Strength of each army, after WW2

[Dylan the Canadian]

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Agreed Herr KaLeun, the US and USSR did call the shots, it is merely an acedemic point of little consequence.  Now, if Quebec were to take the side of France at the end of WWII……

Now if Quebec would wine every half a second instead of every second they might become there own 3rd world country

[aequitas-et-veritas]

what shot does the USSR call?… :?

[MrMalachiCrunch]

‘did’ implies past tense……

[Octospire]

@Dylan:

@Octospire:

@Dylan:

At the end of WW2, what was the top 10 list of each army at the end of the war.

I was thinking it was kind of like

1. USA
2. USSR
3. UK
4. China
5. France
6. Canada
7. Australia
8. New Zealand
9. Netherlands
10. :?

It depends if you mean in terms of man power or military power (as in manpower + technological capability + number of tanks aircraft etc)

Just FYI, in my mind this based on ground combat and aerial combat not including naval power.

In terms of true military power it would be (not including atomic weapons)
1. USSR - by far the largest army in the world, most tanks, most aircraft by far
2. United States - second largest land army in the world, brillaint air and ground force intergration
3. British Empire - In 1946 they still had access to the largest man power pool of any of the great powers. Also the number of aircraft and tanks provided by the USA made them a force to be reckoned with.
4. Canada - I remember reading that at the end of WW2 the Canadians had the 4th largest army in the world
5. China - They would come about here if in 1946 you could consider them a country considering the civil war at the time. Plenty of man power, mostly useless equipment and training though.
6. Australia - In 1946 the RAAF was the 4th largest airforce in the world and could mop the floor with most of the countries in the world at the time. Also combat hardened troops who saw action in North Afria and the South Pacific would be of a great advantage.

I am not including the Japanese, French and Germans as they were defeated nations with not a great deal of military power in 1946. If we think in terms their armies at the time of their surrender the Germans and Japanese could easily be 4th maybe even 3rd.
The rest is more or less just a hodgepodge of smaller nations mainly controlled by the European powers.

So most other countries were dead, or just wannabes.

At the very end of WW2 I would say so, people mention the free French forces but they were still in shambles trying to repair what remained of their nation. Not to mention the mass demobilzation of forces after VE Day. It would of been hard if not impossible for the French to equip and feed an army of 1.2 million by their own accord, their country was in ruins and French agriculture was still labouring just to feed the civilian populace. Add to that the fact that the French were practically bankrupt and were in no position to fund a war either.

French forces fighting in Indo China in the late 1940’s and 50’s were a perfect example and they got their asses handed to them. Also the long suffering French public had more than their fill of wars and would not of been in any mood to fight in any protracted conflict, all these things have to be factored in when assessing the strength of army, an army is only as strong as the will of the general public to fight the war.

The likes of Canadians could of mopped the floor with the French in late 1945, even Australia could of with its massive airforce, you wouldnt of been able to walk a mile as a French soldier without feeling the might of Australian airpower, while the French airforce was in ruins so Australian aircraft would have total air superiority.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Moreover, its also the quality of the troops, leadership and political control/structure.  I wouldn’t blame the French for what occured in Indochina, the americans didn’t fare much better.  That being said, the french couldn’t win a war in the 50s/60s when it was a stone throw away, algeria.  You would have thought the French after being occupied by the Germans for a few years would have a bit more sympathy for the people they oppressed.  Algeria and the subsequent military coup by French officers that lead to the collapse of the Fourth Republic.

Vietnam could have gone much differently.  Ho Chi Minh initially loved and was friend of the US during WW II.  After the war Ho thought freedom for his country would be kinda nice, the French figured it was back to the good ole days of colonial rule.  Can you imagine after WW II the French figured they had the right to occupy another nation, lesson lost on them I guess.  In fact, Ho based their 'declarition of independence on the US version.  Ho was actually given 2 american made colt firearms by a macarthur perhaps?  Maybe not him but some important US general, I shall have to google it!

Had the French been told that NO, Vietnam will no be your slave nation, in fact, we will help it to become a democracy.  If only there was a marshall plan for the far east after WW II.  I wonder what kind of rate of return you would have gotten for some investment in Vietnam in the late 40s and 50s in the form of nation building?

[Dylan the Canadian]

What about countries like Turkey, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Thailand.

[calvinhobbesliker]

Well, India had the largest volunteer army in World War 2, and they continued to work with the British to quell Hindu-Muslim violence until independence in Augus 1947. All British and American military equipment and personnel were removed by mid-1948

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Actually, many of the trucks were produced in Canada.  Trucks were probably the largest single unit contribution of Canada.  I think I read that Canada produced more trucks than the USSR and the Axis combined.  Though, nobody could compete with the French and their production of white flags.

But yeah, around 1945 the US had 50% of the worlds GDP and I think supplied 70% of the worlds oil.  Strange how quickly things can change.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

One reason the US had no domestic design of their own for internal production was as a result of limited government and free-acting capitalism.  Or put another way, all the aircraft companies were sueing each other to the point nobody could build a plane because of too many cross-licensing issues.

What they ended up building was a British designed plane the DH-4, the americans ended up building over 3 times (4,800) as many as the Brits.

While the US did fly the great French Spad S.XIII, they purchased a grand total of 893.  While again a great plane, the numbers were nowhere near ‘most’.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airco_DH.4

Nearly 100 years is a long way back to have to retrieve glory.  I have 3 words…. Plains of Abraham.

[Lazarus]

From another Wiki article:

“The US army and navy air services were hopelessly behind, even in 1917, when the United States entered the war, they were to be almost totally dependent on the French and British aircraft industries for combat aircraft”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_in_World_War_I

The point is that during WW1 The US was reliant on French (and to a lesser extent British) equipment, vehicles, artillery, tanks ect.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Relient is not a synonym for majority, moreover I was talking about aircraft in specific.  Now you show me a chart that documents numbers of aircraft flown by the US airforce and country of origin that shows 1/2 of the planes flown were made in France and I will then agree that a majority of planes flown by the americans were of French origins.

Now, for the AEF.  The US declared war April 6, 1917.  Exactly how long do you think it would take to ship heavy weapons from continental USA to a state of battle readiness on the front lines.  It took 6 months to build up for desert storm with modern logistics and heavylift jet transports and the US was not fielding an army of a million men like they did in WW I.

So yes, american men could get to the front quick, and for them to be of use, they needed local weapons at first.  I am sure they supplied the majority of certain weapons classes such as tanks for which the French were technologically ahead.  But I think if you looked at the ‘IPC’ value of the supplied, it was nowhere near the ‘majority’ of materials.  Moreover, the allies requested ‘MEN’, fresh meat.  By this time there were lots of heavy weapons in the field for the allies, they just needed more men for the meat grinder.  So, when the request is for men, don’t hold it against the party for fulfilling the request.  :-)

[Lazarus]

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Relient is not a synonym for majority, moreover I was talking about aircraft in specific.  Now you show me a chart that documents numbers of aircraft flown by the US airforce and country of origin that shows 1/2 of the planes flown were made in France and I will then agree that a majority of planes flown by the americans were of French origins.

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Air_Service

Statement:“The 740 airplanes[24] equipping the AEF on November 11, 1918, were approximately 10% of the total aircraft strength of the Allied forces”

Footnote 24 :
Cooke (1996), p. 198. Quoting Mitchell, there were 196 American-made, 16 British-made, and 528 French-made aircraft

[ABWorsham4]

@Lazarus:

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Though, nobody could compete with the French and their production of white flags.

Would that be the same French who supplied most of the aircraft and equipment of the AEF in WW1?

Everyone is so quick to stamp and label coward and surrender to France and anyone who is french. Do we forget Napoleon and France’s role in WWI?

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Fair enough, majority of planes in the AEF.  The 740 planes in the AEF represented less than 10% of the US total fleet of planes numbering 7,900.  Again, the allies told the americans to bring men we will supply the heavy equipment.

Yes, the French had past glories, so did the greeks and romans.  Recent history brings us the algerian war in the 50s and vietnam.  In any event, the French have a more impressive history then Canada so there’s a bone for ya!

[Imperious Leader]

Stay on topic…  “strength of each army, after WW2”

not WW1 air forces and plane specs…

[Dylan the Canadian]

Well if you look at wars after World War II you see this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War Look at the strength part. Turkey and the Philippines.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Strength part?  I saw a list of casualities for each country, I am not sure what your point is in any event.  Are you saying those countries were strong or weak?

[Dylan the Canadian]

Under Commanders.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@Dylan:

Under Commanders.

But that’s not their total strength; just what was used in the war

[Dylan the Canadian]

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Dylan:

Under Commanders.

But that’s not their total strength; just what was used in the war

Still Turkey, why would they care, they most likely were strong enough, like look at it today.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/ This is today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present) this is todays war.

US 1 and 1
UK 2 and 5 (China, Russia, India did not fight)
Germany Very Close
France Very Close
Italy Most of the other countries between there did not fight
Canada Most of the countries between there did not fight
The list keeps on going.

So therefore I think they the strength in war gives you a rough estimate.