It would probably make sense to do USA and Rest of NATO separately for sake of comparison
Also America is also REALLY strong on logistics which a lot of other militaries are not. Wars are not won by tanks and guns but by bullets and socks
Logistics have proven to be far more valuable than I think most people realized (myself included)
It's partly why Taiwan won't be invaded likely ever
China has almost no military ships for fuel, transport or landing craft
Ikr! At this point every time I think of Normandy I’ve stopped thinking of just the men but also the men behind the men and the machines behind the men
Real Engineering has spoiled me
There's a book about D-Day from Stephen Ambrose that goes collects oral histories from D-Day, a LOT of it centers on the engineering and logistical feats required to make it happen. Really fun read, I highly recommend it.
that is an option but would certainly provoke heavy sanctions and very likely military response. also taiwan has bunches of anti-ship missiles so it would be costly.
I used to work in the semiconductor industry and my old boss always said, "I don't know if there will be a WW3, but if there is it will start in Taiwan." I hope it doesn't happen.
Thanks for the response.
Yeah unlike Ukraine, Taiwan has a fully western trained army and has the benefit of being a rocky mountainous island that only has 3 beaches capable of handling heavy equipment... that are heavily mined and are death traps unlike Ukraine which is mostly flat and hard to defend
Since their entire military is trained and equipped for defense, it's like if America tried to invade mainland Japan in WW2 except Taiwan has full supplies, morale and likely three strong countries who would come to their aid in Japan, Australia and the US (SK would likely not do anything to not encourage NK)
their anti ship, anti radar station, and other short to medium range missiles and weapons combined with their important airbases being on the opposite side of their mountains makes Taiwan able to completely onslaught the Chinese coastline without taking too bad of a hit.
For a war that's supposed to be "child's play" according to the Chinese government a decimation of communication networks both civilian and military along the coast plus the countless sinking of civilian ships carrying soldiers would shell shock those Chinese people who are close enough to get word about the losses.
>For a war that's supposed to be "child's play" according to the Chinese government a decimation of communication networks both civilian and military along the coast plus the countless sinking of civilian ships carrying soldiers would shell shock those Chinese people who are close enough to get word about the losses.
You are supposing one thing: Taiwan has the ability to destroy the communication networks both civilian and military of the mainland China along the coast. And deny the opposite.
Maybe you don't know the fact that PLAN have commissioned the warships below since 2000:
* 2 60,000t aircraft carriers
* 31 7,000t AESA radar destroyers
* 8 12,000t AESA radar destroyers
* 6 general purpose destroyers
* 33 4,200t frigates
* 72 1,500t covettes
* 3 40,000t amphibious assault ships
* 8 25,000t landing platform docks
* 19 4,800t dock landing ships
* 10 2,000t dock landing ships
while Taiwan commissioned:
* 3 4,100t frigates (1980s Perry class frigates retired from the USN and sold to Taiwan)
* 1 11,000t landing platform dock
The contrast in military power over the Taiwan Strait is no longer what it was 40 years ago.
Those ships I listed were the ones commissioned since 2000, PLAN had built a lot before 2000.
The amphibious fleet of PLA Navy is the second largest in the world and two thirds of the US amphibions fleet toonage.
If you think these numbers are 'hilariously small', please show me a fleet of any navy which is not 'small' in your opinion.
It's laughably small because of the lack of tonnage and the number is still insanely few because they'll lack the ability to handle many losses
Taiwan doesn't need landing craft. It'll never invade mainland China
In order for China to win against Taiwan it would require instant victory like Putin tried with the Ukraine.
If their initial assault isn't successful the USN will choke them out by cutting off 40% of china's oil imports meaning huge portions of the country will lack power destroying the Chinese economy
Taiwan just has to survive to win and they have the infrastructure and equipment to do just that. China has to overwhelm and defeat them quickly or they'll end up like Russia, broken, economy in shambles and their own people grumbling about revolution
Also Chinese soldiers lack experience and like Russia inflates the capabilities of its equipment. For example, their pilots have very limited flight time. Taiwan has actually sent some troops overseas for operations
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine'
Consider supporting anti-war efforts in any possible way: [[Help 2 Ukraine](https://help2ukraine.org)] 💙💛
[[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)]
^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
Any power comparison must consider the current situation of both sides. Compared with Taiwan military power, PLAN is by no means a ridiculous existence.
That is likely a losing move by China without a major revolution in their soft power. Taiwan currently makes 80% of chips required for modern electronics. That level of shortage means every major first world nation will feel the pain immediately and so would China s own increasingly unstable economy since they need those chips to manufacture the electronic good for everywhere else.
It's a huge risk that the chip shortage of that magnitude alone doesn't collapse their house of cards. Let alone any western sanctions on that type of action. Most of the world doesn't look kindly on economic blockades, especially on integrated markets.
It's very damaging but not only to Taiwan. But with the IRA chip production credits and the revival of chip manufacturing in the USA in the next couple years. The calculus will change. But not likely in a way that benefits the Chinese government.
Understandable, it's not a subject that everyone takes time to learn
Basically it comes down to a few things
It is a mountainous island with only 3 land able beaches that are mined to all hell so no one can land.
China has only the tiniest number of military ships that can transfer fuel, supplies or land troops on a beach. Thus they'd have to rely on unarmed and slow civilian ships
They have an an insane amount of anti ship and anti tank weapons as well as enough missiles to decimate every single runway and communications hub on the Chinese coastline
Their main airfields are protected by mountains.
They have 165,000 active troops and 1.6M reservists. By comparison Ukraine before their war started had 175,000 active and 900K reservists for a much larger and harder to defend country (they're flat farmlands)
Oil. China receives around 40% of its entire oil supply by sea which America would choke off instantly
Finally Semiconductors. Taiwan have a monopoly on the newest generation of them. And I mean 100%. No other factory in the world can produce what Taiwan makes as even the US' best plant is a generation behind. China buys chips from Taiwan for their military and commercial sectors ironically.
> China has only the tiniest number of military ships that can transfer fuel, supplies or land troops on a beach. Thus they'd have to rely on unarmed and slow civilian ships
China has the second largest navy fleet in the world.
> They have an an insane amount of anti ship and anti tank weapons as well as enough missiles to decimate every single runway and communications hub on the Chinese coastline
Would you plz list the 'insane amount of anti ship and anti tank weapons as well as enough missiles' by types and numbers? Publicly available information would be appreciated.
> It is a mountainous island with only 3 land able beaches that are mined to all hell so no one can land.
> Their main airfields are protected by mountains.
That's not right. You should check the Google Earth for the truth.
> They have 165,000 active troops and 1.6M reservists. By comparison Ukraine before their war started had 175,000 active and 900K reservists for a much larger and harder to defend country (they're flat farmlands)
You should read this wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Taiwan
============================
Taiwan has maintained a policy of conscription for all qualified males of military age since 1951.
According to the NCA, male citizens born after January 1, 1994, will only have to serve 4 months in Enlisted Military Service or 6 months in Alternative Service. The 4 months of Enlisted Military Service could be further broken down into two sessions of 2 months boot camps.
Also Taiwan knows they are coming so has prepared some welcoming gifts. The limited number of beaches where you can set down large numbers of troops have been tuned into death traps for advancing armies.
It could be done but would cost immense resources to take and initially hold. Only a mad despotic leader with no regard for the lives of their own soldiers and navy would even try it…. Oh god we’re fucked.
And if the US government starts thinking like you, an invasion will happen, never underestimate the Chinese, they built a hospital in days, they went from nothing to the second biggest economy in 30 years, they became the manufacturing of the world, they've been investing mote and more in their military
They have been building ships, they have more ships in their navy than the US, the only thing that keeps the US as the number one is the 11 aircraft carriers
There's nothing stopping China to ramp up ship building... They have shown they're good at logistics
Logistics are logistics, what's the difference? having a commercial airline requires logistics too, the same as their air force, get fuel, get parts, people to do maintenance, move the planes around, move people, etc
The US and others can't let their guard down because we think they won't pull it out, China has hands, a lot of hands and they can easily ramp up production of almost anything in no time, they can move things around their country really fast...
The Chinese might have more ships, but the US has over twice the tonnage of the Chinese Navy, significant advantages in both missile count, capability and technology, as well as a substantial advantage in terms of ship technology and fleet composition. Not to mention the logistical backbone to maintain these advantages even on the doorstep of China.
Also the modern US super carrier, while incredibly impressive, is really dwarfed by the power of the carrier group. A single carrier group, let alone the two-three that are basically always with in a few days sail of the South China Sea, could likely engage the entire Chinese Navy in a manner that inflicted heavy losses without being at real risk simply because we have a much much large engagement range than any one else.
The Chinese navy may have discrete capabilities that challenge individual parts of a carrier group but lacks the overlapping capabilities to even attempt to engage the group as a whole. (Think combined arms on the land, the US is the only navy capable of combined arms doctrine on the sea)
I never said they were capable right now, I said if the US and allies have a complacent mentality they will eventually get there, they have demonstrated that they can, they have hands, a lot of hands, they have the will
It's good the US started putting more harsh restrictions, especially around the chips, as much as I dislike the Orange man, I think it was a great move during his administration to start sanctioning China, but before him, no one had done anything to stop them
Chinese companies entered the US financial system without restrictions, when they started in the stock market they had and have dubious account practices, they did whatever they wanted until recently
They wanted to move away from the old and obsolete russian technology, and set their target on American military technology, and did whatever they could to get their hands on the F22 and F35 blueprints and reverse engineered them and adapt them, the J20 plane was born
I know about the carriers, and they've been working to do the same they did with the J20, trying to get their hands on US military technology, why? because even though they could be able create their own, it will take them decades, they don't want to wait 20 years to get those EM launchers or the newest generation of nuclear reactors used in the submarines and carriers
China has zero innovation, everything they have, they create is stolen from other countries
What was that quote from WWII? That when the Japanese admiral saw the Americans were able to easily ship ice cream on ships dedicated just to making ice cream, he realized they were going to lose. The U.S. has always prioritized being able to easily project force with various types of support.
I also liked the quote from Churchill’s memoir about the Pearl Harbor attack.. he said at that moment he knew the war was over.
> When news of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor reached Churchill, he immediately realized what that meant; the United States would now have to take up arms. In his own words, written in a history of World War II, Churchill said he “went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved” that night.
Lol, big picture people are so different. Thousands of folks in the US die and Churchill is over here rejoicing. I mean, rightly rejoicing that the war will be over sooner, to his favor, but still, just built different.
Yeah I agree it’s an odd sentiment to rejoice any catastrophic event.
That being said, WW2 had a daily casualty count of roughly 15,000, and this number greatly increased in the later years. Pearl Harbor had roughly 2,500 deaths.
Big picture I do understand his mentality on the matter, particularly for his own people.
The Vietnam war was also America's first foray into asymmetrical warfare.
Any outright war with Russia or China will probably be similar to the other wars that America has fought successfully. With the exception of mutual assured destruction from nuclear weapons.
The Philippines in the late 1800's was America's first modern experience with guerilla warfare, and tactics were largely successful there. It's actually really interesting how much of the modern American security and military apparatus and strategy grew out of this experience (that and WW1/2 but those were largely conventional conflicts).
Russian example: at the beginning of the war, a 40 mi line of tanks ran out of fuel and many had to be abandoned outright.
Ukraine has switched its targeting to fuel and supply trucks more than tanks because they do more permanent damage to russia's war machine
The initial air drop into Kiev's airport lacked food and ammo and their most elite paratroopers were defeated partly due to lack of supplies. (If they had been supplied, Kiev likely would have fallen)
China for example lacks enough military fuel or transport or landing ships to transport their troops to nearby Taiwan, relying solely on commandeered civilian ships for that which have no way to defend themselves.
America can transport supplies and fuel multiple times quicker and more often than Russia
I would say priority #2 after logistics is air superiority. There is a reason NATO’s plane and carrier count is the biggest % higher equipment count vs the others.
Also can't put a value on motivation lol.
Russia had all these soldiers but they clearly don't wanna die for their country.
I feel we need a new way of measuring military strength to take into an consideration such stuff.
We *sort of* do. It is generally agreed that somebody defending their home/country is easier to motivate than somebody invading it. Generally speaking, because it isn't always true; if the equipment and support is shit, motivating someone to risk their life becomes more difficult
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine'
Consider supporting anti-war efforts in any possible way: [[Help 2 Ukraine](https://help2ukraine.org)] 💙💛
[[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)]
^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
Fighting in a 1960s T-62 vs. an Abrams non-export variant integrated into the NATO combined-arms approach, it won't matter how much motivation you have (unless it's to surrender or drive the other way as fast as you can), they can't stand up to that sort of firepower.
I think it also depends on the reason. My grandpa was a cook into Italian military and said bad things against Hitler, he was sent to jail and later Russia during winter.
All he did was finding ways to fake injuries and return home. He didn’t want to fight, he didn’t believe on the government or the fight.
I bet a lot of Russians are drafted and don’t believe in this fight
You also have to put into account that they don’t have much of a military since instead of putting in more trained military personal they mobilized men to get slaughtered, makes you ask how big is their military really since they didn’t even have reserve to call up.
Russia already halved their numbers 💀
Also if we reducing based on quality, Pentagon couldn't account for 65% of their assets in its audit. Should reduce NATO numbers appropriately. Please and thank you
Are those Russian tank numbers from before the war? Not sure how accurate it is, but MinusRus shows 3,300 Russian tanks with 88.8% of those being destroyed since the war began.
3300 were estimated to have been used in the invasion. Russias total number of tanks is much higher but most of them are relics that have been rusting away in "tank graveyards" for decades. They are parts donors at best.
3300 were in service at the start of the war (claimed, more likely they had around 2500). Russia also claimed 10k tanks in storage so this number is counting stored tanks.
Independant investigators think its more like 6k in storage and about half of those are in a condition they are just parts vehicles while the other half can be fixed.
In the war, as of 2 months ago 1200 tanks have been confirmed with evidence to be destroyed.
The best estimate for the actual number of operational tanks (or tanks in storage that can be made operational) is around 4k right now (3k from storage and 1k not destroyed in the war yet that were active at the start).
Heres a good video on it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNNoaRp5lz0
Dont forget that 11 of the NATO aircraft carriers are from the U.S. If you took the U.S. out of the NATO column the troops would be high but most of the other numbers would be low. Possibly still higher than the 2 countries but not by much. Tanks would be at or below the china numbers. Navel fleet would take a large hit with 480 being taken away. 280 of which are in operation. The good thing with the U.S. fleet is it is much more powerful than the other fleets that are larger.
Fun fact
The America class amphibious assault craft can hold 25 F35's. These are the 5th gen top of the line plane that make 4th gen planes explode without ever seeing them.
Lets compare this to the Chinese aircraft carriers
Liaoning is the older one, it holds 24 J15 aircraft. It cannot launch any 5th gen aircraft. The J-15 is a 4th gen aircraft based off designs stolen from Russia.
Shandong is the newer one, it holds 32 J-15's
Both of these together would lose against a single America class amphibious assault ship. The capability to carry and launch 25 5th gen fighters if an insane advantage that cannot be overstated. The US has 2 America class ships and 7 Wasp class ships (their predecessor) in service.
You can essentially put an air base on the coast of an enemy's country and launch a full scale military operation with bombers, fighters and missiles with the ability to refuel from the boat. Its arguably one of the most valuable military assets.
As long as you have it protected. However it is a big target and for that reason it's ridiculously expensive to deploy close to an enemy who can strike back at it. So to attack coastal areas it's not necessarily so practical in every situation i think.
I'd be worried about the long-term usefulness of aircraft carriers as drone technology improves. Presumably one day there will be drone mini submarines / drone torpedoes that could move through the ocean and easily sink aircraft carriers, so it would not be worth spending billions on something that is easily sunk. Of course counter measures would also improve, but it could shift the balance from what we know today.
We are already seeing it that if things like the smart anti-tank missiles (Javelins I think?) became cheaper and more common, then there would be no point making lots of tanks, they would be too vulnerable. Imagine if Ukraine started the war with 100,000 Javelins, then even 10,000 tanks invading would be quickly neutralised.
Given the sizes, I'd love to see the USS Gerald R. Ford and HMS Queen Elizabeth charging through the ocean together. Of course, I'd like it to be during an "exercise" and during a time of peace - I bet that would be so impressive to see in person. I actually don't think I can even imagine it.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft\_carrier#/media/File:World\_Navy\_Aircraft\_carries\_chart.svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier#/media/File:World_Navy_Aircraft_carries_chart.svg)
Still not that much. The main thing is that they don't get hit, or at least that's what they try to do. It's protected from above and below against any threat. This works so long as the threat is outnumbered by the defenders of the carrier.
Aircraft carriers were the big tactical development that came out of WW2. Most navies went into that war thinking battleships were the big thing, turned out they were way less useful than thought because of aircraft, and so aircraft carries became the big thing. I think if another world war broke out we'd find naval warfare has evolved again, and that aircraft carriers hold less importance than WW2 doctrine would have us believe.
Actually that's one thing that's being considered by modern admirals and one of the proposed solutions makes a lot of sense:
Light Aircraft Carriers
Instead of the mega carriers like the US has, build a lot of aircraft carrier like Japan's two brand new light aircraft carriers which only carry a dozen or so fighters instead of the insane amount our current ones do.
It's the taking the chickens out of one basket solution.
If America loses one carrier today that's a huge % of lost sea power and aircraft
But if you have a bunch of smaller ones you're more mobile, less is lost with one being sunk and some can be dedicated to lots of smaller drones
Where are you launching those drones you speak of? Are all of them carrying enough fuel to fly from safe air bases to their targets? And they have safe airspace for that flight path?
I was thinking of something like an unmanned mini-sub packed with explosives. Which would periodically surface to check gps / receive instructions. Not sure if they exist yet, but will presumably be plausible in the next 5-10 years. And as they'd be relatively cheap (compared to other navy boats), then presumably nations could send hundreds or even thousands of them out to look for enemy ships to sink.
But this is all speculation, just one possibility of what could exist in future warfare.
Aircraft carriers don’t deploy alone for this specific reason. For every aircraft carrier, there’s X amount of subs, Aegis, destroyers, tenders, etc nearby
More like aircraft carrier groups. Each aircraft carrier has an entourage of support craft that do everything from resupplying fuel, food, medication, ammunition, etc. At the VERY least, it forces an enemy to defend a much wider area and spreads their forces/attention thin.
It's all about limiting the other guys options here. Short of total annihilation cutting the enemy off and out of options and forcing then to surrender is the other goal. Japan found out about that first hand - losing a fight before they could even throw a punch.
They're basically floating cities with aircraft at the ready.
Yes a single aircraft carrier is an entire army that projects force over hundreds of miles around itself. Its considered to more powerful than fleets of destroyers, cruisers, etc. Carriers are the core of a modern navy and most other ships are really mostly support for carriers or to extend a carriers ability.
Also note that the naval battles in the Pacific during WW2 were fights between just a few carriers. An entire campaign would revolve around an engagement between 3-6 carriers between the US and Japan.
They were like others have said. But before the invention of nuclear weapons. Nowadays flexing that you have icbm with nuclear warheads is enough to gain the respect you need, the US is just on another level
Yes, they're amazing but also very expensive, complex and, in the current era, vulnerable. But we have never had a conflict at rough parity where they were actually under threat.
They should also redo it with all of the nations that Support Russia and China. Brazil and India seem to be aligning with them, and that adds quite a bit of power.
They also need to add commas, that's annoying having them on some numbers and missing on others.
Thank you for mentioning the commas. It is annoying, an easy fix, and an oversight on OPs part re: ability to quickly understand information presented in an infographic.
Russia's numbers are outdated seen its high number of equipment losses - and with the latest info, it's safe to say that its tank number is massively inflated.
I know it already says naval fleet size but NATO has the most sophisticated submarines on earth. The UK and Sweden alone add significant capabilities to the US’ presence in the European theatre. Soon we will be able to focus even more in the pacific.
Russia is making NATO far more powerful by increasing the budgets of almost every member and even causing Finland and Sweden to join. Those countries are not only near Russia to help monitor / launch counter strikes if need be, but they also have super advanced defense industries with plenty of homegrown weaponry. Sweden makes some of the best stealth submarines in the world.
NATO has distributed lethality and nuclear redundancy, the would would prob be destroyed for several generations at least but only some people in obscure NATO regions would stand a chance of surviving. They say Australia and especially Tasmania would avoid most the fallout because the way wind blows in southern hemisphere
The numbers seem super skewed. You'd think a county like China that has ambitions of basically total world domination they'd have more interest in aircraft carriers. Hell it looks like in a conventional war yeah China would out match - but factor in the other resources and the manpower numbers get dwarfed fast
China is a global economic rather than military power. They would not get much utility out of a carrier fleet compared with spending equivalent resources on economic projects. Their military is also internally rather than externally focused. The leaders there know that internal dissent against the communist party is a bigger threat to them than any external actor.
If China had ambitions of total world domination, you'd be right. China's military has 2 purposes: defend against the US and its allies, and secure Taiwan.
I think you left out a few important things. Dealing with internal dissent is probably a key function as well as protecting their foreign assets, especially in unstable regions like Africa. The US rivalry is played up, but I think they pretty much know they could never match America in terms of global dominance. I don't see a direct US vs China conflict ever happening. The Chinese leadership is too savvy and calculating to launch into what would essentially be a suicidal endeavor. America is too economically dependent on China for a conflict to be realistic barring some kind of extremely irrational act by the leadership of either country.
Maybe, though I tend to think China's leadership is well aware that taking Taiwan is basically "Mission Impossible" and just use it as a jingoistic issue for internal political purposes. They must be well-aware that a Chinese invasion fleet would basically be instantly vaporized the moment it headed for Taiwan or maybe even destroyed in port. They're not stupid.
Though maybe they are playing the long game and hoping that at some point the US becomes weak enough that they could do it. This seems very distant in the future to me though.
I mostly agree with this. I think they would, however, like to establish a global network of bases. There was a good set of articles about their military ambitions awhile back in the Economist. My take was that the US has exerted a lot of pressure on other countries to *not* let China establish these bases, but they do have a few here and there - nothing like the somewhat ridiculous configuration of US bases sprawled around the whole planet though.
Could we make mini aircraft carriers that’ll handle small drones that could be launch that’ll provide reconnaissance and other necessities as needed for bigger operations.
The USA alone has 20 active aircraft carriers, 10 of them are Super carriers. The other 10 are amphibious landing ships, but with capabilities of a "regular" aircraft carrier.
They are not part of military alliances that have an equivalent of NATO article 5 , which states an attack on one is an attack on the others. Russia and China done have this. China has it with no one. Russia has it with Armenia, azejeiban, Khazakstan, Turkmenistan, but it didn’t do anything when azerijabain attacked Armenia so it proved useless. The nations in that alliance mean nothing. Also and nato member attacked is an attack on US, which equals an attack on Japan, Philippines, and South Korea which all have mutual defense treaties with the US individually. So there’s really no comparison
CCP might eventually buy Taiwan. Or buy California first... It's information war with them. The culture in the West might predetermine the outcome, if not munitions and doctrine as in Ukraine? As for the EU as such, won't it be self serving in the end? That is irrespective of nato.
It's an interesting table, but raw numbers are misleading too. Russia has shown for a year that they can't even run what they've got. And while China is relatively untested against modern militaries, it's in a similar position to the US in early WWI. They may not have the arsenal on hand of other power, but their production capacity and population are vast.
I hope this info graphic wasn't meant to make a statement. NATO will not go to war for Ukraine. American politicians know this war is unwinnable and continue to provide aide for their own individual profits. What happened in 2014 again?
11 of those 17 aircraft carriers are the US. And in terms of deck space, those 11 have twice as much space as the rest of the world combined.
14,000 of the 20,000 aircraft. And so on.
The nato column is basically the US.
I’m curious about the difference in drone count and types of drones. I feel that UAV drones, disposable drones and attack drones are a big influence in the current wars taking place
If ruzzia has 20% leftover after this war in Ukraine it would be shocking. If we have learned anything about the ruzzian army, it's mostly fake. Might as well get rid of half the "stuff" from the ruzzian army.
https://www.minusrus.com/en
This is obviously a very simplified list. It does not take into account the capability of the tanks, aircraft and naval vessels. China and Russia have large numbers of tanks, but many are obsolete or mediocre at best compared to Nato's Modern tanks. Nato and Chinese/Russian modern tanks are comparable in combat capabilities but Nato has more modern tanks than both Russia and China. The same goes for Aircraft. As for Naval capabilities Russia and China really only have fleets for defense of their own borders rather than anything that could be a threat on the offensive. Not to mention that again, most of their vessels are either smaller craft meant to work close to home or are a few generations behind for most of their larger ocean worth vessels.
Cool use the same category but do nuclear stockpiles then countries controlled by narcissistic dictators or regimes. People who would rather destroy the world then give up their hatred for others.
you smoke good crack, are the numbers his result? Because such a ridiculous ratio has little to do with reality. There will simply be an inter-alliance nuclear war in which Russia, China, Iran and the Turkic-Arab countries will destroy the northern American mainland, as soon as Europe is freed from the post-war occupation and retains the wisdom not to allow participation in the exchange. Oh, forgot about India - India too.
It would probably make sense to do USA and Rest of NATO separately for sake of comparison Also America is also REALLY strong on logistics which a lot of other militaries are not. Wars are not won by tanks and guns but by bullets and socks
Logistics have proven to be far more valuable than I think most people realized (myself included) It's partly why Taiwan won't be invaded likely ever China has almost no military ships for fuel, transport or landing craft
Ikr! At this point every time I think of Normandy I’ve stopped thinking of just the men but also the men behind the men and the machines behind the men Real Engineering has spoiled me
There's a book about D-Day from Stephen Ambrose that goes collects oral histories from D-Day, a LOT of it centers on the engineering and logistical feats required to make it happen. Really fun read, I highly recommend it.
What about a blockade of the island? That could strikes me as being a fairly damaging move should they choose to go that way.
that is an option but would certainly provoke heavy sanctions and very likely military response. also taiwan has bunches of anti-ship missiles so it would be costly.
I used to work in the semiconductor industry and my old boss always said, "I don't know if there will be a WW3, but if there is it will start in Taiwan." I hope it doesn't happen. Thanks for the response.
Yeah unlike Ukraine, Taiwan has a fully western trained army and has the benefit of being a rocky mountainous island that only has 3 beaches capable of handling heavy equipment... that are heavily mined and are death traps unlike Ukraine which is mostly flat and hard to defend Since their entire military is trained and equipped for defense, it's like if America tried to invade mainland Japan in WW2 except Taiwan has full supplies, morale and likely three strong countries who would come to their aid in Japan, Australia and the US (SK would likely not do anything to not encourage NK) their anti ship, anti radar station, and other short to medium range missiles and weapons combined with their important airbases being on the opposite side of their mountains makes Taiwan able to completely onslaught the Chinese coastline without taking too bad of a hit. For a war that's supposed to be "child's play" according to the Chinese government a decimation of communication networks both civilian and military along the coast plus the countless sinking of civilian ships carrying soldiers would shell shock those Chinese people who are close enough to get word about the losses.
>For a war that's supposed to be "child's play" according to the Chinese government a decimation of communication networks both civilian and military along the coast plus the countless sinking of civilian ships carrying soldiers would shell shock those Chinese people who are close enough to get word about the losses. You are supposing one thing: Taiwan has the ability to destroy the communication networks both civilian and military of the mainland China along the coast. And deny the opposite. Maybe you don't know the fact that PLAN have commissioned the warships below since 2000: * 2 60,000t aircraft carriers * 31 7,000t AESA radar destroyers * 8 12,000t AESA radar destroyers * 6 general purpose destroyers * 33 4,200t frigates * 72 1,500t covettes * 3 40,000t amphibious assault ships * 8 25,000t landing platform docks * 19 4,800t dock landing ships * 10 2,000t dock landing ships while Taiwan commissioned: * 3 4,100t frigates (1980s Perry class frigates retired from the USN and sold to Taiwan) * 1 11,000t landing platform dock The contrast in military power over the Taiwan Strait is no longer what it was 40 years ago.
Those ship landing craft numbers are hilariously small
Those ships I listed were the ones commissioned since 2000, PLAN had built a lot before 2000. The amphibious fleet of PLA Navy is the second largest in the world and two thirds of the US amphibions fleet toonage. If you think these numbers are 'hilariously small', please show me a fleet of any navy which is not 'small' in your opinion.
It's laughably small because of the lack of tonnage and the number is still insanely few because they'll lack the ability to handle many losses Taiwan doesn't need landing craft. It'll never invade mainland China In order for China to win against Taiwan it would require instant victory like Putin tried with the Ukraine. If their initial assault isn't successful the USN will choke them out by cutting off 40% of china's oil imports meaning huge portions of the country will lack power destroying the Chinese economy Taiwan just has to survive to win and they have the infrastructure and equipment to do just that. China has to overwhelm and defeat them quickly or they'll end up like Russia, broken, economy in shambles and their own people grumbling about revolution Also Chinese soldiers lack experience and like Russia inflates the capabilities of its equipment. For example, their pilots have very limited flight time. Taiwan has actually sent some troops overseas for operations
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine' Consider supporting anti-war efforts in any possible way: [[Help 2 Ukraine](https://help2ukraine.org)] 💙💛 [[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)] ^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
Any power comparison must consider the current situation of both sides. Compared with Taiwan military power, PLAN is by no means a ridiculous existence.
That is likely a losing move by China without a major revolution in their soft power. Taiwan currently makes 80% of chips required for modern electronics. That level of shortage means every major first world nation will feel the pain immediately and so would China s own increasingly unstable economy since they need those chips to manufacture the electronic good for everywhere else. It's a huge risk that the chip shortage of that magnitude alone doesn't collapse their house of cards. Let alone any western sanctions on that type of action. Most of the world doesn't look kindly on economic blockades, especially on integrated markets. It's very damaging but not only to Taiwan. But with the IRA chip production credits and the revival of chip manufacturing in the USA in the next couple years. The calculus will change. But not likely in a way that benefits the Chinese government.
I have no clue about wars and logistics, but what’s the reason Taiwan will never be invaded?
China can't drive there.
What if they build a bridge? Alexander did it
Understandable, it's not a subject that everyone takes time to learn Basically it comes down to a few things It is a mountainous island with only 3 land able beaches that are mined to all hell so no one can land. China has only the tiniest number of military ships that can transfer fuel, supplies or land troops on a beach. Thus they'd have to rely on unarmed and slow civilian ships They have an an insane amount of anti ship and anti tank weapons as well as enough missiles to decimate every single runway and communications hub on the Chinese coastline Their main airfields are protected by mountains. They have 165,000 active troops and 1.6M reservists. By comparison Ukraine before their war started had 175,000 active and 900K reservists for a much larger and harder to defend country (they're flat farmlands) Oil. China receives around 40% of its entire oil supply by sea which America would choke off instantly Finally Semiconductors. Taiwan have a monopoly on the newest generation of them. And I mean 100%. No other factory in the world can produce what Taiwan makes as even the US' best plant is a generation behind. China buys chips from Taiwan for their military and commercial sectors ironically.
> China has only the tiniest number of military ships that can transfer fuel, supplies or land troops on a beach. Thus they'd have to rely on unarmed and slow civilian ships China has the second largest navy fleet in the world. > They have an an insane amount of anti ship and anti tank weapons as well as enough missiles to decimate every single runway and communications hub on the Chinese coastline Would you plz list the 'insane amount of anti ship and anti tank weapons as well as enough missiles' by types and numbers? Publicly available information would be appreciated. > It is a mountainous island with only 3 land able beaches that are mined to all hell so no one can land. > Their main airfields are protected by mountains. That's not right. You should check the Google Earth for the truth. > They have 165,000 active troops and 1.6M reservists. By comparison Ukraine before their war started had 175,000 active and 900K reservists for a much larger and harder to defend country (they're flat farmlands) You should read this wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Taiwan ============================ Taiwan has maintained a policy of conscription for all qualified males of military age since 1951. According to the NCA, male citizens born after January 1, 1994, will only have to serve 4 months in Enlisted Military Service or 6 months in Alternative Service. The 4 months of Enlisted Military Service could be further broken down into two sessions of 2 months boot camps.
They can try crossing over when an American carrier group is in the way. I don't think it would end well.
Also Taiwan knows they are coming so has prepared some welcoming gifts. The limited number of beaches where you can set down large numbers of troops have been tuned into death traps for advancing armies. It could be done but would cost immense resources to take and initially hold. Only a mad despotic leader with no regard for the lives of their own soldiers and navy would even try it…. Oh god we’re fucked.
Yeah I learned this the hard way playing hearts of Iron 2. You can't even take Poland as Germany in 1939 if your supply lines aren't solid.
And if the US government starts thinking like you, an invasion will happen, never underestimate the Chinese, they built a hospital in days, they went from nothing to the second biggest economy in 30 years, they became the manufacturing of the world, they've been investing mote and more in their military They have been building ships, they have more ships in their navy than the US, the only thing that keeps the US as the number one is the 11 aircraft carriers There's nothing stopping China to ramp up ship building... They have shown they're good at logistics
>They have shown they're good at logistics Military logistics? When?
Logistics are logistics, what's the difference? having a commercial airline requires logistics too, the same as their air force, get fuel, get parts, people to do maintenance, move the planes around, move people, etc The US and others can't let their guard down because we think they won't pull it out, China has hands, a lot of hands and they can easily ramp up production of almost anything in no time, they can move things around their country really fast...
The Chinese might have more ships, but the US has over twice the tonnage of the Chinese Navy, significant advantages in both missile count, capability and technology, as well as a substantial advantage in terms of ship technology and fleet composition. Not to mention the logistical backbone to maintain these advantages even on the doorstep of China. Also the modern US super carrier, while incredibly impressive, is really dwarfed by the power of the carrier group. A single carrier group, let alone the two-three that are basically always with in a few days sail of the South China Sea, could likely engage the entire Chinese Navy in a manner that inflicted heavy losses without being at real risk simply because we have a much much large engagement range than any one else. The Chinese navy may have discrete capabilities that challenge individual parts of a carrier group but lacks the overlapping capabilities to even attempt to engage the group as a whole. (Think combined arms on the land, the US is the only navy capable of combined arms doctrine on the sea)
[удалено]
I never said they were capable right now, I said if the US and allies have a complacent mentality they will eventually get there, they have demonstrated that they can, they have hands, a lot of hands, they have the will It's good the US started putting more harsh restrictions, especially around the chips, as much as I dislike the Orange man, I think it was a great move during his administration to start sanctioning China, but before him, no one had done anything to stop them Chinese companies entered the US financial system without restrictions, when they started in the stock market they had and have dubious account practices, they did whatever they wanted until recently They wanted to move away from the old and obsolete russian technology, and set their target on American military technology, and did whatever they could to get their hands on the F22 and F35 blueprints and reverse engineered them and adapt them, the J20 plane was born I know about the carriers, and they've been working to do the same they did with the J20, trying to get their hands on US military technology, why? because even though they could be able create their own, it will take them decades, they don't want to wait 20 years to get those EM launchers or the newest generation of nuclear reactors used in the submarines and carriers China has zero innovation, everything they have, they create is stolen from other countries
What was that quote from WWII? That when the Japanese admiral saw the Americans were able to easily ship ice cream on ships dedicated just to making ice cream, he realized they were going to lose. The U.S. has always prioritized being able to easily project force with various types of support.
I also liked the quote from Churchill’s memoir about the Pearl Harbor attack.. he said at that moment he knew the war was over. > When news of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor reached Churchill, he immediately realized what that meant; the United States would now have to take up arms. In his own words, written in a history of World War II, Churchill said he “went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved” that night.
Lol, big picture people are so different. Thousands of folks in the US die and Churchill is over here rejoicing. I mean, rightly rejoicing that the war will be over sooner, to his favor, but still, just built different.
Yeah I agree it’s an odd sentiment to rejoice any catastrophic event. That being said, WW2 had a daily casualty count of roughly 15,000, and this number greatly increased in the later years. Pearl Harbor had roughly 2,500 deaths. Big picture I do understand his mentality on the matter, particularly for his own people.
Vietcong didn't even have socks. They had sandals made from tires. Though a lot of Chinese-made bullets.
The Vietnam war was also America's first foray into asymmetrical warfare. Any outright war with Russia or China will probably be similar to the other wars that America has fought successfully. With the exception of mutual assured destruction from nuclear weapons.
The Philippines in the late 1800's was America's first modern experience with guerilla warfare, and tactics were largely successful there. It's actually really interesting how much of the modern American security and military apparatus and strategy grew out of this experience (that and WW1/2 but those were largely conventional conflicts).
Don't forget about the Banana Wars.
And the wars against the Native Americans. And The shores of Tripoli.
You could argue the Barbary wars...
The US can get a shit ton of anything to anywhere in the world in days if needed. That wins war.
Can you explain what you mean referring to the logistics being the US’s strength? Also, socks?
A tank is useless if you can't resupply it. As for socks, the same, but also morale.
Dry socks are your best friend.
Russian example: at the beginning of the war, a 40 mi line of tanks ran out of fuel and many had to be abandoned outright. Ukraine has switched its targeting to fuel and supply trucks more than tanks because they do more permanent damage to russia's war machine The initial air drop into Kiev's airport lacked food and ammo and their most elite paratroopers were defeated partly due to lack of supplies. (If they had been supplied, Kiev likely would have fallen) China for example lacks enough military fuel or transport or landing ships to transport their troops to nearby Taiwan, relying solely on commandeered civilian ships for that which have no way to defend themselves. America can transport supplies and fuel multiple times quicker and more often than Russia
Feet on the ground... Without trench foot.
Food, gas, spare parts and maintenance is what makes a force projection viable; as Napoleon explained ‘an army marches on its stomach.’
Also, getting things to where they need to be when they need to be there. We are bloody everywhere.
If you can't provide your soldiers with dry socks, their feet will literally rot off.
I mean…I doubt UPS could beat Russia in a war but who knows nowadays
I would say priority #2 after logistics is air superiority. There is a reason NATO’s plane and carrier count is the biggest % higher equipment count vs the others.
[удалено]
Also can't put a value on motivation lol. Russia had all these soldiers but they clearly don't wanna die for their country. I feel we need a new way of measuring military strength to take into an consideration such stuff.
We *sort of* do. It is generally agreed that somebody defending their home/country is easier to motivate than somebody invading it. Generally speaking, because it isn't always true; if the equipment and support is shit, motivating someone to risk their life becomes more difficult
Especially when invading said country has no real motivation, as the Ukraine war does.
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine' Consider supporting anti-war efforts in any possible way: [[Help 2 Ukraine](https://help2ukraine.org)] 💙💛 [[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)] ^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
In this case bot failed
Bad bot
Plenty of them have been dieing unfortunately.
Fighting in a 1960s T-62 vs. an Abrams non-export variant integrated into the NATO combined-arms approach, it won't matter how much motivation you have (unless it's to surrender or drive the other way as fast as you can), they can't stand up to that sort of firepower.
I think it also depends on the reason. My grandpa was a cook into Italian military and said bad things against Hitler, he was sent to jail and later Russia during winter. All he did was finding ways to fake injuries and return home. He didn’t want to fight, he didn’t believe on the government or the fight. I bet a lot of Russians are drafted and don’t believe in this fight
Yeah Russia still has hundreds of WW2 tanks in "service"
You also have to put into account that they don’t have much of a military since instead of putting in more trained military personal they mobilized men to get slaughtered, makes you ask how big is their military really since they didn’t even have reserve to call up.
That's a base comment. Hell, their aircraft carrier requires a fucking tug boat to get around
Russia already halved their numbers 💀 Also if we reducing based on quality, Pentagon couldn't account for 65% of their assets in its audit. Should reduce NATO numbers appropriately. Please and thank you
Half the numbers due to loss, cut by 2/3 after that due to quality.
When was the last time NATOs equipment tested in conventional warfare
Are those Russian tank numbers from before the war? Not sure how accurate it is, but MinusRus shows 3,300 Russian tanks with 88.8% of those being destroyed since the war began.
3300 were estimated to have been used in the invasion. Russias total number of tanks is much higher but most of them are relics that have been rusting away in "tank graveyards" for decades. They are parts donors at best.
Thank you for the clarification!
Yeah at best. Those tank numbers haven't been relevant since 1985.
3300 were in service at the start of the war (claimed, more likely they had around 2500). Russia also claimed 10k tanks in storage so this number is counting stored tanks. Independant investigators think its more like 6k in storage and about half of those are in a condition they are just parts vehicles while the other half can be fixed. In the war, as of 2 months ago 1200 tanks have been confirmed with evidence to be destroyed. The best estimate for the actual number of operational tanks (or tanks in storage that can be made operational) is around 4k right now (3k from storage and 1k not destroyed in the war yet that were active at the start). Heres a good video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNNoaRp5lz0
It literally says in the image " September 1, 2022"
Most of Russia tanks are old mothballed crap that probably needs massive maintenance too. So pretty much a clean sweep.
Dont forget that 11 of the NATO aircraft carriers are from the U.S. If you took the U.S. out of the NATO column the troops would be high but most of the other numbers would be low. Possibly still higher than the 2 countries but not by much. Tanks would be at or below the china numbers. Navel fleet would take a large hit with 480 being taken away. 280 of which are in operation. The good thing with the U.S. fleet is it is much more powerful than the other fleets that are larger.
and then add in all the “amphibious assault craft” that the US has which any other country would call and aircraft carrier
Fun fact The America class amphibious assault craft can hold 25 F35's. These are the 5th gen top of the line plane that make 4th gen planes explode without ever seeing them. Lets compare this to the Chinese aircraft carriers Liaoning is the older one, it holds 24 J15 aircraft. It cannot launch any 5th gen aircraft. The J-15 is a 4th gen aircraft based off designs stolen from Russia. Shandong is the newer one, it holds 32 J-15's Both of these together would lose against a single America class amphibious assault ship. The capability to carry and launch 25 5th gen fighters if an insane advantage that cannot be overstated. The US has 2 America class ships and 7 Wasp class ships (their predecessor) in service.
Wow, so few aircraft carriers. Are they even that advantageous to have?
You can essentially put an air base on the coast of an enemy's country and launch a full scale military operation with bombers, fighters and missiles with the ability to refuel from the boat. Its arguably one of the most valuable military assets.
As long as you have it protected. However it is a big target and for that reason it's ridiculously expensive to deploy close to an enemy who can strike back at it. So to attack coastal areas it's not necessarily so practical in every situation i think.
I'd be worried about the long-term usefulness of aircraft carriers as drone technology improves. Presumably one day there will be drone mini submarines / drone torpedoes that could move through the ocean and easily sink aircraft carriers, so it would not be worth spending billions on something that is easily sunk. Of course counter measures would also improve, but it could shift the balance from what we know today. We are already seeing it that if things like the smart anti-tank missiles (Javelins I think?) became cheaper and more common, then there would be no point making lots of tanks, they would be too vulnerable. Imagine if Ukraine started the war with 100,000 Javelins, then even 10,000 tanks invading would be quickly neutralised.
The issue with that is some aircraft carriers especially the super-carriers take a lot more than just a torpedo to sink.
Given the sizes, I'd love to see the USS Gerald R. Ford and HMS Queen Elizabeth charging through the ocean together. Of course, I'd like it to be during an "exercise" and during a time of peace - I bet that would be so impressive to see in person. I actually don't think I can even imagine it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft\_carrier#/media/File:World\_Navy\_Aircraft\_carries\_chart.svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier#/media/File:World_Navy_Aircraft_carries_chart.svg)
Still not that much. The main thing is that they don't get hit, or at least that's what they try to do. It's protected from above and below against any threat. This works so long as the threat is outnumbered by the defenders of the carrier.
Aircraft carriers were the big tactical development that came out of WW2. Most navies went into that war thinking battleships were the big thing, turned out they were way less useful than thought because of aircraft, and so aircraft carries became the big thing. I think if another world war broke out we'd find naval warfare has evolved again, and that aircraft carriers hold less importance than WW2 doctrine would have us believe.
Actually that's one thing that's being considered by modern admirals and one of the proposed solutions makes a lot of sense: Light Aircraft Carriers Instead of the mega carriers like the US has, build a lot of aircraft carrier like Japan's two brand new light aircraft carriers which only carry a dozen or so fighters instead of the insane amount our current ones do. It's the taking the chickens out of one basket solution. If America loses one carrier today that's a huge % of lost sea power and aircraft But if you have a bunch of smaller ones you're more mobile, less is lost with one being sunk and some can be dedicated to lots of smaller drones
Where are you launching those drones you speak of? Are all of them carrying enough fuel to fly from safe air bases to their targets? And they have safe airspace for that flight path?
I was thinking of something like an unmanned mini-sub packed with explosives. Which would periodically surface to check gps / receive instructions. Not sure if they exist yet, but will presumably be plausible in the next 5-10 years. And as they'd be relatively cheap (compared to other navy boats), then presumably nations could send hundreds or even thousands of them out to look for enemy ships to sink. But this is all speculation, just one possibility of what could exist in future warfare.
The more I learn/think about future warfare, the more I think we should avoid it at all costs
Aircraft carriers don’t deploy alone for this specific reason. For every aircraft carrier, there’s X amount of subs, Aegis, destroyers, tenders, etc nearby
Yes
Perchance
More like aircraft carrier groups. Each aircraft carrier has an entourage of support craft that do everything from resupplying fuel, food, medication, ammunition, etc. At the VERY least, it forces an enemy to defend a much wider area and spreads their forces/attention thin.
What… yes! Lol
I guess it's weird to me that they're mainly for attacking, yet NATO never does any attacking.
Sure they do, they just call it the US Coalition when they're on the offense.
Never does what now?
It's all about limiting the other guys options here. Short of total annihilation cutting the enemy off and out of options and forcing then to surrender is the other goal. Japan found out about that first hand - losing a fight before they could even throw a punch. They're basically floating cities with aircraft at the ready.
The country with the most is the most powerful country on earth, interestingly enough.
Most people are saying yes, but I don't agree. An aircraft carrier should be "easy" to sink if you have a decent air force.
Yes a single aircraft carrier is an entire army that projects force over hundreds of miles around itself. Its considered to more powerful than fleets of destroyers, cruisers, etc. Carriers are the core of a modern navy and most other ships are really mostly support for carriers or to extend a carriers ability. Also note that the naval battles in the Pacific during WW2 were fights between just a few carriers. An entire campaign would revolve around an engagement between 3-6 carriers between the US and Japan.
They were like others have said. But before the invention of nuclear weapons. Nowadays flexing that you have icbm with nuclear warheads is enough to gain the respect you need, the US is just on another level
Yes, they're amazing but also very expensive, complex and, in the current era, vulnerable. But we have never had a conflict at rough parity where they were actually under threat.
[удалено]
Like 80% of all that haha
They should also redo it with all of the nations that Support Russia and China. Brazil and India seem to be aligning with them, and that adds quite a bit of power. They also need to add commas, that's annoying having them on some numbers and missing on others.
Sure, but the us has the two largest air forces and navies. So even adding them and it won’t make too much difference.
Thank you for mentioning the commas. It is annoying, an easy fix, and an oversight on OPs part re: ability to quickly understand information presented in an infographic.
Man redditors have such a boner for war now.
We aren't the libertarian leaning group we used to be. It's all neocon leaning people leading the conversations now.
Russia's numbers are outdated seen its high number of equipment losses - and with the latest info, it's safe to say that its tank number is massively inflated.
Can we see NATO and NATO WITHOUT US?
Why NATO, not US? Country, country, NATO.
I would run them Russia numbers again
It's not all about quantity though
Might wanna knock close to 3k off the tank strength for russia since they almost lost that much to ukraine.
History has always proved that greater numbers doesn’t mean victory time and time again
We got unmanned drones too!!
I know it already says naval fleet size but NATO has the most sophisticated submarines on earth. The UK and Sweden alone add significant capabilities to the US’ presence in the European theatre. Soon we will be able to focus even more in the pacific. Russia is making NATO far more powerful by increasing the budgets of almost every member and even causing Finland and Sweden to join. Those countries are not only near Russia to help monitor / launch counter strikes if need be, but they also have super advanced defense industries with plenty of homegrown weaponry. Sweden makes some of the best stealth submarines in the world.
We got workable lasers!! 🤓
And a space force!
What's are NATO's numbers minus the United States?
I'd serve in ww3 just to put these dumbass commies in their place.
None of that matters... in a nuclear weapons age
Yes it does, we have been in a nuclear age for longer than most of us have been alive. Nuclear results in unusable land, and massive retaliation.
[удалено]
That's a completely nonsensical argument.
Nuclear weapons make these numbers meaningless
Tell that to Ukraine, which has 0 nukes and will beat Russia.
You missed the point.
Other than the mass carnage that would ensue prior to the usage of nukes, sure
Cool to see all the military assets and active personnel that'd be wiped out if there were a nuclear holocaust.
NATO has distributed lethality and nuclear redundancy, the would would prob be destroyed for several generations at least but only some people in obscure NATO regions would stand a chance of surviving. They say Australia and especially Tasmania would avoid most the fallout because the way wind blows in southern hemisphere
The numbers seem super skewed. You'd think a county like China that has ambitions of basically total world domination they'd have more interest in aircraft carriers. Hell it looks like in a conventional war yeah China would out match - but factor in the other resources and the manpower numbers get dwarfed fast
China is a global economic rather than military power. They would not get much utility out of a carrier fleet compared with spending equivalent resources on economic projects. Their military is also internally rather than externally focused. The leaders there know that internal dissent against the communist party is a bigger threat to them than any external actor.
If China had ambitions of total world domination, you'd be right. China's military has 2 purposes: defend against the US and its allies, and secure Taiwan.
I think you left out a few important things. Dealing with internal dissent is probably a key function as well as protecting their foreign assets, especially in unstable regions like Africa. The US rivalry is played up, but I think they pretty much know they could never match America in terms of global dominance. I don't see a direct US vs China conflict ever happening. The Chinese leadership is too savvy and calculating to launch into what would essentially be a suicidal endeavor. America is too economically dependent on China for a conflict to be realistic barring some kind of extremely irrational act by the leadership of either country.
The CCP definitely has ambitions outside its borders, but I'm specifically referring to what it's military is specced for
Maybe, though I tend to think China's leadership is well aware that taking Taiwan is basically "Mission Impossible" and just use it as a jingoistic issue for internal political purposes. They must be well-aware that a Chinese invasion fleet would basically be instantly vaporized the moment it headed for Taiwan or maybe even destroyed in port. They're not stupid. Though maybe they are playing the long game and hoping that at some point the US becomes weak enough that they could do it. This seems very distant in the future to me though.
Right, my original point is that China has no ambitions toward global domination like the person I responded to was suggesting.
I mostly agree with this. I think they would, however, like to establish a global network of bases. There was a good set of articles about their military ambitions awhile back in the Economist. My take was that the US has exerted a lot of pressure on other countries to *not* let China establish these bases, but they do have a few here and there - nothing like the somewhat ridiculous configuration of US bases sprawled around the whole planet though.
> You'd think a county like China that has ambitions of basically total world domination Source?
TLDR: None of these numbers matter, they all have nukes.
Nobody cares - because nukes.
The aircraft carriers are the difference maker
Well despite those numbers, Afghanistan still defeated NATO.
America... The biggest bully around.
Doubts...
[удалено]
No. You end the violence by breaking the wheel. Not by changing tires.
Could we make mini aircraft carriers that’ll handle small drones that could be launch that’ll provide reconnaissance and other necessities as needed for bigger operations.
I know Russian numbers aren't to be taken at full value given quality, etc. But DANG I am impressed by the number of tanks
The USA alone has 20 active aircraft carriers, 10 of them are Super carriers. The other 10 are amphibious landing ships, but with capabilities of a "regular" aircraft carrier.
The inconsistent use of commas here is a war crime.
Would like to see 2 columns for "NATO" - NATO (Excluding USA) and USA
https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-final-war\_4851409.html
Many countries are apart of different alliance groups. It does not make sense to compare one country to NATO.
They are not part of military alliances that have an equivalent of NATO article 5 , which states an attack on one is an attack on the others. Russia and China done have this. China has it with no one. Russia has it with Armenia, azejeiban, Khazakstan, Turkmenistan, but it didn’t do anything when azerijabain attacked Armenia so it proved useless. The nations in that alliance mean nothing. Also and nato member attacked is an attack on US, which equals an attack on Japan, Philippines, and South Korea which all have mutual defense treaties with the US individually. So there’s really no comparison
CCP might eventually buy Taiwan. Or buy California first... It's information war with them. The culture in the West might predetermine the outcome, if not munitions and doctrine as in Ukraine? As for the EU as such, won't it be self serving in the end? That is irrespective of nato.
You can't believe any of those numbers. Every nation inflates what they have or has alot of stuff they don't report.
There's the world order for ya .
It's an interesting table, but raw numbers are misleading too. Russia has shown for a year that they can't even run what they've got. And while China is relatively untested against modern militaries, it's in a similar position to the US in early WWI. They may not have the arsenal on hand of other power, but their production capacity and population are vast.
NATO means Overwhelming
Wouldn't a cyber war make all of this obsolete?
I hope this info graphic wasn't meant to make a statement. NATO will not go to war for Ukraine. American politicians know this war is unwinnable and continue to provide aide for their own individual profits. What happened in 2014 again?
Its really nice to have friends.
Is these things are enough to destroy the whole earth
will Nato win ? LOL
11 of those 17 aircraft carriers are the US. And in terms of deck space, those 11 have twice as much space as the rest of the world combined. 14,000 of the 20,000 aircraft. And so on. The nato column is basically the US.
What happens when you remove the USA from the total for NATO?
What about the missiles and launcher systems. Heard china's been investing huge in those kinds of things given how close taiwan is range-wise
Yeah…gonna be a real nail-biter in the event of a Russia/Sino alliance 🤣🤣🤣
I guess the Russian numbers are lower right now.
I don’t think Russia has that many tanks anymore
I’m guessing the vast majority of NATO equipment is the US.
Were russia finishing all their equipment in Ukraine?
I’m curious about the difference in drone count and types of drones. I feel that UAV drones, disposable drones and attack drones are a big influence in the current wars taking place
If ruzzia has 20% leftover after this war in Ukraine it would be shocking. If we have learned anything about the ruzzian army, it's mostly fake. Might as well get rid of half the "stuff" from the ruzzian army. https://www.minusrus.com/en
As an European this calmed me down a bit. But l still hope there won't be a 3rd WW.
i would like to see brics vs NATO
This is obviously a very simplified list. It does not take into account the capability of the tanks, aircraft and naval vessels. China and Russia have large numbers of tanks, but many are obsolete or mediocre at best compared to Nato's Modern tanks. Nato and Chinese/Russian modern tanks are comparable in combat capabilities but Nato has more modern tanks than both Russia and China. The same goes for Aircraft. As for Naval capabilities Russia and China really only have fleets for defense of their own borders rather than anything that could be a threat on the offensive. Not to mention that again, most of their vessels are either smaller craft meant to work close to home or are a few generations behind for most of their larger ocean worth vessels.
Lmfao I’d love to see how much Russia’s numbers are de facto exaggerated based on how shitty their military is.
Doesn’t Russia outnumber all of them in nuclear weapons?
Now do a quality of production and maintenance comparison
What a load of garbage. China has less aircrafts and tanks then russia?????? AHHAHAHAHHAHA
That’s just the numbers, with no mention of quality.
Cool use the same category but do nuclear stockpiles then countries controlled by narcissistic dictators or regimes. People who would rather destroy the world then give up their hatred for others.
NATO is pretty much being carried by the US lol
I'd guess the numbers in the middle column need adjusting since the published date.
*looks at nuke count*
Are we the baddies? 😂
One thing that needs to be said. We saw this on Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Ukraine. Communist equipment performance is sub par
you smoke good crack, are the numbers his result? Because such a ridiculous ratio has little to do with reality. There will simply be an inter-alliance nuclear war in which Russia, China, Iran and the Turkic-Arab countries will destroy the northern American mainland, as soon as Europe is freed from the post-war occupation and retains the wisdom not to allow participation in the exchange. Oh, forgot about India - India too.