Why does the UK always get credited with having a top 5 military

File: Mom plz stop I'm 25 I can live on my own.jpg (66KB, 427x600px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 427x600px

>>33522818
Because they're the mother country and we don't want them to make her feel like she's too old to play ball anymore.

Because the ability to know how to use the weapon systems is more important than the weapon systems themself.
It's for example really nice to have a big navy on paper when in fact it is operated like this:
http://www.paluba.info/smf/index.php?topic=17897.0&wap2

>>33522818
the indians have two aircraft carriers. is there any indian reservation that even border water. how did the build them

>>33522881
Didn't you fags threaten to nuke Argentina because your navy was getting btfo?

>>33522818
>r-rule brittania...

>>33522818
how old is this picture holy shit

UK is now thoroughly cucked, but you can't pretend like they don't have a stellar military tradition.

>>33522952
>thoroughly
Spelling this the British way

>stellar
Using this word

Nice try British noguns

>>33523010
>stellar
>not in American lexicon
t. nigger

when did your cell block get 4chan access?

>>33522818

Globalfirepower is not a credible source for analysis, neither is it a thinktank.

Examining things purely based on the numbers on paper cannot give you anything remotely close to a sensible conclusion.

The UK remains to be one of only two nations that have the sufficient force structure, logistics and force multipliers to deploy and sustain large scale combat operations well beyond it's own region.

>>33522818
Force projection.

The UK is one of the few nations that can actually deploy a combined arms force outside its own borders.

>>33523068
btw, how reliable is Global Security?

>>33523111

Global Security has some nice and sometimes niche information, but treat it like wikipedia that it is highly depended on those who update it and how far they've looked for their information.

There's better websites to read.

>>33523068
>UK remains to be one of
Highly doubt they could desu.

>>33523197
Considering their military is currently deployed worldwide, yeah they could.

>>33523197
They've done it recently, and other countries have asked them to help deploy their forces, mongo

>>33522818
What the fuck are with these manpower stats?

do they mean 145m for the US as in 145 million personnel?

I once read that England was a world power, if not THE premier world power

Frankly, I'm not buying it. You're talking about a group of people afraid of butter knives.

>>33523255
Looks like men of military age.

>>33523255
>what is the Draft

It is adding up Active, Reserve, and Potential Personnel if the country said "It's Go Time!".

>>33523211
bullshit. where? if it's some UN shit don't bother. that's nothing like having self deployment capability. if that counts then france deploying all it's shit to Africa counts too meaning the 1 of 2 bullshit was just that.

wake me when the uk actually wages a war somewhere.
>inb4 argie ooga booga

>>33523277
Try reading some world history, particularly anything related to late 18th and the 19th centuries.
Then look at how many countries around the world have English ( not American version of English) as an official language.
Then realize that we gave up the empire, amd that most of our former colonies are members of the Commonwealth.
The recent demonization of weapons in the UK is pretty much down to our equivalent of Democrats and SJWs controlling the media and pushing a disarmament agenda through our parliament.

>>33523418
> give me an example where the UK has fought a war outside of the reasonable distance of most other nations
> but don't use the example which proves me wrong
You total moron, the UK has a number of bases around the globe they can project their force globally. Frances recent trip to Africa used British support and bases.

>>33523563
>200 guys somewhere means we're still a superpower guise!
that's nice dear. how about posting something relevant? surely you can match what a backwater like Russia deployed to Syria while fighting in Ukraine. just something where the uk didn't have it's hand held.

>>33523277
Back in the day they beat the shit out of anyone who fucked with them

Unfortunately, that means that all their soldiers and people worth a damn wound up all over the world, while the homeland was rendered a wasteland of women and betamales and remained that way ever since

>>33522919
Wrong.
The "threat" was simply reminding the Junta that we followed the NATO (ie. American) doctrine of treating all WMDs as equivalent.
If they had used chemical weapons, we could have responded with our own WMDs.

>>33523697
Absolutely this
Pommie immigrants here in NZ are weakling cucks that makeup for their physical inferiority with their numale "wit/banter"
My ancestors sailed to NZ in the 1800s, so I'm of alpha colonial stock

>>33523658
Other way round, muppet! Who do you think provided the most support for your cock-ups in Afghanistan and Iraq?

>>33522818
They won this thing called ww2 and ww1

>>33523764
Not him but Iraq wasn't a cockup, America absolutely annihilated the dune coons

Afghanistan was mucky for both Americans and Russians, as it is entirely extremely mountainous, and there was a dune coon in every nook and cranny

>>33523418
>>33523658

You come across as ignorant with your mind already concluded on this.

The British army alone is deployed to over 80 countries across the world, some of which are not in friendly territory. Like Iraq and Afghanistan.

But yes, military academics like Todd and Lindberg have it all wrong and yourself right.

>>33523786
>ww1
Germany was beating both UK and Russia simuntaneously despite America giving shitloads of supplies and food to UK and Russia
It wasn't until America put boots on the ground that Germany was defeated
>ww2
If America didn't put boots on the ground, the entire continent of Europe would have been conquered by Russia

>>33523764
>>33523822
>self deploy
does that mean something else to bongs or are they this retarded?

the Ukraine did most of the non us airlifting fyi

>>33523842
>If America didn't put boots on the ground, the entire continent of Europe would have been conquered by Russia
This. The Anglo-French alliance was cemented exclusively to oppose the inevitable German domination of Europe. Both of their empires were already starting to crack in 1900. Britain's primary strength after WW2 was its string of alliances and marriage to the dominant naval power of the century (The US). The UK still has its shit together better than any other mid-sized state, but that advantage has been slowly eroding since 1945. It's a good thing that the remaining British overseas territories are worthless and far away from shipping routes, because in another decade or two, all of the BRICS countries will be able to destroy the Royal Navy in a one-on-one war.

Quality over quantity.

Australia has the best trained military in the world.
Average infantry is trained to a Ranger standard

>>33524036
This depends on climate
I'm sure that Australian soldiers will be one of the world's best fighters in Australia, Asia, and Africa
but Australian fighters would be dogshit in Alaska, Canada, and Russia
You can't say that a particular nation's soldiers are the best in the world because there are variety of climates in the planet

>>33524104
Fair point