Besides anyone with knowledge knows that Kam. Pilots were all volunteers and only existed out of desperation.
Strength of each army, after WW2
-
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 -
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?
-
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!
-
Stay on topic… “strength of each army, after WW2”
not WW1 air forces and plane specs…
-
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.
-
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?
-
Under Commanders.
-
@Dylan:
Under Commanders.
But that’s not their total strength; just what was used in the war
-
@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.
-
If you are suggesting that based on the contributions of countries in any particular war or campaign you can draw conclusions on the overall size of their military? That seems unlikely doesn’t it? Canada sent no men to fight in Vietnam so therefore Canada had no army then? Iraq had 5-6 times as many men under arms during the second gulfwar therefore they were 5-6 times the strength of the US armed forces?
-
As for http://www.globalfirepower.com/ and their ranking. Obviously, they must leave out nukes. I don’t see Turkey doing well against Israel after Israel hits them with dozens after dozens of nuclear strikes. Russia has 10s of 1000s of nukes while China has 10s of well 10s yet China outranks them? Even on GDP, GDP alone is not a good indicator, its surplus GDP to the populations basic needs. North Korea has the second largest land army in the world yet is ranked #20 and also has nukes where Brazil is #8 with no nukes and a smaller military? Japan has the worlds second largest official military budget and I believe the worlds #2 economy and has a vastly more powerful navy than China yet is ranked behind Brazil?
-
As for http://www.globalfirepower.com/ and their ranking. Obviously, they must leave out nukes. I don’t see Turkey doing well against Israel after Israel hits them with dozens after dozens of nuclear strikes. Russia has 10s of 1000s of nukes while China has 10s of well 10s yet China outranks them? Even on GDP, GDP alone is not a good indicator, its surplus GDP to the populations basic needs. North Korea has the second largest land army in the world yet is ranked #20 and also has nukes where Brazil is #8 with no nukes and a smaller military? Japan has the worlds second largest official military budget and I believe the worlds #2 economy and has a vastly more powerful navy than China yet is ranked behind Brazil?
Japan? Japan oficially doesn’t have a military. They have a “defense force.”
-
I’m pretty sure Japan officially has a military. Yes, it is called a self-defense force and restrictions in the consitition have until recently prevented it from deploying overseas. But their ‘defense’ force has ‘defense’ ships I guess defending the Indian ocean while refueling US warships.
I was wrong however in that Japan is ranked 7th in military expenditures. It’s interesting to see that the US spends more than the next 20 on the list combined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
-
I’m pretty sure Japan officially has a military. Yes, it is called a self-defense force and restrictions in the consitition have until recently prevented it from deploying overseas. But their ‘defense’ force has ‘defense’ ships I guess defending the Indian ocean while refueling US warships.
I was wrong however in that Japan is ranked 7th in military expenditures. It’s interesting to see that the US spends more than the next 20 on the list combined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
I though the US spends more than the rest of the world combined. Wonder where that came from.
Anyway, when we see that we spend more on military than the next 20, it’s hard to see why people advocate cutting social services to save money.
-
The two statements are not mutually exclusive. If the US spends as much as the rest of the world, they certainly spend at least as much as the next 20 which is probably the majority of the worlds expenses. I would not be suprised if they did, I guess it depends on how the accounting is done. Cia military expenses included? Department of energy which oversees the nuclear bomb inventory and research? 661 for the US alone compared to 1531 for the entire world including the US is pretty close to half already, a bit of accounting would easily see 50%.
-
As for http://www.globalfirepower.com/ and their ranking. Obviously, they must leave out nukes. I don’t see Turkey doing well against Israel after Israel hits them with dozens after dozens of nuclear strikes. Russia has 10s of 1000s of nukes while China has 10s of well 10s yet China outranks them? Even on GDP, GDP alone is not a good indicator, its surplus GDP to the populations basic needs. North Korea has the second largest land army in the world yet is ranked #20 and also has nukes where Brazil is #8 with no nukes and a smaller military? Japan has the worlds second largest official military budget and I believe the worlds #2 economy and has a vastly more powerful navy than China yet is ranked behind Brazil?
Nukes, do not, count, but Israel never did confirm or deny nukes.
-
@Dylan:
As for http://www.globalfirepower.com/ and their ranking. Obviously, they must leave out nukes. I don’t see Turkey doing well against Israel after Israel hits them with dozens after dozens of nuclear strikes. Russia has 10s of 1000s of nukes while China has 10s of well 10s yet China outranks them? Even on GDP, GDP alone is not a good indicator, its surplus GDP to the populations basic needs. North Korea has the second largest land army in the world yet is ranked #20 and also has nukes where Brazil is #8 with no nukes and a smaller military? Japan has the worlds second largest official military budget and I believe the worlds #2 economy and has a vastly more powerful navy than China yet is ranked behind Brazil?
Nukes, do not, count, but Israel never did confirm or deny nukes.
We pretty much know they have them. they don’t confirm as they’d be seen as wanting proliferation, but denying it would invite its enemies to attack
-
That Chinese CV is really a joke. Its a very old Soviet era carrier that was mothballed and sold to China for scrap with a story of making a gambling casino… they tricked the Russians and repainted it.
Other than that its a carrier in name only like the old Japanese carrier Hosho.
-
Speaking of that site, apparently the US has no tanks.
-
Speaking of that site, apparently the US has no tanks.
Maybe they don’t have tanks.
Suggested Topics
