Top 15 countries with the highest military expenditure
- Thread starter hello_10
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,880
- Likes
- 680
BRIC MILITARY MODERNIZATION AND THE NEW GLOBAL DEFENSE BALANCE
The message promoted by foreign policy gurus in recent years is that the American moment is over and a new global balance is emerging; one where power is no longer concentrated in Washington but spread among several different countries. The U.S. will continue to retain a prominent position at the top of the global food chain we are told, but no longer will there be the sense of American worldwide hegemony. Instead the emerging nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China (the so-called "BRICs") will assume their rightful place as great powers and in the process create a new multi-polar world. :thumb:
This is not, perhaps, what European proponents of a multi-polar world may have had in mind when they advocated for global power to be diffused shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. But despite its modern weaponry, two million combined soldiers and its overall economic wealth, Europe suffers from several mitigating factors, not least of which is the lack of a unified army that appears no closer today than it did in 1998 when Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair reached an agreement at St. Malo creating a path towards pan-European defense.
The BRICs have three things in common. Each is large both in terms of size and population; each has an expanding economy; and each is undergoing a military modernization effort aimed at preserving their strategic interests. While Europe's strongest nations are cutting defense spending and the U.S. defense budget is set to flat-line in the coming years, these four countries are seeking to assert themselves on the global stage and are willing and able to invest in improving the capabilities of their armed forces.
Brazil's economy has continued to grow and despite a small hiccup during the global economic slowdown of 2009 is expected to expand by 7.5 percent this year. As its economy has grown so too has the recognition by government officials that a major military modernization is in order if Brazil is to underwrite its claim to hydrocarbon deposits outside its traditional offshore border and gain a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Flexing its muscles as the preeminent power in South America - both diplomatically and in a benign show of military strength - may go a long way towards achieving the latter for Brasilia.
Since 2005 the Brazilian defense budget has grown by 5 percent per year and the government approved a new national defense policy in 2008 that set aside $70 billion for reequipping the army. New items are to include 50 Eurocopter Cougar (EC-725) medium-lift helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, anti-tank weaponry and a new family of armored vehicles from IVECO (referred to asUrutu III).
There is also a long-term naval expansion that has attracted much interest from the French and British defense industries. The French are selling Brazil four Scorpene-type conventional submarines, while the British are eager to gain access to one of the world's fastest growing military markets by inking deals with Brasilia for its purchase of BAE Systems' design-phase Type-26 frigate. An impending decision on the winner in the multibillion F-X2 new-generation jet fighter competition will pave the way for the Brazilian Air Force to acquire 36-plus modern combat aircraft, most likely the French-made Dassault Rafale.
All of these improvements are of course expensive and Brazil has planned accordingly, figuring that its annual share of defense expenditure will rise from the current 1.5 percent of GDP to 2.2 percent by 2030.
Russia presents a different case than Brazil in that unlike the economically ascendant South American nation it is used to being considered a global power and expects to be defined as such. While Brazil's military modernization effort comes as the country seeks acceptance among the global elite, Russia aims to retain and improve those defense capabilities that once enabled it to be seen as a first-tier military power alongside the U.S. :thumb:
The breakup of Russia's former Soviet empire afforded the country the opportunity to shift to a market-based economy, but also left enduring scars stemming from a lost sense of prestige as one of the world's two former superpowers. The Russian leadership of Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev has sought to rectify this by reasserting the country's presence throughout its former Soviet domain and utilizing its energy resources to wield influence further afield.
While Russian military aircraft have repeatedly penetrated the air space of NATO member countries during exercises in recent years, it was Moscow's military incursion into Georgia in August 2008 that signaled that Russia would willingly lean on its hard power to preserve its position in its post-Soviet near abroad.
Though the brief war may have seen the Russian Goliath overwhelm the Georgian David, it also exposed a slew of Russian Army shortcomings in terms of training, equipment, reconnaissance, logistics support and real-time battlefield coordination.
The performance of Russian forces in Georgia ultimately proved to be a catalyst in the Kremlin's decision to launch a comprehensive, 12-year military reform effort in October 2008. This reform and modernization plan laid out by Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov seeks to transform the heavy, mass-mobilization Russian military into a smaller high-readiness force better able to support the Kremlin's strategic objectives and tackle events along the country's periphery on short notice.
As part of the new plan a special emphasis has been placed on weeding out the aging Soviet-legacy hardware and acquiring more modern equipment. What is eye-opening in this regard is the willingness of the Russian leadership to embark on purchases of foreign-produced armaments - in particular the possibility that one of those suppliers may include the U.S. Moscow is already locked in negotiations with France over the purchase of Mistral-class helicopter-carrying amphibious assault ships and is still hoping to clinch a deal with Israel for the launch of a $300 million joint venture involving the manufacture of unmanned aerial systems in Russia.
It is estimated that only 10 percent of Russian military hardware meets modern standards. The new defense plan aims to amend that situation by tripling the ratio of new-generation equipment to 30 percent by 2015, then 70 percent by 2020. All this - plus the need to recruit high-caliber officers and soldiers for the new army - comes with a high price tag. The Kremlin plans on boosting its 2011-2020 arms budget accordingly by 46 percent, from 13 trillion rubles to 19 trillion ($620 billion). :thumb:
Whether the government's efforts at transforming the military and resuscitating Russia's once-dynamic defense industry through greater investment, foreign technology transfer and the creation of a Russian version of the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Products Agency (DARPA) pan out, there can be little doubt as to Moscow's commitment and level of ambition. Its latest plan indicates that the Kremlin has little interest in managing Russia's decline and instead figures to continue competing for influence in the emerging multi-polar world order.
BRIC Military Modernization and the New Global Defense Balance (Part 1 of 2) | European Dialogue
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,880
- Likes
- 680
The new arms race in Asia
Two recent studies have shown that, essentially, an arms race is in full swing in Asia - cause for serious concern, considering the number of simmering conflicts in the region.
The national interests of Asian countries are growing along with their economic clout and affluence, prompting governments in the region to protect their spheres of influence with a wide array of weapons purchases.
Two trends in the international arms trade, in particular, have caught the attention of Western governments. For one, for the first time since the Cold War, the ranking of the world's five largest arms exporters has changed.
China has pushed Britain out of the Top Five. And secondly, military expenditures in Asia in 2012 exceeded those of the European Union for the first time ever.
"The global shift in military power is continuing," concluded the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in its annual "Military Balance" report issued last week (March 14, 2013).
The Stockholm-based International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) arrived at the same conclusion in a study publish Monday, March 18. The balance is clearly shifting toward Asia, SIPRI noted in its report, "Trends in International Arms Trading."
Conflict and escalation potential
The world's biggest arms importers over the last five years are all in Asia, the SIPRI report emphasized: India, China, Pakistan, South Korea and Singapore.
The reason for the rapidly rising arms purchases in Asia, says SIPRI's Asia expert, Siemon Wezeman, is that "there are quite a lot of threats in Asia. There are territorial disagreements, so there is an uncertain situation in most of Asia," he said, pointing to the enmity between India and Pakistan, the ever-more strident threats from North Korea and the territorial disputes in the East China and South China Seas.
The new and extensive purchases of weapons, however, have not made the region any safer, the IISS said in its report last week. "The purchase of advanced military systems in East Asia - a region lacking established security mechanisms - raises the risk of inadvertent conflicts and escalations."
Aside from the insecure geopolitical situation, the economic circumstances are the key, Wezeman says. "The growing economies are making it possible to buy arms in the first place."
A weak West is Asia's strength
What's more, the fact that Asia has overtaken Europe in military spending has to do with both increased expenditures in Asia and reduced spending in Europe. The trend over the last few years, according to the IISS report, is continuing with North America and Europe, whose economies are stuttering, reducing military budgets, while Asia is spending more. In pure numbers, Asia (including Australia) accounts for 19.9 percent of worldwide military expenditures. Europe accounts for 17.6 percent and North America for 42 percent.
The rise of China to the world's 5th largest weapons exporter, with five percent of the global arms trade (an industry still dominated by the US and Russia), has mostly to do with arms purchases by Pakistan. Some 55 percent of all Chinese arms sales go to Pakistan.
Since Asian countries - with the exception of China - have no arms industry to speak of, they depend on weapons imports, Wezeman emphasizes. India, which buys mostly from Russia, has imported more weapons in the last five years than any other country in the world.
Farooq Hameed Khan, a retired Pakistani brigadier, says Pakistan's arms purchases have to do with its archrival, India. "India is a constant threat to Pakistan," he told DW, adding that China had replaced the US as Pakistan's most important arms supplier because "Pakistan views the US as an unreliable partner."
China, in turn, has an interest in supplying Pakistan with weapons "to keep India in check," according to Wezeman, and to have a partner that gives China access to the strategically important Gulf region.
Modernization and expansion
"These countries are not only modernizing, but in many cases are also expanding their armed forces," notes Wezeman, "so there is a very strong emphasis on the air force and the navy."
All the while, China is blazing the trail, according to the IISS. "China's capabilities to independently develop advanced military technologies are transforming the People's Liberation Army bit by bit."
As examples, the report not only names the country's first aircraft carrier, whose operational possibilities are still limited, but also the development of the new Type 0562D naval destroyer, which is expected to improve China's capabilities in air-sea warfare. It is indicative of how quickly China is moving to modernize its naval forces, according to the report.
The SIPRI study, however, points out that "new Chinese weapons systems still depend to a large extent on foreign components." Beijing's aircraft carrier, for example, is built from a refurbished Ukrainian ship and China's most important fighter jets, the J-10 and J-11, use Russian AL-31FN engine parts.
But many countries, like Pakistan, are benefiting from China's efforts to modernize its arms industry, since the US refuses to share key technologies with its allies. Former Brigadier Khan regrets that the US has not shared its drone technology with Pakistan, but is certain that China will fill the gap.
The new arms race in Asia | Asia | DW.DE | 18.03.2013
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,880
- Likes
- 680
we have new data's for the year 2012 as below: :ranger:
=> The 15 countries with the highest military expenditure in 2012
Figures for military spending calculated using purchasing power parity (PPP), ($ b., PPP)
1. United States- $682bn
2. China- $249bn
3. India- $119bn
4. Russia- $116.0bn
5. Saudi Arabia- $63.9bn
6. United Kingdom- $57.5bn
7. France- $50.7bn
8. Japan- $46.0bn
9. South Korea- $44.2bn
10. Germany- $42.8bn
11. Brazil- $34.4bn
12. Italy- $31.0bn
13. Turkey- $25.9bn
14. Canada- $18.3bn
15. Australia- $16.3bn
http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/Top 15 table 2012.pdf
=> Recent trends in military expenditure — www.sipri.org
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,880
- Likes
- 680
one day we discussed it. Capital Expenditure of Indian Defence is around 40% of total expenditure, with around 50% to 70% of it is spent in buying foreign arms, considering the fact that most of the production line of the main arms like SU30mki, T90s, HAWK etc is in fact based in India itself. so this way we find around 90% of total Defence Expenditure is spent in India itself, somehow, some way :thumb:
one gentleman also calculated the same in post#15, as below :ranger:
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,880
- Likes
- 680
=> India and Russia going to sign biggest-ever defence deal worth $ 35 billion - Times Of India
India's military strength on the rise
April 15, 2013
India has successfully test-fired an "Agni II" surface-to-surface ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead of one ton. The missile, equipped with solid fuel engines, has a range of 2,000 km. According to Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta, the launch once again proved that India has a reliable deterrent. As one of the world's largest arms-importing countries, India's weapons and equipment replacement program have been designed in response to armed conflict with Pakistan and to contend with increasingly military powerful China. For Russia, the consolidation of India's military forces goes hand-in-hand with Russia's strategic interests.
As The Economist pointed out, the overall strength of the Indian armed forces is rapidly increasing. In the last five years, India had imported most arms in the world. For a long time, Russia has been India's main weapon supplier. According to a report released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, India purchased weapons and equipment worth a total of $ 17.3 billion from Russia from 2007 to 2011. Additionally, India is in negotiations with French Dassault to buy 126 Rafale fighters, worth a total amount of over 12 billion dollars.
In terms of army-size, the total strength of the Indian Army in Asia comes next to China's. India's defense budget has reached $ 46.8 billion. In the construction of nuclear power, India has 80 or more nuclear weapons, and the number is likely to increase further. As to the country's power in terms of nuclear weapons, India's surface-to-surface missiles appear able to cover the whole territory of Pakistan and most parts of China.
New Delhi believes that instability in Pakistan and the world's second-largest economy China, are most likely to pose a threat to India's security. From a geopolitical point of view, China undoubtedly catches the Indian leaders' attention. As Indian Defense Minister Antony had declared in 2009, "India's major threat is not Pakistan, but China."
Recently, despite India-Pakistan relations showing signs of abating, the situation still carries the possibility of escalating at any given time. China, as Pakistan's traditional ally, may help Islamabad in its fight against India. China, although it has never formally stated its stance on this matter, has provided Pakistan with a large number of weapons and nuclear technology, according to Nezavisimaya Gazeta.
In addition to the Pakistani army, several jihadist communities active in Pakistan have also caught India's attention. These communities frequently organize terrorist attacks on domestic Indian objectives.
"Bharatiya Janata Party, one of the two major political parties in India, has strong nationalist tendencies. It has opposed the partition scheme implemented by the UK and advocates the re-inclusion of Pakistan in India's territory. This claim, although not recognized by the Indian government and mainstream political forces, is likely to affect the relationship between India and Pakistan," Tatiana Shomyan, director of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said in an interview with Nezavisimaya Gazeta.
New Delhi is seeking to normalize relations with Islamabad. But no one knows what will happen next if the U.S. and NATO pull out of Afghanistan.
"The border dispute between China and India is not a major problem. The border situation is stable. What disturbs India most is that China is establishing and consolidating new outposts around India, especially in the Indian Ocean area. A Chinese company has obtained control of Pakistan's Gwadar Port. In addition, China also hopes to perfect its naval support capabilities with the help from Sri Lanka. India is in response expanding its naval force. It is not having a conflict with China, but competing for influence in South Asia," Tatiana Shomyan remarked on Sino-Indian Relations.
In order to maintain the strategic balance within the region, India is likely to seek the support of Moscow. Traditionally, India and Russia have maintained friendly relations at a political level, and this relationship has never been affected by any other geo-political disputes.
India's military strength on the rise - China.org.cn
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,880
- Likes
- 680
For Rs 6 lakh crore (USD 100 billion)Indian armed forces set to acquire Star Wars-like weapons
Jun 27 2013
Seeking to prepare itself for futuristic warfare of the kind seen in the iconic and sensational Star Wars movies, Indian armed forces are planning to spend around Rs 6 lakh crore to get hi-tech equipment such as robots for combat roles, precision-guided missiles and watch-dog satellites, according to a Defence Ministry document. :thumb:
In the document 'Technology and Capability Roadmap' for the armed forces for next 15 years, Defence Minister A K Antony has also made it clear that his department will make these acquisitions in a holistic manner "without compromising transparency, fairness and probity at any level."
"In the next 15 years, Indian forces are poised for major modernisation... The volumes are high and the financial outlays large. There is substantial scope in the process for Indian industry to harness this market around USD 100 billion (Rs six lakh crore) to develop indigenous capability; especially in high technology areas," it said. The TCR has been provided by the Ministry as a step to provide a roadmap to the private and public sector indigenous industry about the requirements of the armed forces so that they can gear up themselves to provide the solutions.
"The document is being put up in the public domain to establish a level playing field for the Indian defence industry, both public and private sector," the Ministry said. In the field of space, the TCR says the armed forces would require "watchdog satellites" to guard against the anti-satellite weapons, which have been developed by China.
"With the advent of anti-satellite weapons (ASAT) a concept of `watchdog satellites to guard other satellites could also be explored," it said.The armed forces are also turning eco-friendly and have sought "eco-friendly solar, wind and electric power and propulsion systems which are capable of lowering fuel consumption, reduce pollution and better energy efficient while helping vessels to operate quietly." Seeking artificial warriors on field, the TCR said for winning land battles, the Army would need "Robots to assist troops in combat for tasks such as surveillance, reconnaissance, anti mine and anti IED role, urban area combat and casualty extraction."
To deal with the threat of enemy ballistic missiles, the 45-page TCR says a capability called Joint Area Missile Defence would be required for air defence. "It will use air defence assets of the three services in conjunction with the surveillance sensors of other agencies to detect, track, acquire and destroy incoming theatre ballistic and cruise missiles," it said. Seeking capabilities to fight the menace of terrorism, the TCR said capabilities will have to to be developed to oppose terrorism throughout the threat spectrum including anti-terrorism and counter-terrorism.
"It includes protection of personnel, assault, explosives detection and disposal, investigative sciences and forensics, physical security and protection of infrastructure and surveillance and collection. Successful execution of the wide range of R&D efforts will greatly improve the capability of the soldier," it said. The document, which is similar to a previous document issued in 2010, also envisages procurement of modern combat aircraft, combat drones, unmanned underwater systems, space-based capability, anti-submarine weapons launched from air, several types of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and training tools for the forces in next 15 years.
For Rs 6 lakh crore, Indian armed forces set to acquire Star Wars-like weapons - Indian Express
Jun 27 2013
Seeking to prepare itself for futuristic warfare of the kind seen in the iconic and sensational Star Wars movies, Indian armed forces are planning to spend around Rs 6 lakh crore to get hi-tech equipment such as robots for combat roles, precision-guided missiles and watch-dog satellites, according to a Defence Ministry document. :thumb:
In the document 'Technology and Capability Roadmap' for the armed forces for next 15 years, Defence Minister A K Antony has also made it clear that his department will make these acquisitions in a holistic manner "without compromising transparency, fairness and probity at any level."
"In the next 15 years, Indian forces are poised for major modernisation... The volumes are high and the financial outlays large. There is substantial scope in the process for Indian industry to harness this market around USD 100 billion (Rs six lakh crore) to develop indigenous capability; especially in high technology areas," it said. The TCR has been provided by the Ministry as a step to provide a roadmap to the private and public sector indigenous industry about the requirements of the armed forces so that they can gear up themselves to provide the solutions.
"The document is being put up in the public domain to establish a level playing field for the Indian defence industry, both public and private sector," the Ministry said. In the field of space, the TCR says the armed forces would require "watchdog satellites" to guard against the anti-satellite weapons, which have been developed by China.
"With the advent of anti-satellite weapons (ASAT) a concept of `watchdog satellites to guard other satellites could also be explored," it said.The armed forces are also turning eco-friendly and have sought "eco-friendly solar, wind and electric power and propulsion systems which are capable of lowering fuel consumption, reduce pollution and better energy efficient while helping vessels to operate quietly." Seeking artificial warriors on field, the TCR said for winning land battles, the Army would need "Robots to assist troops in combat for tasks such as surveillance, reconnaissance, anti mine and anti IED role, urban area combat and casualty extraction."
To deal with the threat of enemy ballistic missiles, the 45-page TCR says a capability called Joint Area Missile Defence would be required for air defence. "It will use air defence assets of the three services in conjunction with the surveillance sensors of other agencies to detect, track, acquire and destroy incoming theatre ballistic and cruise missiles," it said. Seeking capabilities to fight the menace of terrorism, the TCR said capabilities will have to to be developed to oppose terrorism throughout the threat spectrum including anti-terrorism and counter-terrorism.
"It includes protection of personnel, assault, explosives detection and disposal, investigative sciences and forensics, physical security and protection of infrastructure and surveillance and collection. Successful execution of the wide range of R&D efforts will greatly improve the capability of the soldier," it said. The document, which is similar to a previous document issued in 2010, also envisages procurement of modern combat aircraft, combat drones, unmanned underwater systems, space-based capability, anti-submarine weapons launched from air, several types of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and training tools for the forces in next 15 years.
For Rs 6 lakh crore, Indian armed forces set to acquire Star Wars-like weapons - Indian Express
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,880
- Likes
- 680
Which tank is best: Abrams or T-90?
18.09.2012
Quite often in the modern Russian media one can encounter statements that battle tank M1A1 "Abrams" is the best in the world, the "crown of creation", and T-90, is obsolete and not a competitor for the American vehicle. But is this the case?
Hypothetically, we can certainly have lengthy discussions and even simulate a battle between T-90 and M1A1 "Abrams". However, in reality these tanks will never meet on the battlefield. 142 million Russian consumers of "Coca-Cola", jeans and American chicken are too valuable for the American manufacturers to introduce such a radical change by means of a military clash.
From that moment when Khrushchev had purchased in the U.S. American grain for many millions of dollars there were no more doubts that the two economies has become closely linked. No policy is worth breaking these ties.
Rhetoric and mutual threats in this case are not worth much. The "Star Wars," "neutron bomb" and all sorts of missile defense system is nothing more than the tools of information warfare, in which the Americans have succeeded. All the talk about the benefits of "Abrams" is from the same area. In terms of their fighting qualities modern tanks are about all the same, because they originated from the same world tank building experience. Purely national differences, of course, play their role, but they are not as significant when compared with the achievements of science and modern military equipment.
It is believed that the tank M1 "Abrams" is not meant as a breakthrough tank, but as an anti-agent, whose task was to stop the masses of Soviet tanks bursting into the English Channel. Therefore, the tank was developed in a close cooperation with the German engineers, but specific to the American tank school. That is why the main armament of the tank, from modification M1A1, was 120 mm gun M-256, modified German gun Rh-120.
The armor of the first tanks "Abrams" is a multilayer composite armor created in the UK. In the later versions the armor with uranium-ceramics of the first and second generations is used.
The armor of T-90 tower is of "semi-active" type. In front of the tower there are two cavities at an angle of 55 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the tool, where armor packages consisting of 3 layers: plates, spacers and thin plate are located. The effect of its use may reach up to 40 percent compared to the monolithic armor of the same mass.
In addition, the tank is a complex of explosive reactive armor "Kontakt-5", at the same time protecting it from both cumulative weapons (COP), and from the armor-piercing projectiles (BPS). It provides a powerful impetus to the side, allowing to destabilize or even destroy the core of the BPS before it begins to interact with the armor.
It is interesting that the opto-electronic complex designed to protect it from the damage by tank missile with command guidance systems such as semi-automatic "Tow", "Hot", "Milan "," Dragon ", laser homing type "Maverick "," Hellfire "," Copper-head ", as well as artillery systems with laser rangefinders was first commercially installed on the T-90.
Accordingly, the M1A1 tank turret consists of outer and inner steel armor plates, connected by transverse ribs laid between the packages of metallic and non-metallic materials. Due to its high density (density of uranium is 3.19 g/cm3), these plates at extremely small thickness provide an "explosive" nature of destruction of the elements of the cumulative jet.
The critics of the American tank draw attention to the large gap between the hull and turret of the "Abrams" that is so large that one can hit the area under the tower at a distance. To do this, one can aim for the upper front hull located at a very steep angle, so that in case of a ricochet, the projectile will fall under the tower. In this case, neither the efficient armor of the front body parts, nor the modern turret will help. Weak armor in the sides of the engine and crew compartment makes tank vulnerable to the fire of small-caliber artillery.
In pictures: Tunguska self-propelled anti-aircraft system
Accordingly, vulnerable zones in the armor of the T-90 are the sections on either side of the gun, not covered with explosive reactive armor. There is also a weakened zone on the upper front part of the driver's inspection device. This is a design feature of all domestic tanks, starting with T-64, that for some reason, no one bothered to fix.
However, in a war all the technical indicators that look so good on paper and on the computer screen, but still fit into the pretty charts and graphs, are not worth much. Otherwise we will never be able to explain the fact why the Soviet Union that in the past war was armed with the best in the world T-34, and has produced many more tanks than Nazi Germany, had such high losses in tanks. In addition, the Germans were also fought by England and the USA. Today on the battlefield the human factor is increasingly more dominant.
This factor includes total technical literacy, and to what extent young recruits entering service in the Russian Army and the U.S. can be trained. That is, the question is, who will be the better at managing sophisticated armored vehicles: the experienced pros on a good salary, raised in a home with a swimming pool with year-round heating, or a 19-year-old conscript from the Russian "boonies", possibly a victim of bullying. Here, history shows that the less "advanced" nations were usually able to succeed at first, but eventually they were always defeated.
We should not forget about the mentality that directly affects human behavior in combat. The war is a risky job, and good soldiers costs money. Therefore, no matter how expensive the measures taken to improve the survival rate of the tank on the battlefield, soldiers cannot be neglected as they may feel left out, and it will lower their morale. When the confidence of the tank drivers is low, there is a danger of unwillingness to engage in a battle with the enemy.
The Russian tanks are designed to attack, while U.S. tanks, as already noted, are not a means of aggression, but a powerful antitank weapon, along with helicopters "Apache" and attackers "Thunderbolt-2." The presence of the loader allows them to develop a very high rate in the decisive moments of the fight, and the separate storage of ammunition increases the chances of survival.
Meanwhile, the entire world once saw photographs of the Soviet T-72 tanks, blown up by Chechen fighters in Grozny: inverted towers thrown up by internal explosion, or even completely destroyed.
We can be comparing for a long time which tank has thicker armor and perfect electronics, which has already been done by Kenneth Maxey in his book, but this will not solve the problem.
The way out is in the analysis of the overall macroeconomic situation since 1945. It very clearly shows that almost all of the local conflicts with the weapons created in the USSR and in the West, from the military point of view, ended in a draw. This means that neither side had significant superiority.
In the political sphere, we also see that none of the T-72 saved pro-Soviet regimes from the collapse, and the Soviet Union - from the economic transition to capitalism. The outcome of the invasion of Iraq in 1991 was decided not by tank battles between the "Abrams" and the T-72, but a massive strike with precision-guided missiles at the control center and mass bribery of the elite Iraqi army generals.
In terms of the global policy Russia won the greatest war in human history: saved the world from fascism (and Russian tanks have played a significant role), but as a result lost the world. The winner is absent on the political map today, and no tanks saved it from the collapse. Hence it is not about whose tanks are better, but something else.
When Russia figures out what it is, that's when its tanks will be the best in the world. For now, Russian tanks are far below western ones and this is why they are harder to hit.
Which tank is best: Abrams or T-90? - English pravda.ru
Russia will display a prototype model of its new T-90S tank at the Defexpo 2012 arms exhibition in India later this week, arms firm Rosoboronexport delegation head Viktor Komardin said on Monday.
"This new tank will be the gem of the show," Komardin said. "Its first foreign presentation will be the main event," he added.
"The Indian Army already operates the T-90, so its modernized variant - which, by the way is an absolutely new machine - will be of great potential interest to the Indians," he said.
The show will take place in Delhi from March 29 to April 1.
India has overtaken China as the world's largest conventional arms buyer in the last five years, according to a report from the Swedish Stockholm International Peace Research Institute released last week. India spent $12.7 billion on weapons in that period, 80 percent of which came from Russia.
Russia to Show New Tank in India | Defense | RIA Novosti
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,880
- Likes
- 680
and its prove your knowledge on this topic?
boss, its not my post 
this post has two articles by the front-line news papers of world, related to the front-line tank of two of the top four strongest Militaries of the world, the T-90 of Russia and India :thumb:
=> Global Firepower Military Ranks - 2013
Last edited:
Damian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,836
- Likes
- 2,202
I proved my knowledge about this subject on other forums and in other threads.
I do not care, you are responsible what you spread, if you spread BS then you spread BS.
Mass media are source of information for idiots when it comes to military related issues, this how much worth this is. Especially that there are simplifications for simpletons, which are absolutely unacceptable for proffesional military press.
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,880
- Likes
- 680
and its prove your knowledge on this topic?
this post has two articles by the front-line news papers of world, related to the front-line tank of two of the top four strongest Militaries of the world, the T-90 of Russia and India :thumb:
=> Global Firepower Military Ranks - 2013
=> Global Firepower Military Ranks - 2013
i just noticed in the above link of GFP that PwrIndx of US was around 0.11 in 2005, if i remember, while its now at around 0.2475 by GFP????? its a sharp fall of "comparative" military strength of US......
also, difference of 0.1 between India and China does look humiliating, true, but im mainly surprised about Britain, it won't be ranked above Turkey by any criterion, i think?????? :ranger:
any comment by other members? :thumb:
Damian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,836
- Likes
- 2,202
As typical simpleton you fail to see that such "comparisions" are failed because world is more complex that simpletons like you see it.
Which means such comparisions are useless.
Besides this you are dumb biased moron, who is always against USA due to your stupid ideology.
But what to expect from moron who still believes he lives in Soviet Union that does not exist by the past 22 years.
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,880
- Likes
- 680
look, even the moral of troops matters on the battle field, which may turn the result, true....:thumb:
but GFP ranking has been in place for a long and many newspapers have been giving its reference in past so this comparison is taken into account in this thread, make sense????
for example, we also discussed the news as below in this thread, as per the topic. which was prepared by the governments of US+EU both, while many people do find its little meaning on the ground, its also true.... :ranger:
Last edited:
Damian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,836
- Likes
- 2,202
No, single factor is irrelevant, it is combination of factors that matters, and again you fail to see it, typical for simpletons.
No, for someone who have deeper interest in what happens on this planet, or is interested in military issues, it is useless. But of course simpleton like you, can even mastrubate reading it in excitement.
These are only simulations, some ideas and opinions, views, nothing relevant, or being a fact, only you are so excited about mass media news that for me as person with higher education, you are just pathetic.
In fact real military power of nations can't be meassured, things are too fluid, also during conflicts. The most objective approach is to just accept it is not based on some fundamental truths, but on chances, decisions made etc.
Not because hello_10 likes country x and dislakies country y, or because news paper or some silly internet site he likes/dislikes compares country he likes with country he dislikes.
And you do this in all your posts, you are making primitive comparisions, you show your primitive attitude towards states or nations, you show your primitive opinions on economics which are far more complex phenomena.
The best would be if you just shut up.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 13,811
- Likes
- 6,734
The easiest way to rank armed forces is based on real defence spending and is probably the closest you will get to actual capability as it includes qualitative and quantitative numbers. One thing that is often overlooked is the capability of the domestic MIC. How much do you rely on imports to arm your military? Another thing I look for is actual expeditionary capability, if you can't operate a full spectrum force outside your borders, you aren't much of a power. All these things are subjective so you should also look at recent history and how well those forces have conducted themselves in combat ops.
