The Gun Counter

I found this, which is interesting, even if I don't entirely agree.

As a counter-weight, we have this, which accounts for everything EXCEPT nuclear capability.

What say you in the peanut gallery?

Fire Away!

The rationale on most of these slides is bunk, like Indonesia having a large population. Having a large pool of potential conscripts does not equal having a large military, especially for a nation that uses a voluntary one.

There's us, and then there's everyone else.

Concur basically with Chris. China might have a huge army, but they have no transport, so they're not a treat to anyone past walking distance. Likewise a lot of armies who are basically light-infantry formations. So, you've got lots of divisions. What are you going to do with them?

The NorKs are an interesting case, because their lives would be immeasurably better if they went over a border. They'd probably spend as much time scavenging food as anything else.

I am unpressed with ISIS, simply because they're fighting on several fronts at once, in Syria, in Anbar, and against the Kurds. They mist have a pretty good logistics chain, although as they expand, logistics is going to take more and more of their assets. Once you over-extend your logistics train, you're screwed, but they seem to be doing okay right now, fighting on three fronts.

What about Israel? True, they are basically defensive, but they did drive all the way into "Africa" when they pushed the Egyptian army back into Egypt. Of course, that was decades ago, but still.

They are a top self defense force.. in comparison to who their defending against. Against a first world military they're solidly "meh".

Honestly, I can't disagree with their top five, beyond that? Most of them would lose to the PA National Guard.

PawPaw wrote:I am unpressed with ISIS, simply because they're fighting on several fronts at once, in Syria, in Anbar, and against the Kurds. They mist have a pretty good logistics chain, although as they expand, logistics is going to take more and more of their assets. Once you over-extend your logistics train, you're screwed, but they seem to be doing okay right now, fighting on three fronts.

Their AO is currently about the total size of Ohio, i.e. everything is within half a tank of gas.
Against anybody halfway competent, they'd be rolled up and destroyed in detail, and have to revert back to skulking and IEDs.
If they achieve their caliphate to any degree, they'll be ripe for UCW in perpetuity, and find out it's a lot easier to get on top of the hill than to stay there.

In a straight-up match against an equal contingent from so much as the Mississippi ROTC, I'd bet on the kids from Big Muddy.

Aesop wrote:Their AO is currently about the total size of Ohio, i.e. everything is within half a tank of gas.
Against anybody halfway competent, they'd be rolled up and destroyed in detail, and have to revert back to skulking and IEDs.

Interior lines are your friend, for a little while anyway.

HTRN wrote: Honestly, I can't disagree with their top five, beyond that? Most of them would lose to the PA National Guard.

Most of them would lose to the number of PA residents with hunting licenses.

Aesop wrote:

PawPaw wrote:I am unpressed with ISIS, simply because they're fighting on several fronts at once, in Syria, in Anbar, and against the Kurds. They mist have a pretty good logistics chain, although as they expand, logistics is going to take more and more of their assets. Once you over-extend your logistics train, you're screwed, but they seem to be doing okay right now, fighting on three fronts.

Their AO is currently about the total size of Ohio, i.e. everything is within half a tank of gas.
Against anybody halfway competent, they'd be rolled up and destroyed in detail, and have to revert back to skulking and IEDs.
If they achieve their caliphate to any degree, they'll be ripe for UCW in perpetuity, and find out it's a lot easier to get on top of the hill than to stay there.

In a straight-up match against an equal contingent from so much as the Mississippi ROTC, I'd bet on the kids from Big Muddy.

You don't need logistics in the conventional sense if you can keep capturing what you need. (For ISIS, that's dipping into a very old well. That's how the original Islamic conquests worked.)

That sort of things tends not to scale very well. Or work against reasonably competent opponents.

Anything works against idiots.

JAG2955 wrote:

HTRN wrote: Honestly, I can't disagree with their top five, beyond that? Most of them would lose to the PA National Guard.

Most of them would lose to the number of PA residents with hunting licenses.

Considering that they sell close to 7 figures worth of them every year, it's not exactly a surprise.