Talk:List of countries by level of military equipment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wrong Title

This article is not listed by level of millitary equiptment! It is listed alphabetically! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemappelleungarcon (talk • contribs) 12:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Totally Skewed Data

There are so many incorrect statistics here. For example the UK has more than 0 submarines. The sources are obviously incorrect and need correcting or this topic shouldn't exist at all as speculation and incorrect statistics help nobody.--80.42.101.188 (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right that a lot of the numbers are incorrect; however the UK submarine figures are accurate. Nuclear-powered and conventionally-powered submarines are shown in adjacent columns. Thom2002 (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It depends how you count it. Canada's upholder diesel submarines from the UK are hardly ever working, and so 1 is actually correct, I dont believe more than one has been deployed at once (due to unavailability)Ottawakismet (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it can't be correct that Mexico has 5 aircraft carriers and 800 (!!) Cruisers. That's far more cruisers than the U.S. has, and that simply can't be correct. Isn't there a Jaynes listing of this available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.132.74.4 (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This table is a bad joke. The United States with 520 carriers/LPHs. No way!!!! Either police this article or delete it. As it is it is a waste of space.Федоров (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Right before you read the article and placed your message here this vandal had just totally trashed the article, his edits have been removed. Nohomers48 (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Require Administration

This is the most vandalized pages. Everyone who comes and goes changes the data according to their wish. There is no control over the article and data is inaccurate from the time I left. Requires some mechanism to correct the data. Seem to me that Wikipedia is failing. It is becoming a source for expressing one's opinion like a blog rather than sticking to accuracy.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sweden has wrong numbers showing up

Please edit - it's showing Sweden with 2.2 MIL troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.127.197 (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Table

Its a good table, but its missing four items which are very important to comparable military strength. Numbers of combat Aircraft, Submarines, Nuclear/Ballisitc forces and Aircraft Carriers. Im not an expert in these fields so ill try to see what I can come up with. --Mazzarin 17:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I think perhaps that this is a good idea, Mazzarin, or whoever is reading, but what's on the page right now needs to be fixed, badly. The current numbers of aircraft carriers, etc, I am almost sure are not true, as I have personally seen aircraft carriers from countries listed with "0 AC" on this list. Someone with the time and knowledge should fix this, or remove the section until it can be verified/researched. -- Lordhatrus 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser says france has 1 cruiser, then table says 0 / who's right ?

Since, the cruiser was in service since 1964 it is used only for instructional purposes, but can be commisined in case of emergancy. it is similar to the battleships of the United States. That is why it is not inculded.

Having checked the UK figures against that of the Royal Navy website i can conclude these figures are very inaccurate for at least the nuclear submarine and aircraft carrier figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.167.104 (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I'm new, I don't know the command to suggest a merge, but this article should definately be merged with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops in some way. Or at least linked to it. There should also be some sorting options. The media always uses rankings such as the commonly repeated line "at the time of the gulf war Iraq had the world's 4th largest land army", but sometimes they say 3rd. Obviously the size of a land army is much different than the size of the total armed forces, particularly if you're counting officers and non-combat personell. The U.S. military may be 1.5 million strong, but the U.S. army is not even a third that size. There should be different lists sorted by size of land army (number of boots on the ground), navies (sorted by number and classes of ships) and over-all active duty militaries. As well as spending, % GDP military spending and reserve numbers taken into account in some way.

Time to create new articles on Naval estimates or List of countries by size of naval forces and List of countries by size of army. Which includes the active as well as reserve numbers in the naval service and more broad based ships classification like Aircraft carriers to LHD, LPD, and Minewarfare. Similarly the army version must include active army troops, reserve army troops, the tanks, IFV, APC, artillery, MBRL, army attack utility helicopters etc. Opinion on this. Chanakyathegreat 07:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Similarly an article can be made for the airforce with Fighter aircraft, bombers, attack helicopters, utility helicopters, UAV, etc. Chanakyathegreat 07:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

this is how this page needs to be done.

This is how this page should be organized with a proper break down.

Also, we need to create sub-pages where each country is sorted by the size of each individual service. Such as countries with the largest armies, etc.

Rank		Nation	Army	Navy	Air Force	Marines	Paramilitary Forces	Other	TOTAL	Armed Forces per thousand citizens
3		United States	500,203	375,521	358,612	176,202	National Guard #	40,151 (US Coast Guard)	1,427,000	4.79
7		Pakistan	620,000	27,000	65,000	0	288,000	0	1,000,000	6.23

The above is not my work

Some type of field for Special Forces, Delta Force and the SAS for example. - Scuzzmonkey 23:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck getting statistics on Delta. They doesn't exist as far as DoD is concerned. 152.23.195.214 20:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Fighter Aircraft column behaves strangely in IE6. It does not order the rows properly and adds header rows each time the sort button is clicked.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 14:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"behaves strangely in IE6" theirs your problem! Get Firefox, it uses web standards.--Conor Fallon (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ordering

We really ought to order this list by military spending, as, for instance the US is undisputed as the world's strongest military, and this is reflected in having superior technology, not an advantage in numbers. {{User:Vacuum/sig}} 02:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is open to dispute, how do you define strongest, for example, many regard the UK's Armed Forces as the most superior force, and would only lose in a war situation to America due to the US' increased numbers, which kinda disregards your above point. Scuzzmonkey 23:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't matter how many troops a country has. What matters is how well trained, equipped, and otherwise prepared for war those troops are. However, this article is 'List of countries by size of armed forces', so that is how this article must be organized. I, personally, think we should merge this article with other similar pages and reform them to be more representative of the fighting capability of the various countries. - User:I_Am_Canadian529 23:18, 13 February 2006

sources may not be accurate

the source for the list is the Indian MOD these numbers should be checked against more sources like CIA factbook etc. what a given govt may exlude /include here might be make some difference.

I agree number of tanks in a Army doesnt account in a bigger picture, but here is my take. a)Tool is as gud as its user so an AK-47 in the hands of a seasoned soldier might be more affective than a SIG 552. and combat is not 1 on 1 game so in a conventional conflict huge number with discipline and determination can take on a more _technically_ advanced enemy.

b)Normally when you measure this number in a conflict the sides are almost equally balanced lets say India and Pakistan to maintain deterrence at all levels. in a battle both ought to have the same level of technology and training. SO when you see number of tanks for India you wont measure it against US you will measure it against Pakistan. Other comparison would be Israel<->syria egypt basically countries who have fought a conventional war.

Your point is taken but I still think it is a silly metric. Two forces do NOT need to be (and rarely are) equally matched in war and that is the basis of my argument. Yes, Pakistan and India may have similar technology...but do Iraq and the US. Hell no! Your example of an AK-47 and a Sig552 does not fully equate (classic strawman argument there btw) as both have the equal ability to send a projectile downrange at a high rate of fire and when operated by a skilled individual can kill with similar effectiveness. I don't care how determined a chinese soldier in a 1960's T72 tank is, he will get himself blown away by an A1 Abrams in almost every case, An American Cruiser is far superior to an outdated unit that N.Korea may employ in battle, etc. And finally, the nature of a war, be it convential or nuclear, does not mean that one force does not have a significant technological advantage. Israel, to use your example, is far more capable than Syria on a per soldier basis. J Shultz 00:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the points of J Shultz, yet I do think a better source than the Indian MOD could be found. Something like Jane's Information Group perhaps? Even though the CIA factbook, etc. are of great reputation, they are still associated with a particular government and thus might appear to have a partisan taint to any possible detractors. It is best to try and find "impartial" sources, or compare the information of many governments. As to comparing all the little details and going into tactics here, I don't feel that is necessary for the purpose of this list. We can all come up with our own examples of technology vs. pure size, etc. Like how in WWII American tanks were no match next to the German Panzers 1-on-1 but effective in groups, or how in Korea our troops could keep our machine guns blazing but wave after wave of their troops would keep on advancing. So while I agree on the one hand with everyone's points on both sides, we are in the end, all just generalizing the complexities of war and all the possible variables therein. This should be a list of all the branches of each nation's armed forces and its reserves and leave it at that. Any other issues can be linked to its relevant page. This list is of the size, not the power of each nation's forces after all. Khirad 16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Size and Technology have no bearing on the outcome of a war-see Vietnam

I have to dispute the claim that "many claim that UK has a superior armed forces than the USA". Nobody in USA thinks that. I could say "many more think that's delusions of grandeur". Leirbagpeter (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete

Is there a way to delete this page? The information is all wrong and no one is updating it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MasterRegal (talk • contribs) .

Possible vandalism

Has someone vandalised the page? The values for Canada seem to be a bit unbelievable. eg No active troops? Their entire blue water navy consists of a single frigate? --TeWaitere 02:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is now semi protected. It was linked from Digg, which may have brought some minor vandalism. -- ReyBrujo 03:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Canadian Army has at least 66 Leopard C2 tanks. The navy also has 3 destroyers, 12 frigates, and 4 submarines. This information can be verified on the Canadian army and navy websites, so I also think this page may have been vandalised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.105.14.75 (talk • contribs) .

Different Numbers in IE vs FireFox?

When I view the page in Firefox 1.5.0.7 it says USA has 10,426 active troops in thousands. When I view the page in Internet Explorer 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp.05622-1524 it says 1,426 active troops in thousands.

Most likely vandalism, try clearing your cache on Firefox Nil Einne 11:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was here [1] see? Nil Einne 11:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

List the EU

Seeing as in most classing systems that rank countries (by for example, GDP), the EU is listed with the caveat that it is a Union of nations and not a nation state, should it not be listed here in that format as well? This would be a welcome addition at the moment to give an overview of armed forces in Western europe, and would also be pertinent as the European Defence force contracts are brought online over the next few years.

From what I'm aware the EU has no standing military, but rather depends on the militarys of the constituent states. It also does not have the power to, say, Federalize the troops of its member states. So, feel free to list the EU's military, but make sure to get it right: Zero Troops and a Zero Euro budget. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.36.172 (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when did this make any difference to those who want the EU listed? Symbolism over substance is the motto. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is the EU, why don't we add NATO too ? After all, it's a list of countries by size of armed forces, organizations don't count - simply not appropriate. I think of removing the EU - if anyone has objections, I'll hear them. - Tourbillon ^A ? 12:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Put EU back in the list, it's interesting and thats all that matters. People know it's not 1 country. And dont deny that it is a relevant listing. Just look at the world right now, Russia is threatening Poland, an EU member. Do expect the EU armies to act in unity if anything god forbid should happen. Your argument is that EU is an organization like NATO, thats not true. EU countries are much closer knit and are more comparable to the United States. :: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.233.166 (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The EU is not a military organization, neither it's a state. It's a "List of countries by size of armed forces", therefore organizations should NOT be included. NATO is not adequate for the list either, because many of it's members simply do not have anything in common. IF the EU was a country, it would have a place - but it's not. It's not even a federation-like system, because all of it's members are independant states with their own capitals. If anyone is interested in the total size of European militaries, I'll add the Military of the European Union article link in the "See also" section. If we should add it, people will ask themselves - why isn't there the African Union, the SCO and so on ? Which means we'll have to add every organization on the world available. - Tourbillon ^A ? 13:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "being a country", which is anyway a subjective notion (e.g. to Iran, Israel is not a country). It's a matter of common sense. Back in the days of communism in Eastern Europe, the USSR was not a country, and yet all of the military statistics was given globally as that of one entity. Definitely the EU should be listed as one block because it is very relevant to the world as we know it today, and more importantly because the European armies closely cooperate not just as partners, but as members of one sole larger entity. For example, there exist army brigades composed of French and German soldiers (the troops are bilingual). And similarly with France/Italy, France/Belgium, Belgium/Netherlands, Germany/Denmark, etc... Whether some people like it or not, the EU is a major military force (far superior indeed to the US in mere statistics). It must be put back in the table. And the whole table should be fixed anyway. As is, it's completely incoherent (e.g. the US is awarded #2 while its rank per the numbers listed in the table itself should be #3) and inconsistent with other statistics found in the literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.12.119 (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely list the EU. I bet when you add up the numbers for all those little countries, the totals will be bigger than those for the USA, and that's the whole point, right?JGC1010 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

EU by EDA HAS its own army which is based on the armies of the members.The treaties link all this members.The are under the EDA control so under EU control.EU army exist.check the official site of EU and EDA.Than you can answer.EU should be set there like has been asked before.This is the realty. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindobona (talk • contribs) 12:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The EU is NOT a country and doesn't operate as a single military force at all ... if any group is to be listed it should be the NATO numbers wich include the USA and Canada as well as the "sole" and "only" european pan-national military entity present inside the EU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotavento (talk • contribs) 23:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Air Power?

Surely Air power (as in Air Force power) counts for much in modern defence forces. Troops and boats are one thing, but helicopters, strike planes and bombers are important too. If someone can figureout how to format the table to include these extras, I'd be happy to work at filling in the numbers (w/ sources) --Richardb20 11:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

They should have a stealth fighter/vexs list too since they do show the might of one country air power. - Okita Soshi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okita Soshi (talk • contribs) 01:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

some questions

• how is the countries sorted?Nielswik_(talk) 17:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• why does this article report very little number of Aircraft carrier, but we can se a long list of aircraft carrier here? Nielswik_(talk) 17:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• there is not much references in this article?Nielswik_(talk) 17:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --Nielswik_(talk) 17:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The countries are sorted by the number of ACTIVE troops then by the number of RESERVE force. The aircraft carrier is listed by numbers in ACTIVE service, but right now, much ofthose numbers are wrong. There are lots of references but only the number of troops. --MasterRegal 22:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There are more aircraft carriers there because you're looking at "total" when it's "in service" that shows the actual numbers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.218.41 (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

India list

Tanks:4777 (min) [2] +5 Arjun tanks = 4781. 4781+63 Arjun tanks to be delivered to the army[3].

Chanakyathegreat 10:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

4777 + 5 = 4782 :P. --WikiSlasher 09:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

4782+23=4805~4800 Chanakyathegreat 03:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

US Navy Aircraft Carriers

The page lists the US as having 10 aircraft carriers. This is incorrect, the US effectively has 24 -- 13 fleet carriers and 11 amphib assault/light carriers. While there are 10 Nimitz class fleet carriers, there are also 3 other fleet carriers in service (Enterprise, John F. Kennedy and Kitty Hawk). In addition, the USN also operates 11 "amphibious assault ships": 7 Wasp class (23 helicopters, 6 vtol aircraft), 4 Tarawa class (23 helicopters, 6 vtol aircraft). One could easily classify these 11 ships as "light carriers" as they are twice as large as the UK's carriers (40kt for the Wasp and Tarawa class vs 20kt for the Invincible class) if a bit thin on the air arm. While the roles of the Wasp and Tarawa classes are somewhat different, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

--Rsmah 19:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent point - though the numbers have changed a bit since 2006.

The key is consistency. The United States has 11 active fleet carriers - 10 Nimitz class, 1 Enterprise class, all over 90K tons. It has 9 active amphibious assault ships, all around 40K tons. Yet even these amphibs are larger and more capable than most of the "carriers" listed for other nations. Perhaps what is needed is two separate categories, one for fleet carriers, and one for amphibious assault/light carriers. Otherwise, what is being presented is not consistent, and apples are being compared to oranges. --Iguana1564 1:45, 18 May 2009

If we are counting LPHs in the list (as included in the title of the coloumn), then HMS Ocean should definitely be included in the Royal navy (UK) list, as it is actually slightly larger than the Invincible class carriers. Perhaps also a separate coloumn for LPDs is required aswell as LPHs, and maybe even one for the total number of ships/total displacement tonnage of each navy. Jhbuk (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Needs work

Okay, this article needs a lot of work. I see someone is trying to merge two articles, while I think it's a good idea, it needs to be reformatted. I don't have time to do this though.

This is what I suggest.

Format the chart as Ground Forces, Air Force and Naval Force.

Ground Force will entail Active Force, Reserve Force and Tanks. Paramilitary will not be included because of its inaccuracy and lack of definition. Air Force will entail Fighters, Attack, and Bombers. Naval Force will entail Destroyers, Frigate, and Cruises. Carriers will not be included because very few countries have them.

An addition column, Defense Budget will go at the beginning if needed.

Destroyers and Frigates

Certain ships are of very low tonnage but is considered as Destroyers even though they be called as frigate. Is there any rules that can be adopted for uniformity.

Chanakyathegreat 13:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

None exists.

Chanakyathegreat 13:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Formatting hint

If you want your numbers to line up, why not try style="align:right;" instead of padding all your numbers with leading zeros? -- The Anome 23:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorting

I'm going to get rid of the "wikitable sortable" magic style from this table, since it doesn't seem to sort correctly using that style. This looks like a bug in either Firefox or http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/sorttable.js related to number handling.

If you really, really, want this behavior back, please consider filing a bug report on Mediazilla, rather than simply adding padding leading zeroes to entries and making it look like a hex dump. -- The Anome 23:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the leading zeroes again, and also the hyphens in empty cells, which appear to have confused the routine in the auto-sort javascript code devoted to detecting columns full of numbers. The good news is that it now generally auto-sorts in correct numerical order for smallest-first sorts, but unfortunately it still sorts in lexical order in the other direction, for largest-first sorts.

File a bug about auto-sorting tables if you want this fixed, or just don't use "wikitable sortable". Padding numbers with zeroes just looks bad. -- The Anome 20:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I know this has been mentioned before, but I just want to reinforce it. Who added those extra zeroes, because it looks really bad and isn't at all helpful. Makaar 22:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I added that zeros, without which it is not possible to get correct sorting. If there are three values let us consider 999, 22, and 9. The sorting without zeros will give the result in the order 999, 9, 22. With zeroes it will be 999, 022, 009. The correct sorting. The sorting code need to be changed to sort without zeros. Until that this will continue.

Chanakyathegreat 03:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently seems to sort fine without zeros (200 goes after 0200)... Not exactly. Not always. For fighters, sometimes it sorts right, sometimes not. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing countries

Some countries seem to be missing from this table. Well, actually, quite a lot of countries seem to be. Where, for example, is Switzerland? 217.162.177.226 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You can add countries that are missing from the list according to the number of active troops into the list and rearrange the rank accordingly. Chanakyathegreat 14:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • • • : Someone has vandalized the page and put "corvettes" up there

a corvette is a ship that' smaller than a frigate, it belongs there....68.190.218.41 (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Croatia

the aircraft carriers here is clearly a mistake, but i dont know what it should be. the ~ symbol doesnt apear to mean anything and clearly Croatia doesn't have 400 aircraft carriers! Bensonby 13:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Germany ?

Was the Germany section vandalised ? Everything is 1488 and I doubt it has a bigger Defense Budget than USA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.163.209.235 (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Second that User:eric6189 03:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, i know germany has a high military budget, I wouldn't go as far as saying it's bigger then america, but i do know that germany is a huge weapon producer Heckler & Koch 71.111.129.134 04:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Parker

H&K is a private company. How many weapons they prodcue has no bearing on German military strength or their budget. Besides, all their weapons combined for a year wouldn't equal the cost of a pair of F-18's. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The figures of Germany are wrong. The Bundeswehr consists of 250,000 soldiers. I also cannot imagine that the other figures are absolutely correct.

That had definitely been vandalism. FYI: "1488" is a code used in the Neo-Nazi movement and stands for the Fourteen Words and the eight letter of the alphabet, meaning HH - "Heil Hitler". Someone thought it to be an "appropriate" joke to add this specifically to the Ggerman section. In general, whenever you see that number, it's most likely vandalism, not only referring to this article. Vargher (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism and Inaccurate Data

Perhaps a notice of vandalism and inaccurate data would be appropriate on the page itself, as there is certainly inaccuracy and vandalism within the article. I am not a Wikipedia expert but maybe soeone can do that. User:eric6189 03:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

US sub count

I know the us has subs so why dose it say we do not? (Ke5crz 23:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

Perhaps all thier subs are nuclear they have 72 NS144.82.192.102 12:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all their submarines are nuclear since a long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.68.48 (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the U.S has nuclear subs.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The US has 5 non-nuclear subs, but they are not combat vessels with the exception of the Seal Delivery Vehicle. They're either training or rescue subs.Niteshift36 (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

ITALY

Italy has just updated its army (losing some defense budget) and has one of the most powerful Navies of the world. Carabinieri was not included in the count which counts as a military force. Italy has around 300 planes not 200. Italy is also known for its prized helicopters, the list should add that to every country (helicopters).

You need to cite sources before making claims like this.—DMCer™ 09:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

in the List of countries by military expenditures Italy has two sources stating a military budget of 40 billion dollars; why in this article has Italy only 22 ??--79.44.117.21 (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Countries missing

Many countries are missing from the list, in particular Serbia, Cyprus, FYROM, and Slovenia. If anyone can find information about them and add it to the list that would be great --Stavros15 17:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

for the army of kuwait, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Kuwait (follow the links). Except for the reserve and paramiltary forces, all the navy is 0 for the surface ships listed in the chart.

              active troops                 budget      Tanks   Figthers
   kuwait:   54,500                  3 billion      200     39

Factual Accuracy?

well, this seems a bit of a crap article in terms of accuracy...

just to take a single example:

the article claims Israel has 600 fighters and that the UK has 480 fighters. well, i know i have not included each others respective navy but their air forces according to the inventory lists on wikipedia the RAF has 399 fighters in service at the moment(Tornados, Harries and Eurofighter)and Isreal has 320 fighters (F-16s and F-15s). i am not including training aircraft which i suppose could be counted as fighters but i am only considering proper frontline fighters.

this is just one example, i'm sure the rest of the article is just as bad. according to the british army the UK only has 386 Challenger 2 MBTs, according to this article the UK has over 500.... Pratj 18:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Challenger 2 tanks are not the only type of tank the UK has... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.76.24 (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

Georgia is listed twice. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Added by mistake. Removed. Request help in completing the list using [4]. Chanakyathegreat 16:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I just put the title after every 20 countries to make it easier to read.

By the way, last time i checked, Greece was just above Israel, so who ever edited it stuffed up the rankings:

28. United Kingdom ** 28. Israel * 29. Ethiopia 30. Iraq 31. Spain 32. Greece 34. Poland --Waterfall999 10:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I also fixed up the ranks so now there are 101 countries (because before the rank was 70, 71-72 (Bulgaria), 71-72(Croatia), 72) I corrected it so now it goes 70,\1, 73.--Waterfall999 10:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I also fixed up the ranks so now there are 101 countries (because before the rank was 70, 71-72 (Bulgaria), 71-72(Croatia), 72) I corrected it so now it goes 70, =71, =71, 73.--Waterfall999 10:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do anything that disturb the sorting. Chanakyathegreat 12:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Tanks in Europe

the Germans have more than 4 times as many tanks than France? And Poland has even more?

I think someone counted APC's as well. Germany has only about 1000 tanks, and polans about 800 87.207.175.246 21:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

ALSO THE UK DOES NOT HAVE 1175 TANKS, THEY ONLY POSSES 377 MBTS, ARE THEY COUNTING LIGHT TANKS AS WELL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.131.9.193 (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

UK CARRIERS

THE UK IS LISTED AS HAVING ONLY TWO CARRIERS, ACTUALLY THEY HAVE 3/4 TWO ACTIVE CARRIERS, ONE OCEAN CLASS HELECOPTER CARRIER AND ONE CARRIER IN READY RESERVE AND STILL VERY MUCH APART OF THE FLEET UNTILE 2010.

China's military budget

I'm not sure but I think China is covering its actual defense budget/military expenditure value (in billions). Therefore, in general, the $44.94 billion (USD) is probably a cover-up.

--That's certainly the official word of the US defense department Joel2017 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.157.64 (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Battleships?

What about battleships? those big ships with 120mm guns?

120mm is a tank gun; in battleship terms it's not even a peashooter. But magnificent though they are, big-gun battleships are pretty much irrelevant in modern naval warfare. 87.194.60.87 13:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Most battleship been decomission moslty by some country so I don't believe we should have them listed in here. I do believe battleship use about a 460mm cannon? -Okita Soshi

I guess the modern naval warfare relies heavily on aircraft carriers, as battleships are getting really outdated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.57.179 (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No navy is currently using battleships. Guns on American and British battleships are refered to in inches. For example, the last US Battleship, the Missouri, had 16 inch guns and the Prince of Wales (which helped sink the Bismark) had 14 inch guns.Niteshift36 (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably fair to say that most modern naval warfare doctrine is based on surface-to-surface missiles - carriers are generally more important in the combined arms role than in surface to surface combat (The nature of carrier doctrine is that they generally steam with a carrier group, which provides them with a defensive screen in the event of surface conflict). In the post WW2 era, battleships have generally been limited to use for shore bombardment, rather than purely naval engagements. If memory serves correctly, the biggest guns that saw action were the 460mm (18 inch) cannon installed on the Japanese Yamato_class_battleship 87.194.60.87 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Greece?

About a month ago, Greece was listed as having 419 fighter aircraft, but someone has changed it to 305. Which is correct?--Waterfall999 11:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If neither can be verified, a definitive statement on the number of aircraft should be removed altogether. -- Rei 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

article problems

the article is an important list but has some problems with factual accuracy. 01:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Iran will be recieving 250 fighter planes from Russia as well recntly Iran built their own destroyer bring the destroyer fleet to 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmony5 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

this is just a simple error, and i'm sure someone else will fix it. but iran is listed as having 302 submarines and 6 nuclear submarines. the references for these are their air force and navy respectively. it seems fairly obvious from this that iran has 302 fighter aircraft and possibly 6 submarines —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njclnoble (talk • contribs) 23:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Philippine Armed Forces

K19mark 07:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC) I think Philippines has more or less 12 frigates and more than 20 patrol boats, but i see nothing,. . K19mark 07:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

More categories?

Perhaps:

- Bombers
- ICBMs
- SRBMs

It is disappointing that the table only shows fighters for aircraft - The US and Fmr. USSR have many bombers, while other countries may have impressive numbers, and it would be nice to see the figures for these. Benlisquare 07:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not just have 'Aircraft' instead of fighters. That could be both fighters, bombers and training aircraft. Izax143 (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Data

Where have you people got your data from? I've noticed that there are quite a lot of incorrect entries, for example the UK's 05/06 defense budget was never $72bn. Compared to List of countries by number of active troops, some entries are totally incorrect. I also noticed that some entries dont even have the full set of data in them. This article requires a serious clean up and some sources adding before its going to be useful. Izax143 (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I found a pretty good general source. It might not be 100% accurate, but it's better than no source. http://www.globalfirepower.com/ The only problem is that it only has information on about 40 countries.

Sbw01f 21:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Another reasonably good, but sometimes kind of limited source, is globalsecurity.org. [5] Niteshift36 (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

US Submarines

This can't be correct. It shows the US with 72 nuclear submarines and 24 "submarines". The US Navy does NOT have 24 non-nuclear subs. Counting DSRV's, training and research subs, they have 4-5 still in use according to hazegray.org. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The US has the following in service: 17 Ohio Class: All nuclear; 3 Seawolf class: All nuclear; 50 Los Angeles Class: All nuclear; 1 Sturgeon class: Nuclear; 1 modified Los Angeles Class: Nuclear; 1 modified Tang Class: Non-nuclear; 1 Dolphin Class: Non-nuclear; 1 NR-1 submersible: Nuclear; 1 Advanced Seal Delivery vehicle: Non-nuclear, still in testing.; 1 Mystic DSRV: Non-nuclear; 1 Alvin research submersible: Non-nuclear.

I do not believe we should even count the non-nuclear subs (except the Advance Seal Delivery Vehicle when it it done with trials) since they are unarmed ships used for either training or rescue purposes ONLY as part of our "warship" count. It is like counting a Cessna in with fighters. But if we insist on counting them, the number is 5 with number 6 still in trials. I can list the names and ship numbers if you want. But I will continue reverting this 12 number being put into the totals until someone posts a reliable source that shows an additional 12 non-nuclear subs. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-nuclear subs can certainly be used for combat. Many are equipped with torpedoes, missiles etc..

Grossly Exaggerated Figures

I have spent a few hours checking all the figures given and most were grossly exaggerated most likely by random editors over time adding to figures given to the country they are from. One obvious one was the number of tanks Italy has stating 3200 yet I already knew Italy didn't have 3200 tanks so I checked the real figure and found it to be 320 so it's obvious a random editor must have simply added 0 on the end. Edits like these had badly distorted the figures given. I have reverted the article back to the point where the figures given most closely match real figures given by countries' militaries. Signsolid (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

citing sources

Although this should be obvious already for any wikipedia editor, please make sure you cite your source when you make changes to stats. I've made sure that most of the top countries are correct and sourced, though a lot of the lower countries still may be inaccurate to some degree. The only possible way to improve the article at this point is by adding more verifiable sources. Just randomly changing some numbers around isn't going to help anything, as that just adds to the inaccuracy and unreliability of the article as a whole, so I'll probably revert any unexplained changes like that if I catch them and encourage others to do the same. The last thing we need is a page full of potentially made up statistics (otherwise known as original research).

Submarines with Pakistan Navy

I think there may be some confusion regarding the number of submarines Pakistan Navy currently has. As the source cited states that Pakistan Navy has currently has 10 submarines, and there isn't mentioned anywhere that this number also includes the submarines which were decommissioned. And the source is none other than Pakistan Navy's own official website. --SMS ^Talk 16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Don' be so foolish. You must not count the Pakistani government website. It's useless. The 4 Daphne class is all decommissioned in January 2006. In a recent interview to a news magazine the Pakistani Naval chief said that the Navy operates three submarines. That means the three Agosta 90B subs. All the old rusting ones are decommissioned.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide the link to news statement, you are referring to, so to end this confusion? Thanks! --SMS ^Talk 16:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone thought of emailing the Pakistan Navy and asking them? Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a good option and you can find their email at their home page(asking you to do that because you are a 3rd person), but still the source referring to their official website says that they have 10 subs currently. --SMS ^Talk 17:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You must provide sources. We can't just start inserting random numbers without anything to back them up except your own word. A government source is better than no source at all, so until you find a credible source that backs your numbers up, please leave it how it is.Sbw01f (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you count. It's 9 subs including Daphne. That's 3 Agosta-90B'S 2 Agosta-70 and 4 Daphne/Hangor class subs. Total of 9 subs. The Daphne class is decomissioned resulting in 5 subs. [6] The two Agosta-70's has crossed the 30 year limit as well.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop editing the numbers without sourcing it. This is not acceptable. Every single change you make must be backed by a verifiable source. If you know that what's currently on the page is wrong, and you have a credible source that gives the correct number, please edit the correct number in and cite the source on the page.Sbw01f (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

If there are competing claims about these numbers, editors could consider citing all sources, attributing the claims to the respective sources, without attempting to demonstrate which source is right and which source is wrong. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is not with conflicting sources. The problem is that Chanakyathegreat keeps removing the current sourced info, and replacing it with unsourced info, which for all we know could be made up. It's a very simple problem to solve. Just provide a link for your new numbers, and all is well. If you can't, stop trying to change them!Sbw01f (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced. Can't you see?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The above provided source says it all. I.E http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=91632

Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How 5? Please explain this! i think after subtracting 4 from 10 you get 6, not 5. --SMS ^Talk 08:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get it. How is it 10. It's 9 subs. I.E 3 Agosta 90B, 2 Agosta 70's and 4 Daphne class subs. 3+2+4=5+4=9 subs. It may be that X craft is also counted. It's not just one sub. There are multiple subs, These tiny subs are commando subs and not conventional submarines like Agosta etc. All countries which has marine commando units utilize such subs to infiltrate into enemy territory or sea shore. The list is of conventional submarines that fight wars. I think you must have understood the issue.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok! got it, thanks for clearing the confusion I had! --SMS ^Talk 13:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a source that should clear up this dispute once and for all.[7] It says: "In January 2006, the Pakistan Navy (PN) decommissioned all four of their Hangor-class submarines: Hangor, Shushuk, Mangro and Ghazi at the dockyard in Karachi. This decommissioning brings the total number of active duty submarines in the Pakistani Navy down to five. However, Pakistan is to receive three Agosta 90B-class boats from France during 2006."

And to support the fact that they did receive those three submarines from France, a report from August 2006: [8]"The launch marks the completion of the construction phase of this three-submarine programme. In a few weeks' time, PNS Hamza will begin quay-side testing before going on to sea trials and formal commissioning into active service."

So, noting that those articles were written nearly two years ago, the current number is with out a doubt 8.Sbw01f (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Those three are alrady counted. That's the Agosta 90B. That article is wrong in saying that there is five subs. The Pakistan Navy website has the three Agosta 90B's listed as well. Including that Pak Navy have Five subs at present. I.E 3 Agosta 90B's and 2 Agosta 70's. No other subs are listed in the Official website or anywhere in the web.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

hmm it appears that judging by their own website, and the report of the new submarines, you're correct and that article is wrong. My apologies. Sbw01f (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tanks & Armoured Personnel Carriers

Does the figure for tanks include armoured personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles? APCs and IFVs are important piece of most of today's military forces and serve a broader role than the more offensive tank; thus, it should be included in the list of military figures in some way. I think a separate column should be added. AnthroGael (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No it's only for Tanks. We cannot include this list since there is no single source of information which is uptodate. Either there exists website or sources which we can quote but all are old and contains inaccurate data. Although there is enough problem with whatever we have. If you can find a source that updates these information regularly, I will be happy to add it to the list.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Logistics apparatus

Are there any sources out there for logistics capabilities? Seems like "# of transport ships" (probably set a size minimum, consider merchant marine?) and "# of transport aircraft" would be a great addition to the table.Somedumbyankee (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

someone forgot to put MBT = main battle tanks , in the "KEY" section. I am assuming that MBT means main battle tanks. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.180.18 (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh

There's gotta be a better way to determine rank- by number of troops doesn't necessarily demonstrate the actual strength of the military.

I've clarified what the ranking is by, at least. Expenditure in terms of purchasing power parity might be a better way to rank them, and there is a list by budget. This list is, however, titled by "List of countries by size of armed forces", so... I still think the EU should include a caveat since it's not really a military alliance, but I'm obviously biased. The claim that the EU has nuclear weapons is definitely dubious. The member states do, but if José Manuel Durão Barroso ordered France to nuke someone, they'd probably just say "but I am le tired", have a nap, and politely forget the request. Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey !! You're really funny !! I love the "but I am le tired". It shows your great command of the French language and your deep understanding of grammar. Gee... And when it comes to understanding the fundamentals about the EU, it's even more afflicting. If, say, country X decided tomorrow morning to attack any EU member state, you can rest assure that France (and others in the EU) would put her nukes to work. It's part of the treaties uniting the EU countries : mutual defense and protection of the integrity of the whole territory as each one's own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.12.119 (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

S.Korean nuclear submarines

Two nuclear submarines? There's no nuclear subs in South Korea. There has been such a rumor about building nuclear subs in the future. But there was no proof and the government denied it. Having nuclear subs is theoretically impossible in South Korea under IAEA control. And it's against the current government policy about nuclear weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hancell (talk • contribs) 11:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation for number of US troops and posted number show discrepancy

As of 3:55 AM, August 1, 2008, the table shows the US having a number of 1,650 thousand troops and has a citation linking to http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/rg0708.pdf. Upon clicking the link a document (from 8/31/2007) pops up showing a "Grand Total" in the bottom right of 1,380,028. The number on the table doesn't jive with its citation. Either the citation needs to be updated or the figure in the table is simply unsupported. I'd change it right now, but I have a feeling someone put the 1,650,000 number up there for a good reason and just didn't put up the best citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonkey (talk • contribs) 11:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced comment

The following comment was put into the article:

"Bangladesh army currently has 562 tank." --Bowlhover (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This Article Needs Some Love

It is obvious this article needs work. I have fixed some markup issues and reverted several instances of vandalism in just a short time. It is apparent this page is a frequent target for vandalism and should probably be semi-protected, seeing as many of the vandals are unregistered. Much the data also needs to be cited or fixed to match the citations. I'll be watching this page from now on as it needs improvement. meinsla ^talk 04:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I propose to merge in to this article Military capabilities which covers much the same ground but is far less extensive. Actually, there is probably not much in the article that can can be salvaged as the referencing is not good and it will be just turn it into a redirect. There are some links on its talk page to what might be useful references though. It is also confusingly titled, Military capability is a different article. SpinningSpark

Sources possibly used in merged articles Military Balance and military capabilities. These need to be checked before inserting in article;

• Anthony H. Cordesman, Centre for Strategic and International Studies

• http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/bwcfcompsummary%5B1%5D.pdf Expenditure
• http://www.csis.org/images/stories/burke/bwcfarmyforces.pdf Western Army
• http://www.csis.org/images/stories/burke/bwcfairforces.pdf Western Air Force
• http://www.csis.org/images/stories/burke/bwcfnavalforces.pdf Western Navy

• Japan Defence Ministry

• http://www.clearing.mod.go.jp/hakusho_data/2008/2008/figindex.html Japanese Forces. Caution, troop numbers are in 10,000, not thousands.

SpinningSpark 08:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Indian Air Force has 10 fighters? You kidding me?

I am sure I saw more than 10 fighters in the AirShow held at Mumbai recently. I am not sure of the exact figures. Someone fix this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.99.53 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism - fixed. SpinningSpark 19:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Georgia

Where are statistics about Georgia? There is a separate article about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Georgia), but no data here...

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

WTF? China, Russia and USA have total 26400 nuclear weapons and whole World only 26291 nuclear waepons??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.217.33.229 (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

4 British carriers

It would be nice if we did in fact have 4 carriers, but by my count we should have only 2 or 3 depending on how you count Invincible, which is being mothballed, either someone is counting, two active Invincible class ships + two yet to be built Queen Elizabeth ships, or 3 Invincible class+ HMS Ocean as 4 ships. There is some debate as to whether LHDs and LPDs are carriers or not but if you count ocean as a carrier, a further 18 carriers should be added to the US total, plus 2 or 3 to other nations with LHD/LHPs.KTo288 (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed it should be two, and thats what is said on list of aircraft carriers article.

Somebody further up tried to argue the figure of 2 was wrong, wanting to include Invincible and Ocean. Invincible shouldn't be included and Ocean's not a carrier at all. This article has a whiff of being doomed to inaccuracy; it starts with the claim there's only 24 carriers in the whole world. 87.80.97.137 (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Found the previous thread, hadn't noticed it before, again it depends on how you count Invicible, to my mind a ship with no assigned airwing or crew shouldn't be counted, but I guess it looks nice on paper for the powers that be to say we have three carriers. Maybe we could add a column for LHD/LHPs as they are a significant asset.KTo288 (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Extra categories?

There seems to be an overemphasis on naval power, little on air power, and none on land power. Perhaps removing the categories for number of corvettes or destroyers and/or adding one for number of battle tanks or towed artillery would make the article better. Thoughts? Cheese1125 (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. I completely missed the category for total number of tanks. Disregard the previous post. Cheese1125 (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Use this source for US troops numbers

Can people please use this source for U.S. troop numbers. These numbers are directly from the military and updated every month.

http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/ms0.pdf

Rick Evans (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

78 carriers world wide?

At the top, the article says there are 78 aircraft carriers worldwide. However, it lists the nations as having a total of 22. Is that a mistake, or is it counting landing ships and such? Ono (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that 22 is closer to the mark then 78, even counting all LPDs and LHDs it would be to justify 78, I think people a re also counting large helicopter carrying destroyers, the italians, japanese and canadians have destroyer, small cruiser sized ships which could carry 3 to 5 Sea king sized helicopters.KTo288 (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fighter totals

How come it says there are 2,604 fighters for US on the list but at bottom its 3000 something. Wikipedia sucks it can't even keep its facts straight. no wonder everyone says not to got to this place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.0.153 (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan submarines

I have made a correction to number of Pasiktani subs (from 8 to 5The Pakistan Navy page (http://www.paknavy.gov.pk/submarine_force.htm) lists 5 active submarines : 1)Khalid, 2)Saad, 3)Hamza, 4)Hashmat, 5)Hurmat AMD "X-Crafts"(to be counted ?!)

The previous source/citation, too : http://www.nti.org/db/submarines/pakistan/index.html lists only 5 submarines, it was still counted as '8' on the Wikipedia page. --Anant kamath (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

North korean nuke count wrong.

We know they had at least 1.

Should be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.25.207 (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems (especially with Mexico)

Mexico is listed as having 800 cruisers, 20 nukes, 43 nuclear subs and 45 subs. Also, the US is listed as having 48 corvettes, but the only ships that I can think of that would qualify as corvettes are the Littoral Combat Ships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.205.147 (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC) How is it possible for Mexico to have such a large weapons arsenal??? Is it a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.124.135 (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The fleet of Mexico of this page is mostly made up: 5 carriers? 800 cruisers? 43 submarines and 45 nuclear submarines? If you check the info listed in wikipedia's page "Military of Mexico" there are only 2 destroyers, 4 frigates and 55 lesser ships. I strongly suggest to update the entry about this country... ;)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.220.105.231 (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

size of aircrafts

number of fighter jets should be made as per aircraft in services in the airforces, given in the respective wikipedia page . example:= number of fighter jets :-

in INDIA = 706+

in PAKISTAN = 470+

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.58.83 (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Breakdown of aircraft

information stated in Breakdown of aircraft column doesn't matches with the table of List of countries by size of armed forces and other data of wikipedia pages. i request you to kindly correct the data or replace the Breakdown of aircraft column . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.58.83 (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Number of Nuclear Weapons

What is the total number of nuclear weapons in the world based on? If you add up the individual countries, the number is at least 1,000 higher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.50.200 (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yemeni Airforce fighter aircraft

You have it as 433. Sounds far higher than statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.64.248 (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Canada and their rank compared to the world

The Canadian forces page says 55th in the world as of 2009, the link beside that one has 54th, and here: 46th. What is the real rank of the canadian forces? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.182.78 (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

10 year old expenditure data?

Looking at the military expenditures article, I see that a lot of the budget data is out of date.
The US, for example, is ~$615bn, France, is ~$67bn, Germany is ~$40bn, the UK ~$64bn, Greece is ~$8bn. So I think that the 1999 reference needs to be updated. FFMG (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

pls Remove Breakdown of Aircraft

information stated in Breakdown of aircraft column doesn't matches with the table of List of countries by size of armed forces and other data of wikipedia pages. i request you to kindly correct the data or replace the Breakdown of aircraft column .

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Lists of countries

Template:Lists of countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

blatant mistake that someone should correct (I don't have the privilege)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Australia’s’ population estimate in the year 2009 is 21, 807, 000, this is based on the wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia.

Australia’s total troop amount comes to 73,872, which is comprised of 53,572 full-time and 20,300 reserves, totaling 73,872, as thus stated.

Now, based on these two figures, the total amount of troops per 1000 citizens for the Australian state is calculated as, ( (73,872 / 21,807,000) X 1000 ). This leads to 3.3875 troops per 1,000 citizens and NOT the reported 2.21. Could someone with the privileges please change this statistic?

To do so, do the following. Scroll down to rank number 88 (Australian Defence Force). Now, go to the Column (the furthest one to the right) titled ‘Per 1000 citizens’, and change the number ‘2.21’ to the more accurate ‘3.3875’ OR, to round off to 2 d.p. ‘3.39’.

Much appreciated.

Fixed Nohomers48 (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – As above, removing template. — Deon^talk 13:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Total and active troop tables merged

I've finally merged the redundant lists of total and active troops into one. It took about a month, but I checked all the references where the two tables had a different figure, and corrected the figures. I simply copied the figures in the instances where the two tables had the same one, though. The table now uses {{Number of troops}}, which takes the number of active, reserve and paramilitary troops and calculates the total number along with total per 1000 citizens and active per 1000 citizens. Population figures were taken from List of countries by population. Someone who knows their way around table formatting could make a static column that shows the numbers 1-168 on the left. I tried to do it myself but couldn't figure out how. Also, the active/1000 citizens and total/1000 citizens columns should be sorted, but again I couldn't figure out the syntax.

I would like to remove the redundant information (active and reserve troops) from the "armed forces" list below, if nobody objects. Then, the article could be split into List of countries by number of troops and List of countries by number of military equipment (or similar). The lists are just too long to be kept in one article. What do you think? Jafeluv (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think for the second list which has tanks, aircrafts, etc....you should remove the number of troops in that list and make it a pure equipment list instead of adding troops into it and then create a new article for it....Mercenary2k (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've split the troops table into List of countries by number of troops. Now, I think this one should be renamed to indicate that it's only about military equipment and not troops. How about List of countries by military equipment? Or maybe List of countries by number of military equipment? Jafeluv (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Error in Sorting

I am getting this error when I sort the list. When I sort it to display by most active and total troops, the first country gets displayed on the side. Can anyone fix this.Mercenary2k (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Argh, I see what you mean. I'll look into it. Jafeluv (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed. The table thought that the second row of the header was supposed to be included in the sorting. Jafeluv (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

List of countries by size of armed forces → List of countries by number of military equipment — This article used to contain information on the number of total and active troops for each country. That was later removed as redundant to list of countries by number of troops, and now the article title is misleading since this article only lists military equipment and defense budget. (By the way, the defense budget column is still redundant to list of countries by military expenditures in my opinion.) I propose moving this to list of countries by number of military equipment or similar title, to more accurately describe the information included. Jafeluv (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose wording In British English at least, "equipment" is an uncountable noun, which renders the proposed title somewhat meaningless. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 23:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm, you're probably right... What about list of countries by military equipment? Does that make sense? Jafeluv (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's better. Support that suggestion. I would also suggest "List of countries by level of military equipment" as another possible title. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
      •  Moved. Jafeluv (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapons

Comprehensive lists of nuclear weapon capabilities can be found here:

http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/0096-3402/?sortorder=asc&Article+Category=Nuclear+Notebook

Although the links reside in a subscription-based area, the PDF downloads of "Nuclear Notebook" are free.I would reference and post, but it would pose a COI for me to do so.

Atomicgurl00 (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Number column

I've added a static number column on the left side, using {{static column begin}}. It only works correctly if your screen width is about 1024 pixels, because it can't know which rows have been expanded by the browser into double height. Shortening the "NATO shared" text into one word would be better, but it still wouldn't make the whole issue go away. Suggestions on the table formatting are most welcome. Jafeluv (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The old article

Is the article that used to be here stored anywhere?I thought It was looking much cleaner before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.148.4 (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It can be found in the page history. For example, see this version. Jafeluv (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Format Revision

As it stands now, the length of the list coupled with the number of columns makes viewing the list in any practical manner very difficult. If you're looking at a country lower on the list, you frequently have to scroll to the top to see what each column is for. I propose dividing the list by continent. Many other 'world' lists are handled this way for exactly this reason. It would improve readability if nothing else. - Also, I think it's time for someone to archive this talk page, it's a little long... - Jonathon A H (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll revise the format some time in the next few days... - Jonathon A H (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Libya - Urgent attention please

Anybody please take a look into the row 'Libya'under 'List'. Datas over there probably, is either mis-edited accidentally or vandalized, Urgent attention please. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't verify those numbers, but they look plausible. It claims that Libya's military expenditure is 1.3 billion US, where the CIA factbook says that it is more like 4 billion US per year. It's easily possible that they could have 800 old soviet tanks (they're a dime a dozen) and 125 military aircraft. Gopher65_talk 15:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Expansion Needed

In view of importance of certain equipments in modern wars, I suggest the addition of these categories to the list for meaningful comparison: Ballistic Missile systems/Cruise missile systems Missile defense systems Attack helicopters

Since in a modern war a country with almost no airforce but with a very good missile defense system capable of shooting down aircrafts and missiles, plus in possession of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles is as powerful if not more than a country with just a very large airforce. --119.154.11.78 (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This article needs deletion

The facts on this article are severely wrong. I have done extensive research into the militaries of the United Kingdom, Russia, Italy, India and France. I have bought a copy of the yearly IISS every year since 2006 and have my pocket in quite allot of other material. All I can tell you is this article is very misleading. However I feel the real problem is coming from nationalistic patriots who feel they can change reality by putting in their own make believe numbers.

For instance, I have re-shaped the Indian air-force aircraft table a few months back and using the most reliable sources available can confirm India has 328 multi role fighters and 201 ground attack aircraft, no where near the 700+ figure given here!

Also as the IISS says, such tables like this article cause paper tigers to rise, where pure numbers on paper mislead the reader and hard military capabilities go out of the window.

this article is a shame to wikipedia, this article has become a festering pile of patriotic codswallop!

Rademire2 (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

We can either delete it, or make radical changes to it so it can show the true facts instead of the likely totally skewed data that is shown, I won't stop you, and now that you've made your point, no one probably will. Nohomers48 (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this article (and similar international military comparison/ranking articles) needs bold editing, based on solid research, followed by protection from annon. IP editors. David (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Chinese budget

I've updated the budget to state it is estimated to be $190billion with the following 2 references. This is the CIA estimate. link 1

-- LogicDictates (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, India budget is up to 120 billion dollars in 2011219.152.186.48 (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect figures and information in several sections

In the list of fighter aircraft in the main table it lists total worldwide fighter aircraft as 28,382 yet the smaller Breakdown of Aircraft table lists China alone as having 67,445 fighter aircraft.

In the number of Nuclear weapons it lists Japan as quote "1-3 (Prototypes are 2, 1 built to be used in 2012)" The 2012 date makes me suspect this is a Maya "end of the world" joke. Japan has no nuclear weapons under its constitution a fact which was recently repeated when Ultranationalists claimed Japan needed atomic weapons due to the on going dispute over the Senkaku Islands. The Japanese Governement stated Japan will not build Nuclear weapons even though it has the capacity to do so.

In the Aircraft Carrier / Amphibious Assult ships section Japan is listed as having 5, Japan has 0 (unless 25 ton landing craft count) The Hyūga is a helicopter destroyer not a full aircraft carrier, the 3 Ōsumi class LST are amphibious transport docks they lack the bow doors and beaching capability traditionally associated with LSTs. All of Japans other "amphibious" ships are ether the aforementioned 25 ton WW2 style landing craft or Hovercraft.

I apologise of not including citations for the above details thisd is the first time I have done this. Details for the Osumi LST was from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Csumi_class_LST The Hyūga from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy%C5%ABga_class_destroyers and the other amphibious ships http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_ships_of_the_Japan_Maritime_Self-Defense_Force#Amphibious_Forces.

Japans current stance on Nuclear Weapons from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program#Postwar_aftermath.

Might I suggest if their are people on the Military History Wikiproject who know where to find reliable data on the various national militarys that they become "Mods" for this page, lock it to prevent any vandalism, clean out the inaccurate figures and leave the page locked perminantly. From that point onwards only the page Mods or Wikipedia Admins can edit the page. This would mean the page Mods alone would be responsible for keeping the figures upto date but that would keep the page 100% accurate and vandalism free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.206.231 (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence supporting the 1-3 warhead figure for Japan. I support its removal, I will do so after 0:00UTC on 25 October 2010 without further comment. Sahrin (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is something wrong about this article. I don't know how it ended up like this, but I remember checking it out a few months ago, and it was generelly fine.

Conventional Submarines: Russia= 45 (Is this from 1990????) There is no way in the world that is even close to being right even with the reserve boats counted. I will provide sources. North korea= 70 conventional submarines? Don't make me laugh. The NK Navy article shows 26 regular (albeit very old) subs, and a max. of 32 midget subs (these are never, ever in the same category.)

Russian budget (from the source cited) : "The annual budget will rise from the equivalent of £26 billion this year to around £43 billion in 2013 ". 43 GBP = 67 USD (billion). That's not 115 Billion USD, and that's planned for 2013.

US Army= 15000 tanks. Man, whoever wrote this must have been pretty drunk (or extremely old). The Pattons have been out of service since 1997. That was 14 years ago! From the properly source M1 Abrams article, one can see that the number of tanks is 6000 including marines and reserve.

China= 17000 tanks. North Korea= 11420, Japan= 9902. Ok, no comments, clearly somebody vandalized the page and somehow it went unnoticed. I will fix all the issues I can find, according to proper sources. I'm sure there are more problems, so please help me out on this one.--Therexbanner (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, just saw this one, China- 70 nuclear subs. Lol, maybe in 2050. The sources say 10 (ssbn and ssn), yet the table was changed to 70.--Therexbanner (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no point in this article existing if it is so completely wrong. A few obvious examples: The defence budgets of Germany and South Korea are simply made up, the one for Russia seems to be for 2013 (when it is currently 2010!), and the one for Japan looks about 15 bn out [9]. According to its wikipedia page, the Israeli navy has only corvettes, but here it has 10 frigates, and Egypt certainly doesn't have 21 frigates. For some countries, patrol craft are classed as corvettes but not for others. The vast proportion of figures here that are so very wrong makes the article pointless; much of this info can only be due to vandalism. 90.199.218.229 (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Too navy centered

There are too many ship classes involved in this list so it would be better to remove two of the ship classes and add some more data on land and air forces i.e. add a column for armed personnel carriers and a column for bomber aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.46.87 (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Pro-India Vandals

Just cleaned up a bunch of vandalism by someone who wants to make India look the world's second most powerful country by inflating all figures by adding a 1 before all figures. Keep an eye out for these guys. I think the post should be protected. Sabre (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

South Korea has more submarines than there are in the world?

According to this chart there are 333 Submarines in the world, and 464 in South Korea... That seems, ya know... wrong. 75.163.23.13 (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Germany's Figures

It looks like Germany's figures have been tampered with. This isn't the first time. For example, they have 10 aircraft carriers. That's only two less than the US. They have 28 cruisers, that's the most in the world, and six more than the US. They have 97 destroyers, that's the most in the world and double the US. The "source" was a dead link, so I've removed it and added {{cn}} instead. I'll look trough the history to try to find the vandal. Can someone find a source for the true figures. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Germany has 10 aircraft carriers? Since when? All your numbers sound very high. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, Germany has 0 carriers, 0 cruisers and a handful of destroyers. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of this article is utter nonsense!!!

Looking through the article, it is very clear that, for the relatively large nations at least, there are an extremely large number of figures that are not just one or two wrong, or out of date, but are completely made up. I can give you some of them if you like, but I can't list them all as there are so many of them. This article is worse than useless amd deeply misleading as a source of reference, and if there is not going to be an extremely significant rewrite in the very near future, then it really must be removed from the encyclopaedia. 90.199.218.97 (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you mark the ones you can per WP:Fixit. (Hohum ^@) 13:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• US has no SSKs
• UK figs out of date. Also hasn't had any corvettes for a long time.
• Why has france got a smaller defence budget than italy, and barely half the size of the UK?
• France has 10 nuclear subs and no SSKs
• Germany has about 15 frigates, not 0
• Indian sub figures are wrong
• Egypt has far to many frigates
• Turkey has far too many frigates
• Israel has no frigates
• South Korea has more FF/DDs
• Norway has some corvettes and 5 frigates
• Seems to be some confusion as to where, if anywhere, assault ships should be counted.
• Also seems to be some confusion as to what a patrol boat is

This is just after a quick glance at naval figures for the top ~30 countries y defence budget. Assuming this is representative of the rest of the article, I'm sure that a more thorough assesment of the whole page would find many other wrong figures as well. I'm not going to give any more time to this - if you're happy with a list of random numbers then that's your own problem. 90.199.218.97 (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused, you bother to point out some of the problems (thank you - I'll start on them), then virtually storm off. Not giving any more time to it is what got the article in this state. (Hohum ^@) 18:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

US SSK figure zeroed. Fixed and referenced budgets of Italy, Germany, France, Albania, Afghanistan, UK (to start with). (Hohum ^@) 18:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Zeroed UK corvettes, Germany has 15 frigates, fixed French subs. (Hohum ^@) 19:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian Frigates reduced to 9 in service. (Hohum ^@) 19:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Indian sub figures corrected. (Hohum ^@) 19:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I look at countires with Destroyers and can't belive what i see... thes article needs some protection, else it will drift towards absurd. --SojerPL (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Formatting/Ranking

I've tried to fix the ability to sort the list using the arrows at the top but to no avail. since i tested them in preview mode, the changes haven't taken any effect. Would appreciate some help fixing this. LogicDictates ^(talk) 12:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

La tabla tiene un bug / error y no se puede ordenar en orden descendente ni ascendente — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.63.6 (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think most of the Russia air fighters are out of date..

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Thread closed per WP:WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DISCUSSION FORUM.

---

After dissolution of Soviet Union, the only achievement made by Russia is Sukhoi PAK FA and S-400 land-to-air missile. It is a time from 1991 to 2013 which almost 22 years219.152.186.48 (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• It's your opinion - untenable thesis. --SojerPL (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mongolia Submarines?

I noticed this article claims that Mongolia has 70 standard submarines. I wonder how since Mongolia is (nowadays) a landlocked country (currently) without a Navy. I tried looking for information about Mongolian submarines but I could't find anything. Are you folks sure this is correct? --193.120.165.44 (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No more ludicrous than most of the other numbers in here. 31.205.67.65 (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

So much wrong

Once I saw this page, I noticed mistakes: China and Russia neither have any 4-5th generation jet fighters? China has 11 nuclear-powered submarines, perhaps more Many more with numerous countries

Please check this whole page and fix the mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nukes8948 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The data seems so incredible that its worth removing this page altogether — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.242.183.100 (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Russia has more than thousand jets of the 4th and 4++ generations (SU-34, SU-35, SU-37, MIG-31, MIG-35) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.210.32 (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Totals

The World Total for helicopters was 8,461. But the total of the numbers in the column was 10,588. I corrected this but really this is so discouraging. The new number is 25% larger than the old. Nick Beeson (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

British combat aircraft

I previously added a citation-needed to the "Combat aircraft by country" table next to the RAF Fighters figure, because the figure of 400 (along with 50 bombers and 209 attack aircraft) is way off anything else I've seen on the matter. For example, in the other table on the same page, it says that the UK has 222 combat aircraft in total. On the page linked below, it says that there are a total of 227 Eurofighters and Tornados, plus a handful of other combat aircraft, which is a long way off 400, let alone a total of 659 combat aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_Kingdom_military_aircraft

I am adding back in the citation-needed. Please do not remove it without either providing a source for the figures or at least an explanation. Frosteduser (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

the wrong map of russia

the wrong map of russia

where is crimea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.213.184 (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Bangladesh over 3000 MBT ?!

Here Bangladesh is listed with 3008 Main Battle Tanks... what kind of tanks please?! Sorry for bad English, but below you can see what the Bangladesh Army has... (150 M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, T-90 or other modern MBT divided into 2 groups with 75 tanks each would be able to beat the whole Bangladesh tank forces I think... only the few Type-99Km and Type 69-II Mk.2G (because of its upgraded 120mm gun) could be really dangerous in some situations, depends in what condition they are and which upgrades were made...

Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the World, one of the lowest oil consumption per capita on earth and so on...in the Equipment List of Bangladesh Army I find 5 types of chinese Tanks. The old Type 59 with 285 Units is the No. 1, followed by the Type 69-II Mk.2G (Upgraded Type 69), the Type 69-II Mk.2G with 185 units is the primary MBT of the Bangladesh Army followed by the simple Type-69-II with 65 units. The most modern tank is the "Type 99Km", much better than the the previous Types, but I think it is to expensive yet, so only 44 units are available.

The 5th Tank in service is a light tank, the Type 62, even China retired that tank last year (service: 1963 - 2013). However Bangladesh only owns 14 of them because another 60 were converted to tracked armoured personal carrier because the 21 ton tank with a 85mm gun and 15-35mm armor in the hull and 50mm at turret is too weak even for old soviet/chinese MBT... so we have around 600 "Main Battle Tanks" if you want to call the Type-62 a MBT. Almost half of it is the Type 59, developed in the late 50's...even with some upgrades they don't have a chance against early tranches of US or European MBT... Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2