http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomake...s/armies/ea.asp
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomake...default.asp#rnk


===================================================



COLUMN KEY

COUNTRY lists every nation with a combat value of one or more. Nations with a combat value of less than 1 have little more than national police capability. Many smaller countries, especially those that lack a threatening neighbor, use their forces primarily for internal security. These lesser military powers often repel an invasion most effectively simply by arming the population. Nations are grouped into four regions: Europe; Middle East and North Africa; Asia and the Pacific; and the Americas.

RNK is the ranking of each nation within its region

COMBAT POWER LAND is the total combat capability of the nation's armed forces except for their navies. Certain nations like Israel, Sweden and Switzerland have a rapid mobilization capability which achieves the combat value shown within three days of mobilization. Their normal, unmobilized, combat value is less than one third of the value shown. As explained elsewhere, combat value is modified by geographical, climate and political factors. The value given here is a combination of the quantity and quality of manpower, equipment and weapons. This raw combat value is then multiplied by the force multiplier (see below) to combat value shown in this column.

NAVAL capability is separate from land value and is found on the Naval Forces chart.

TOT QUAL (total force quality) is a fraction by which raw (theoretical) combat power should be multiplied to account for imperfect leadership, component of force quality, support, training and other "soft" factors. Think of it as an efficiency rating, with "100" being perfect and "55" being a more common 55 percent efficiency.

TOT POP (population in millions) indicates the nation's relative military manpower resources. Population is also a more meaningful indicator of a nation's size than territory.

GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is a rough gage of the nation's economic power. This does not translate immediately into military power because of the time needed to convert industry from civilian to military production. Mobilization of some types of military equipment takes years. Other types of weapons, especially those using electronics, can be brought to bear in months.

ACT MEN (active military manpower in thousands) is the total uniformed, paid manpower organized into combat and support units. Because of the widely varying systems of organizing military manpower, this figure is at best a good indicator of the personnel devoted to the military. Industrialized nations hire many civilians to perform support duties, while other nations flesh out skeleton units with ill-prepared reserves, uncertain effect on wartime strength. The use of reserve troops varies considerably.

MIL BUD (Military Budget in millions of dollars) is the current annual armed forces spending of that nation. All nations use somewhat different accounting systems for defense spending. Efforts are made to eliminate some of the more gross attempts at hiding arms expenditures. Some of the figures, particularly for smaller nations, may be off by 10 percent either way.

BUD MAN is the annual cost per man for armed forces in dollars. This is an excellent indicator of the quantity and, to a lesser extent, the quality of weapons and equipment. Some adjustments should be made for different levels of personnel costs, research and development, strategic weapons and waste. The United States, in particular, is prone to all four afflictions. The precise adjustments for these factors are highly debatable. One possible adjustment would be to cut the US cost per man by at least one third. Other nations with strategic programs and large R&D establishments (Russia, Britain, France, China, etc.) should be adjusted with deductions of no more than 15 percent. Britain could also take another 5 or 10 percent cut because of its all-volunteer forces higher payroll. At the other extreme, many nations produce a credible defense force using far less wealth. Low paid conscripts, good leadership and the sheer need to improvise enables many of these poorer nations to overcome their low budgets. However, most nations end up with what they pay for.

AFV (Armored Fighting Vehicles). These include tanks, armored personnel carriers and most other armored combat and support vehicles. AFV are the primary components of a ground offensive, and greatly enhance chances of success.

AIRCRAFT CMBT are the number of combat aircraft devoted to land operations. This, like AFV, is a good indicator of raw power. The quality of the aircraft, their pilots, ground crew and leadership, air force are the most important factors in the air power's overall value.

The Total Quality is calculated by assigning 0 (lowest) to 9 (highest) values for the following components of combat capability.

Ldrs is leadership. The quality of officers and NCOs.

Eqp is equipment. The quantity and quality of military equipment.

Exp is experience. Not just combat experience, but the quality of training.

Spt is support. This is logistics, the ability to get military supplies to the troops.

Mob is mobilization. The ability to mobilize the national resources for combat.

Trad is tradition. Military tradition, good military habits, based on practical experience.

=====================================================



Except for these North east Asian countries ... VN army is still a formidable force in
SE Asia .. I personally think that We need to upgrade or acquire more advance weapons ... just in case

I hope as our economy goes up, we can arm our forces with top technology like in the 70's and 80's.

hey where is the web site for this

Here you go. It's in the original post though.

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomake...s/armies/ea.asp

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomake...default.asp#rnk

Well, at least Cambodia ain't on the bottom of the list. We're just a notch below Malaysia.

act man is that in the thousand

Of course not. Vietnam armed the Royal Cambodian Airforce and gave lots of weapons to Hun Sen after we left in 1989.

We gave them 28 MiG-21bis, three MiG-21UMs when we left.

Not to mention Cambodia did this right after 1989.



Do you honestly think we would leave the Cambodians defenseless against those Khmer Rouge killers who kept on occupying Cambodian land and executing villagers?

dam australia sucks.........

Sad that Vietnam's military went down a lot, after the Cold War, where they decided that there were really no more threats and cut down spending a lot.

Vietnam's military in the 80's was more powerful than all of ASEAN combined and we were supposed to conquer ASEAN and make it communist for the Soviet Union, but we made it as far as Thailand, until China and the U.S threatened to attack us both at the same time so we backed off. So all we managed to take was Laos and Cambodia.

We had enough forces to continue where Japan left off in South East Asia and conquer all of it. But I don't think our forces would be able to defeat the U.S and China put together though.

I'm glad our leaders knew there were limits. Look at what happened to Germany and Japan for taking too many enemies at once. Vietnam might not even exist today if we lost a war against the Allied world in total war.

Actually I think Vietnam's military isn't that bad right now considering we don't have really any more threat of war or any terrorists in our country right now and we are somewhat at peace.

http://www.gwu.edu/~sigur/AsiaPapers/koong.htm

This list isn't official. Its based off from someone else's opinion. Not all the claims there can be supported by evidence.

Just re-invite the American Forces back. We'll seize their weapons like the last time

Interesting, I thought Australia was a first world country, so why is it's GDP only half of China's?

Dude, GDP mean jack squat. Australia is a first world country because it has a high GDP per capita and standard of living. China, with 1.3 billion people has a GDP two times that of Australia with 20 million people means that per capita wise, Australia is 32.5 times richer than China (1300/20 = 65/2 = 32.5).

So even if China's economy is the largest in the world (say another 30 years), with an average GDP per capita of $10,000, China would still be in the 3rd world category.

Each person you have adds to your GDP, but you see in China, they have 1.3 billion people so of course they are gonna have a higher GDP. But the cost of maintaining those 1.3 billion are so high that the GDP per Capita is $hit.

It's like 2 people who open shops. The first person say her name is Margaret sells a bouquet of flowers for $20 each and it costs her $5 to make each one..

While the second person Willy sells his for $10 each and it costs him $3 to make each one..

So Margaret ends up selling 10 bouquets in one day while Willy sells 21.

So Margaret makes a profit of $150 while Willy makes a revenue of $147, even though he sold more flowers and made more revenue.

So think of GDP as revenue and GDP per capita as profit.

Yes China does make more revenue than Austrailia but profitwise Austrailia beats China because their lower population costs less to maintain.

WOAH WTF? How come my economics and finance lecturers didn't tell me that?

For those who really don't want to read the above. Per Capita is a short form for per person. GDP per person is really what matters.

Nevermind, I thought it was listed as GDP per capita.

i second that.

jobless rate in china is 4.2%, in chinas standard THATS A HELL LOT.

In 2001 10% of Chinese live below the poverty line, that is 130 million people. It's sad to see that many people living below the poverty line. I hope things get better for them.