Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[umiman]

My posting frequency seems to go up rapidly in relation to proximity of exams for some strange, obscure reason which escapes me.

Anyway, I was looking through Wikipedia's listing of global military power and I grabbed some interesting facts. Keep in mind that I'm Malaysian.

1. Singapore, a country about 1/100th the size of Malaysia could kick Malaysia's ass three ways to Sunday with a military 3 times the size and military hardware leaps and bounds more technology advanced than Malaysia's.
2. I think Malaysia's generals and minister of defense decided which guns to get its army by playing Counterstrike.
3. Iran has the largest total army in the world, at 12 000 000 total troops. Of course, this could be them lying out of their teeth.
4. Taiwan vs China wouldn't be as one-sided as I originally thought, as Taiwan maintains a really large military as well... much like Singapore. Something of 2 million troops vs China's 3 million.
5. Malaysia has a grand total of ONE (1) UAV drone. I have no idea who decided to report that statistic.
6. China's navy is about 40% consisting of transports (about 500). Gee, I wonder what for.
7. Taiwan's military consists mostly of anti-sea missiles, helicopters (about 200 pieces), and artillery (about 1100 pieces). Gee, I wonder what for.

There you have it. I also now know the country of Antigua has the smallest military in the world at 200+ total forces. About the size of my old school.

[Aqizzar]

4. Taiwan vs China wouldn't be as one-sided as I originally thought, as Taiwan maintains a really large military as well... much like Singapore. Something of 2 million troops vs China's 3 million.

Also worth pointing out is the American Pacific Fleet on permanent station right near Taiwan.  As for the giant army, remember that modern Taiwan was founded by Chang Kai-chek, the archtypical generalissimo, and essentially just the army elements and nationalists who could find boats to follow him.  It's a military state really.

[atomicwinter]

Yea I was going to say Taiwan has a large army because that is where the last remits of the Chinese republican army is holding up after the Chinese civil war. I have heard rumors thou mind you just rumors that there could be a major war soon between mainland China and Taiwan. Apparently mainland China considers Taiwan part of its own.

Edit: China may have 2 million active troops, but look at their total population available for military duty. They could send man waves and win a war against anyone with muskets 

[irreversiblycynical]

The US accounts for 41% of total defense spending in the world. Next closest is China(People's republic of, obviously) with 6%. So we could probably just out spend anyone else.

[atomicwinter]

The US accounts for 41% of total defense spending in the world. Next closest is China(People's republic of, obviously) with 6%. So we could probably just out spend anyone else.

Most of that money is in the construction of carrier fleets. As many of you know, the reason the US has such a good strike force is its full carrier fleets. It is the only country in the world that can... "afford" a full carrier fleet. The US is too obsessed with their high technology, and spends way too much on it.

[irreversiblycynical]

The US accounts for 41% of total defense spending in the world. Next closest is China(People's republic of, obviously) with 6%. So we could probably just out spend anyone else.

Most of that money is in the construction of carrier fleets. As many of you know, the reason the US has such a good strike force is its full carrier fleets. It is the only country in the world that can... "afford" a full carrier fleet. The US is too obsessed with their high technology, and spends way too much on it.

That's because the technology and expensive weapons are meant to compensate for less manpower. It's the old question of quality verses quantity. Is a better trained and armed military better then a large one?

[atomicwinter]

The US accounts for 41% of total defense spending in the world. Next closest is China(People's republic of, obviously) with 6%. So we could probably just out spend anyone else.

Most of that money is in the construction of carrier fleets. As many of you know, the reason the US has such a good strike force is its full carrier fleets. It is the only country in the world that can... "afford" a full carrier fleet. The US is too obsessed with their high technology, and spends way too much on it.

That's because the technology and expensive weapons are meant to compensate for less manpower. It's the old question of quality verses quantity. Is a better trained and armed military better then a large one?

Depends on the fighting tactics. Generally I would go with a larger one. But in the end I put all of it aside. You can not and never will be able to determine if any given army will be able to beat another based on numbers, quality, and technology alone. Tactics make all of the difference in warfare. In my opinion is all comes down to the generals.

[irreversiblycynical]

Depends on the fighting tactics. Generally I would go with a larger one. But in the end I put all of it aside. You can not and never will be able to determine if any given army will be able to beat another based on numbers, quality, and technology alone. Tactics make all of the difference in warfare. In my opinion is all comes down to the generals.

Of course on that I have to agree. One very good or very bad decision can make all the difference. The Germans and Russians during WW2 are a prime example, but when it come to preparing for a conflict you can't do to much with that before it starts.

[atomicwinter]

Depends on the fighting tactics. Generally I would go with a larger one. But in the end I put all of it aside. You can not and never will be able to determine if any given army will be able to beat another based on numbers, quality, and technology alone. Tactics make all of the difference in warfare. In my opinion is all comes down to the generals.

Of course on that I have to agree. One very good or very bad decision can make all the difference. The Germans and Russians during WW2 are a prime example, but when it come to preparing for a conflict you can't do to much with that before it starts.

Ah yes the eastern front of WW2 one of my favorites! And the Americans dare say they won the war! BAH! Look at the fierce fighting the Germans and Russians had to put up with before the Americans were even in the war. Just look at the amount of life loss on the Russians side, its unspeakable! By the time the Allies landed in France the Russians had already crippled the eastern German army and were advancing on Berlin. Just thought I would throw out there that while the Allies did help quite a bit in Europe, the Russians did the bulk of the work.

[G-Flex]

Apparently mainland China considers Taiwan part of its own.

Both China and Taiwan think of themselves, respectively, as being "the true China". Their full country names are even practically the same (People's Republic of China vs. Republic of China), whereas "Taiwan" is more the name of the physical place.

Basically, after the war, China's former government fled to Taiwan. They think of themselves as the rightful Chinese government because of this, and so does the government in charge of the mainland today.

[irreversiblycynical]

Depends on the fighting tactics. Generally I would go with a larger one. But in the end I put all of it aside. You can not and never will be able to determine if any given army will be able to beat another based on numbers, quality, and technology alone. Tactics make all of the difference in warfare. In my opinion is all comes down to the generals.

Of course on that I have to agree. One very good or very bad decision can make all the difference. The Germans and Russians during WW2 are a prime example, but when it come to preparing for a conflict you can't do to much with that before it starts.

Ah yes the eastern front of WW2 one of my favorites! And the Americans dare say they won the war! BAH! Look at the fierce fighting the Germans and Russians had to put up with before the Americans were even in the war. Just look at the amount of life loss on the Russians side, its unspeakable! By the time the Allies landed in France the Russians had already crippled the eastern German army and were advancing on Berlin. Just thought I would throw out there that while the Allies did help quite a bit in Europe, the Russians did the bulk of the work.

If Hitler and Stalin had managed to get along better he might have won. Any invasion of Russia/Soviet Union seems doomed to failure automatically. I don't even remember the last time they were invaded, maybe the Mongol invasion of Europe? They've also been on the receiving end though with Finland and the Winter War. It seems that defenders always manage to inflict greater causalities during a war.

[Earthquake Damage]

Tactics make all of the difference in warfare. In my opinion is all comes down to the generals.

"Good generals study tactics.  Great generals study logistics."  Or however that saying goes.  My point:  There's a lot more to warfare than fighting.  It's important to have the right men (well-supplied men at that) in the right place at the right time.

[userpay]

Depends on the fighting tactics. Generally I would go with a larger one. But in the end I put all of it aside. You can not and never will be able to determine if any given army will be able to beat another based on numbers, quality, and technology alone. Tactics make all of the difference in warfare. In my opinion is all comes down to the generals.

Of course on that I have to agree. One very good or very bad decision can make all the difference. The Germans and Russians during WW2 are a prime example, but when it come to preparing for a conflict you can't do to much with that before it starts.

Ah yes the eastern front of WW2 one of my favorites! And the Americans dare say they won the war! BAH! Look at the fierce fighting the Germans and Russians had to put up with before the Americans were even in the war. Just look at the amount of life loss on the Russians side, its unspeakable! By the time the Allies landed in France the Russians had already crippled the eastern German army and were advancing on Berlin. Just thought I would throw out there that while the Allies did help quite a bit in Europe, the Russians did the bulk of the work.

If Hitler and Stalin had managed to get along better he might have won. Any invasion of Russia/Soviet Union seems doomed to failure automatically. I don't even remember the last time they were invaded, maybe the Mongol invasion of Europe? They've also been on the receiving end though with Finland and the Winter War. It seems that defenders always manage to inflict greater causalities during a war.

Does that even need to be said? Defenders always have the advantage if not in tech or number then in fortifications and knowing the land. Just look at trench warfare and how many people need to rush a trench vs the number of people actually manning that trench.

[G-Flex]

I think it should be mentioned that they have a huge advantage when it comes to the supply line too. Pretty important when you're trying to invade a place like Russia!

[umiman]

Invading Russia has always been historically been a bad idea. You guys should have learnt it in your whatchamacallit AP history or whatever. Anyway, Napoleon, Hitler, Mongols, King Charles, all lost the same way in Russia.

You don't invade Russia. You also never start a land war in Asia (Gen. Douglas MacArthur). These are the fundamental rules of warfare. Until someone invents a chronosphere anyway.

Ever played Risk? You know what I'm talking about. Played Medieval? Yeah, you know what I'm talking about.