological progress. I do still find it abhorrent the way that war is portrayed in the media, and by our governments. its nothing but extreme violence, death, maiming, injury, loss, pain and suffering. If the amount spent on weapons was spent on energy research, we’d not need wars. Wars are nearly always resource or greed driven, covered up by using politics, or religion.

      • exactly…… there are economical theories supported by history that says giving poor countries food creates more problems than benefits….

        they are poor because they dont produce, we are rich because we produce, so we can consume…… richer country produce more, so they consume more….. real life isnt so simple but you get the idea

        • “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”

          It is more worthwhile to teach someone to do something than to do it for them is actually the thing that sums it all up.
          We shouldn’t supply them endlessly with food and medical supplies, but instead give them the knowledge and the tools so they can do it themself.

    • War hasn’t been fought because of hunger since early medieval times except maybe some stuff in colonial era Africa.

      War is fought for material gain, political power/belief or religious fanaticism by one or more parties.

      • Well, wars have begun over the fear of hunger (or an equivalent drop in the standard of living). Hitler rationalized that he needed Ukrainian land to ensure a self-sufficient Gross-Germany. Without Ukraine etc. the standard of living for the german people would drop below an acceptable level.

        The Japanese rationale for going into China has similar connetations.
        They weren’t starving at the time, but they knew which way it was headed.

    • It’s not the USA’s responsibility to help everyone. Most African countries’ leaders just steal the money so it’s not worth it. (I say Africa because that’s where the most problems are). I live here myself.

      • Agree.

        However, US hegenomy suggests that in order to maintain the current world-order, they can’t allow for too many countries to leave the fold.

        Also, one reason why it’s USA and not Russia or China that’s the Worlds Policeman, is because they don’t have the overseas bases for it, and thus completely lacks anything resembling global power-projection.

        China can interfere in conflicts in bordering countries, and perhaps – in extreme cases – in East Africa. But they can’s put anything into the middle-east, Europe or the Americas. The same with Russia. They can threaten eastern Europe – but the haven’t got the range to threaten, say, France or anything south of the Caucasus

        And since China and Russia can’t power-project, they don’t have the implied obligation to.

  4. Hello SS
    first I apologize for my english its not my native language
    When I look on this table I see that there is no clear explanation of that numbers …..
    If they counts as Tanks APC (even wheeled) or in Aircraft if they count Helis or so
    because as you said its really oddly enough if CR (czech republic) we have cca 7-14 jet fighters (Swedish grippen) and something about 25-40 T-72M4CZ modernisadet tanks

        • Not really, as the active most modern versions of Leopard2s alone count up for 256 units at the Panzertruppe.

          Add to that ~500 still active Marders1A3, 20x Puma, 300x Wiesel (Anti Tank Versions), 120x Panzerhaubitze 2000 (SPG), 60x Missile Tanks etc. Numbers of this magazine are crap. If they mean Main Battle Tanks the number is too high for germany, if they count all armored, track-based, gunned vehicles in active duty for fighting the number is much too low.

          The numbers above do NOT even include the “cold reserve”.

          • Those numbers are OBVIOUSLY adjusted for all our broken shit that doesn’t work anymore.

            Frieden schaffen durch defekte Waffen!

  5. Fun Fact: Half of our german Bundeswehr vehicles isn´t in Active use, cause there are no spare parts and no money.

  6. Germany 4th place – LOL. Only on paper. There have been so many budget cut-offs that we can’t maintain our planes, helicopters, tanks. We even don’t have/had the appropriate equipment for Afghanistan.
    Most of that budget is for this huge bureaucratic process within the army.

          • You don’t need many to fly to be effective. Compare the (what is known about) targeting systems of the Eurofighter against the Su 27 or Mig 29. There is no comparison in the qualitative effects of this aircraft compared to the ones it might go up against.

      • eurofighter typhoon is a crap plane that can”t even land on an aircraft carrier, better buy the rafale M

    • Well, that IS correct, the UK is the leading EU power.

      The hilarity is India being that high, their quality is shockingly bad in those numbers.

        • It’s true though, no weed dreams. It’s a factual thing. For example, the French Navy is not even three quarters the tonnage of the Royal Navy. French aircraft in theory have more planes, but they still have no proper BVR, no strategic airlift, no heavy lift helos or Self Guided Precision Munitions. On the ground they lack long range artillery and their ATGMs leave much to be desired, still relying on the old MILAN while the Tigre helos only have 2 currently active that can fire ATGMs at all. (The HAD version) I have dedicated charts at home to detail it all I can send you, but it’ll be very late tonight. If you check back tomorrow here I’ll likely link them for your perousal.

          • Oh man you’ve made my day ! XD
            I’ve seen such bullshit on ONE com ! XD

            Definitely gimme your weed !
            Looks like it gives awesome dreams ! XD

            • If you’re so convinced then why are you evading all form of actual factual discussion then? Everything I’ve said above is fully true and can be proven easily. It’s a fact that the French air has no strategic airlift like C-17′s, only tactical like A400M. It’s a fact they have no heavy lift helos like Chinooks, Sea Stallions or Mi26′s, only medium lift like Cougars. It’s a fact they only receieved the first two upgraded Tigre’s to finally fire ATGMs in the last few weeks. It’s a fact that the MILAN is still the relied ATGM. It’s a fact that they have only 3 rocket artillery for long range and still rely heavily on shorter ranged howitzers. It’s a fact that they have no BVR missile with a range over 50km (MICA). It’s a fact that they have no self guided precision munitions like Brimstone. It’s a fact that the tonnage difference is so large. It’s a fact that they still lack long distance land attack missiles from naval vessels. (SCALP Naval still isn’t in service)

              Any of these things can be examined and proven. Some of them easily now, some of them will be once I get home from work. I’m offering you facts and proof in discussion…you’re just shouting in response.

              • Discussion with a dumbass like you ?
                Must be kidding me right ?

                Oki Doki then !

                Wanna talk about 1982 ?
                Falklands War if you prefer.

                Where England lost a lot of ships (Destroyers and Frigates) against what ?
                Super Etendard with Exocet missiles which are ?
                French planes with French missiles !

                You had to cry to make us stop selling our stuff to Argentina because your army was just losing !

                As you said, it’s a fact and it has been proven !

                “It’s a fact that the French air has no strategic airlift like C-17′s, only tactical like A400M”
                Cool ! Bigger plane for bigger bill ! Good job Sam !

                “It’s a fact they only receieved the first two upgraded Tigre’s to finally fire ATGMs in the last few weeks. ”
                Tigre HAD shoot HOT missile since his creation which are ATGM. But it can also shoot AGM-114 HELLFIRE (just like your Apache ! That you bought from US btw)

                I can continue but with a dumbass like you ?
                Just a waste of time !

                But keep in mind that a woman has beaten your ass. Will see if you know her name kid ! ;D

                • Falklands is a world away from now. That was an era when ASMs were unbelievably lethal because CIWS and interception technology was either new or non-existent. Besides, that’s 80′s, we’re talking now.

                  “You had to cry to make us stop selling our stuff to Argentina because your army was just losing !”

                  Meanwhile in the real world the French Government withheld the sale before the taskforce even left, because thats what allies do.

                  “Cool ! Bigger plane for bigger bill ! Good job Sam !”

                  And that solves France completely lacking any strategic airlift…how? Of course you want bigger cargo planes. Logistics is EVERYTHING in warfare. Better logistics is vastly preferencial.

                  Besides, it doesn’t cost much more than an A400M, yet is vastly superior by carrying twice as much.

                  “Tigre HAD shoot HOT missile since his creation which are ATGM.”

                  And until now France hasn’t had any. France only had the Tigre HAP until now, the one that had no ATGMs. The first two HADs were only delivered last month.

                  “just like your Apache ! That you bought from US btw”

                  Of course we did, it was the superior machine in testing and vastly cheaper to buy. Especially moreso as we changed pretty much every component to be upgraded. it was a logical decision to get ATGM availability right away.

                  “But keep in mind that a woman has beaten your ass. Will see if you know her name kid ! ;D”

                  Very mature.

                • Very mature ?
                  I thought I was talking to a child !
                  So I act as if !

                  When I read your shit I really need to take your weed !
                  Or maybe it’s mushrooms ?

                  Seriously, stop saying bullshit man, you’re just drunk ;D

                • Last I checked, it was considered impolite to continue providing military assistance to someone in a shooting war with an ally.

                  Falklands was basically a kerbstomp, resulting in the downfall of the Argentine government. They inflicted some casualties on the way, but such is to be expected in even the most unequal matchups. Dien Bien Phu anyone?

                  Now, I don’t have the figures, but my gut feeling is that the balance is pretty much the same as it was during the last century (apart from the 1940s, of course) – France is stronger locally, but the UK has a lot more global reach.

                • “Some casualties” ?!

                  4 Battleships !
                  It’s not “some casualties” !
                  It’s huge !

                  Except that I would agree with you

              • Btw to the dumb guy, I wasn’t alking about your mother (it could be, but it’s not her).
                I was talking about Jeanne d’Arc.

                Oh wait !
                It was before the atomic bomb and tea party ! My bad !

                • “Battleships?”

                  There was no battleships in the entire theatre. It was carriers, frigates and destroyers predominantly. And again, it was in an era when that was always going to happen, no matter what navy went in there. ASMs were outpacing defences at that point. It’s swung back the other way since then, what with Aegis, PAAMS, CIWS and counter sea-skinning radar.

                  And geez, cool yourself down. You’re spouting off every single post. Just chill out, man.

      • Where are your facts from? 50 years ago? India is surrounded by aggressors all around and to add to that fray they are a developing nation. They spend less military GDP % in comparison to their neighbors yet they field the T90 tanks, bought the Dassault Rafale, even placed an order for an aircraft carrier, etc. This chart up there isn’t about who has the best weapons and sure enough they are nowhere near the best but India’s capabilities are nothing to snicker about.

        • And yet they have the most unreliably navy around right now that catches on fire as much as it ever goes to proper deployments and their planes are falling from the sky. Add in the crippling lack of proper training and possessing almost no network infrastructure for information sharing (the most important tactical element of the modern day) and having no power projection outside their local ara it’s hard to see them too high. They are a regional power, not a global one.

          As a note, they haven’t “bought” the Rafale anyway. They WANT to, but negotiations are still ongoing since its price skyrocketed to unreasonable levels.

          • Okay lets start from the beginning.

            Firstly, since 2000, over 18 major Naval mishaps happened which were big enough to make the news. Out of those 18, only 4 were fire related incidents. And out of those 4, one happened after a collision, another during trials, one more during repairs and the last one happened while the ship was berthed at the naval dockyard . If one ships spontaneously catching fire under mysterious circumstances is called “unreliable” then boy your standards sure are tough and hard to live up to. Heck even if we take all eighteen incidents that happened in the course of fifteen years I still feel you are being hard on the navy of a developing nation but that is just my humble opinion.

            Planes falling from the sky I completely agree on. We lost a lot of good pilots due to an aging fleet. Hence the Dassault Rafale purchase… or as you pointed out, trying to be made. But by no means are we trying to settle for 1 or 2 planes. We are trying to get squadrons full of it. FYI, money is not as much an issue as much as the fact and I quote,
            “While much of the negotiations have been completed, further progress in determining the final cost of the mammoth procurement programme hinges on France accepting the defence ministry’s condition that Dassault should take the responsibility for all the aircraft and not just the first lot of 18 that will be flown in from France.”
            Still Germany is now matching France’s price tag for the Eurofighter Typhoon which sure gives India a pause to reconsider given the current deadlock on the Rafale deal.

            Thirdly, and I quote this again,
            ” India is just one satellite away from having its own satellite navigation system, and when the fourth satellite is launched in a few months time, the country will join the elite group of spacefaring powers, like the United States which has GPS or Global Positioning System, Russia with Glonass, Europe with is Galileo, China with Beidou, and Japan’s Quasi Zenith Satellite System. The initiative for now is named, Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS)”.
            This was published on October 17, 2014 when on the 16th the third sattelite was successfully placed into the orbit. As a developing country, we do understand the importance of modern day tactical elements that the developed countries so fervently cherish so I assure you we are not sitting with our thumbs up our asses. It just takes time for a country which has its fingers in a lot of affairs.

            Finally, you are very right. By no means India is a global power and we don’t crave to be one either. That fact was mirrored 55 years ago when an offer to be one of the permanent members of UNSC by US and USSR was refused by our PM. We knew we weren’t ready to be responsible for the welfare of the world when we can’t even take care of our own properly. Even today, we just wanna be self sufficient enough so that we can deter our neighbors to keep their claws to themselves without having to unsheathe the “nuclear weapon” card.

            • Whether I fully agree or not. I can 100% appreciate the tone and civil response you made. You provide excellent information. Perhaps I was just surly from having to witness Kenji’s…unique form of posting. :p

              • Better informations than yours kid !
                Oh and btw, did you know that EF has stopped production because the plane’s too dangerous for the pilots ? (because of construction problems but I dunno how to say that in english)

                Instead of 3000 hours of flight they can only do 1500 (what a shame) so I don’t think India is THAT stupid to buy that plane ;)

                • Nothing you just said is true at all.

                  Production is still going because there are still more to be delivered, with potenial exports. The flight hours are set to around 8,000 and even 9,000 in cases. 3,000 was the initial IOC level, misquoted by the media. The “construction programs” were a falsity, after BAE completed the examinations and reported to the National Audit Office. Given it heavily outperformed the Rafale in India, it would be worth their while to consider. (Look up “India and the Rafale” as a pdf report to have a look at the results, for example.) Rafale got by on political elements and on a supposed lower price, a price that quickly skyrocketed to almost $200m per plane. Typhoon meanwhile (by the NAO reporting, so independant) dropped to around $111m.

              • Please, I took no offense for your words and I assure you I am not looking for any kind of apology. I enjoyed this good discussion and instead I would like to thank you for going a round with me on the subject. :)

        • Sorry for breaking it man but India has numbers but we dont have quality…. I am an Indian and a defence analyst and I know what I am talkibg about.

          We have T-90S tanks but we dont have the aps that the russian version has. Armor is of degraded quality and our own tank Arjun is a shame for the nation.

          We have fuel supplies for 45 days of fighting but ammo for only 25 days of intense combat.

          We have the great SU30MKI but we also operate the vintage Mig-21 bisons. Our T-72s are also what the world calles ‘monkey model’ (slang for russian export varients whith an ‘M’ at the end of designation)

          Our land forces lack bullet proof vests and helmets that most western nations and even the Chinese have.

          The truth is that no matter how the indian media portrays our armed forces, we are amazingly weak. We may never be defeated by Pak (the real percieved threat by an ordinary citizen) but we cant put up a strong resistance against China for more than 10 days

          • You are indeed correct about that but if you look at that chart up there, you will see China above India which kinda proves your point there. Apart from China it is only Pakistan that can’t wait to lock horns with India and keeping them at bay is the whole point of our military. My discussion with “TheFuzzyOne” was regarding capabilities that India possess and if they deserve to be up there. Also you forgot to mention that many SU30MKI were or maybe are grounded due to a technical fault that is dangerous to the survival of our own pilots. Once of the many reasons Russian tech was rejected in favor of the French. And yes once again I agree, the army is like the poor ugly cousin who gets almost no love when it comes to gear. On this point I have nothing to refute with. It is the sad truth.

            Still China and India are like the 2 sides of the coin that cater to the needs of the world. Tech Support and Product Manufacturing countries would think a thousand times before going to war with each other and if they ever did other super power nations will not view this favorably as even their economies will start feeling the heat. An intervention will happen before the 25 days are up. And if it doesn’t… then there is the MAD doctrine.

            • Don’t count on intervention mate.

              I respect the men in boots a lot but I know our limitations. Glad to see that you have your facts right.

              • Well then I really hope there will be wise heads upon the shoulder of the people that govern both India and China and they would find a responsible way avoid a conflict all together.

      • India is modernising seriously quickly, they currently have better tech than the UK or France in some areas, and will have in most by the end of the decade.

        Which is why it is truly bonkers that the UK and France both give aid to India…..

        • I think it is related to the fact that we mean no ill will to UK or France. Heck we don’t wish misfortune upon any country and our history stands to reason for that since we never started a war with any nation ever. And this is a fact we take great pride in. Truthfully we abhor the concept of nuclear weapons but the only reason we have them is to act as a deterrent so bloodshed can be avoided. If ever anything is developed that is as potent as a nuke but with a much less horrifying aftermath I can safely claim that India will be one of the first countries to ditch the nuclear weapons in favor of that tech.

        • In ASM’s yes, India is ahead, but thats about it, really. For the future? Who knows, the UK and France have some insane tech coming very soon.

  7. Also despite what it says here in the UK the Royal Navy doesn’t currently have an operational aircraft carrier. A floating half-built hulk with no planes doesn’t count.

      • Nah, they bought it, but it’s still in the dry docks in France. With the sailors still “training” with it. In a dry dock.

        Such training

        • It’s not. The chart refers to the decommisioned HMS Illustrious, because this chart is RIDICULOUSLY out of date. For example, the RN has 10 subs right now, not 11, or that France has 200 tanks right now, not 300.

          Also bear in mind this chart is sourcing “Global Firepower” which is the most ass-backwards site around for judging this stuff.

            • I have no idea how you took that away from my post. I said that the table was out of date, because it has multiple incorrect values on it. For example, the number of British subs on it is inaccurate to today, as is the number of French tanks on it.

  8. >Indonesia in 19th
    >After Aussie
    At first i shocked
    Then i laugh my arse off
    And finally feeling a bit confused if i need to be proud or not they overestimate our military.

    • more like the Kopassus that making us strong XD
      any special unit that had a high survivability in any terrain and places,, that tend to scare anyone more than a tank,, or CV (since those unit can sabotage those military vehicle)

    • From the other side of that divide:

      In terms of absolute strength, I’d believe it. Where Australia is ahead is the ability to project it’s strength – we have the ability to concentrate it where it’s needed, while my understanding is that Indonesia, for various reasons, does not. However, if it came to a direct confrontation and the Indonesian military was free to throw everything at Australia… while Australia has a lot of force multipliers, a close to 10 to 1 numerical advantage is not to be sneezed at.

    • Well, in defensive battle Indonesia would be a very though nut to crack, much harder than middle east at least. Did they also count terrain situation and civilian abilities into the chart? lol.

      Kinda chuckling when I imagined something like… US carrier drowned itself because “SUDDEN INDONESIAN ‘MILITIA’ SCAVENGING THE CARRIER HULL FROM BELOW”

      Not really sure about offensive, though. I don’t think we have any reliable capability to even cross our armies to AUS, for example. It’s not like a 1vs1 scenario will happen in our modern world anyway.

  9. Aircraft and aircraft carriers, nuff said. No matter how hard will russkies foam at their mouths and rattle with their rusting junkyard, they will never be any sort of global power/threat by conventional means without these. Also, monies.

  10. Seriously? Belgium has a smaller budget then the Netherlands and they still have tanks.
    We freaking disbanded all our tank forces because of budget cuts and we still have a bigger budget then Belgium.

    • Belgium has MBT’s (Leopard 1′s), but only on paper. They are on the way out this year or next year and will be replaced by a 90mm armoured car… LOL… nobody even uses 90mm anymore, pretty big corruption scandal down there.

      Also, Belgium has hardly any navy to speak of and has integrated it into ours.

      With Holland you have to take into account that or good for nothing politicians have directed parts of the Defence budget for matters that should not be paid by it.
      A few examples: a large part of the coastguard is paid from the Defence budget, several means of transportation (cars, a helicopter, a train, carriages and a boat) for the royal family comes from out of this budget, VAT-tax is paid on military acquisitions, which rarely happens in the defence budgets of our allies, pensions and salaries, samething (though the amount of countries paying that from their budget is bigger then with the VAT), etc.

      Take that off and our allready pitifull Defence spending drops from about 1.2 BNP to 0.90 BNP. And then people wonder why aircraft are being cannabilized for spare parts and things like that.

      There are signs on the horizon that point to a change though. Since 2013 the armed forces has been given twice bit of extra money (in total about 200mln p/y), which is really peanuts, but there is a debate going on about increasing funding for the future and the economy is finalllllly starting to turn around a little bit.

      Belgium OTOH… 0.75 BNP on Defence spending and they have just announced pretty massive new budget cuts, not too mention they want to replace their F-16A/M fighter-bomber aircraft, but from which they want to pay that is all but sure. I’m betting that if they want to buy the F35 (like we did… 37 of them … ROFL) then they will be getting 24 max. They might be better of buying the Gripen in this case.

      In a few words: our military is in a pitifull state, but has a lot of experience in missions of very different sorts and the trend down (with regards to money) has been stopped and the budget is expected to (very) lightly rise in the coming years.

      Belgium OTOH is in an even worse state and they have new massive cuts coming their way. Wouldn’t surprise me if they disband whole branches (like the artillery, ASW frigates or complete medical units will be commercialized. Pretty dreadfull really. I feel sorry for the good men and women serving their country, because they deserve better.

  11. The only thing about Brasil that is big there is the price.
    Brasil wasted 1/2 of money that russia wasted, to have 30 times less and with 20 times less quality.
    Great country I live in……

  12. As a Taiwanese, it hard to believe that we got that much tank…
    even we do, most of them are trash from America, maybe with some toy made by ourself.

    • Taiwanese here
      Hah… hah… hah. 700 cold war tanks.
      Really, how the fuck is taiwan even remotely powerful, look at this
      >no 3rd gen MBT
      >4 DIESEL SUBS
      >missiles? nah fuck missiles
      >4th gen made-in-taiwan 2 engine f16 very stronk

      I mean we spend more than fucking Poland and they have all sorts of new shiny INVISIBLE TONKS, and we have our “BRAVE TIGAH” which is a 1st gen MBT turret on a 2nd gen hull. Fuck.

  13. i realy cant believe this numbers, i’m in the belgian armored forces, and there are budget cuts on everything, year after year. a few years ago, it was eaven a political scandal when it became aparant we only had 5 bullets left for each soldier,..

  14. I always find it hilarious that Sweden always places in these lists with their “14,000 soldiers”. Doesn’t matter what equipment you have when there’s no manpower whatsoever.

  15. You should had the fact that the ranking is from:
    This website is more precise than this chart (though its good too).

    @Others for ranking: unfortunately GlobalFirepower didn’t explain its way for ranking (or it is but I didn’t find it)…

    About spending: big numbers aren’t really a good thing. It means nothing if you don’t compare to global spending. Look at:

  16. lol czechs at 30 place , but they mosty consider how of often u do something in global politits and eveny we have small army we have some troops in several large NATO/OSN operations – Iraq , Afgranistan , Africa ……

  17. So both Russia and China have better ground army than USA. Already knew that, both countries are only getting stronger.

  18. Wow! after all the terrorists the Syrian Army had to deal with, it is still ranked #26. Go SAA!

  19. US has more like 19 carriers. Some of those are relatively smaller than the super carriers but still about the same size as other countries main carriers. These smaller carriers can still carry 20 Harriers when used in that role and are heavier than the carriers employed by France and Brazil, for example.

    • the brazilian CV is an old french CV, the clemenceau or something who was to be scrapped and brazil bought it to repair/modernize it

  20. I live in one of thevabovementioned countries, and aware af the facts regarding some of the numbers in this table, and llet me tell you – they are a long way from the truth. In some cases much higher, in some lower.
    And also, they don’t take into account two things: the size of the reserve, and the main probable enemy, which this data should be compared to. I mean, UK will not fight against the US, so why compare them?