strength of each army, after WW2

[calvinhobbesliker]

Well, India had the largest volunteer army in World War 2, and they continued to work with the British to quell Hindu-Muslim violence until independence in Augus 1947. All British and American military equipment and personnel were removed by mid-1948

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Actually, many of the trucks were produced in Canada.  Trucks were probably the largest single unit contribution of Canada.  I think I read that Canada produced more trucks than the USSR and the Axis combined.  Though, nobody could compete with the French and their production of white flags.

But yeah, around 1945 the US had 50% of the worlds GDP and I think supplied 70% of the worlds oil.  Strange how quickly things can change.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

One reason the US had no domestic design of their own for internal production was as a result of limited government and free-acting capitalism.  Or put another way, all the aircraft companies were sueing each other to the point nobody could build a plane because of too many cross-licensing issues.

What they ended up building was a British designed plane the DH-4, the americans ended up building over 3 times (4,800) as many as the Brits.

While the US did fly the great French Spad S.XIII, they purchased a grand total of 893.  While again a great plane, the numbers were nowhere near 'most'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airco_DH.4

Nearly 100 years is a long way back to have to retrieve glory.  I have 3 words.... Plains of Abraham.

[Lazarus]

From another Wiki article:

"The US army and navy air services were hopelessly behind, even in 1917, when the United States entered the war, they were to be almost totally dependent on the French and British aircraft industries for combat aircraft"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_in_World_War_I

The point is that during WW1 The US was reliant on French (and to a lesser extent British) equipment, vehicles, artillery, tanks ect.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Relient is not a synonym for majority, moreover I was talking about aircraft in specific.  Now you show me a chart that documents numbers of aircraft flown by the US airforce and country of origin that shows 1/2 of the planes flown were made in France and I will then agree that a majority of planes flown by the americans were of French origins.

Now, for the AEF.  The US declared war April 6, 1917.  Exactly how long do you think it would take to ship heavy weapons from continental USA to a state of battle readiness on the front lines.  It took 6 months to build up for desert storm with modern logistics and heavylift jet transports and the US was not fielding an army of a million men like they did in WW I.

So yes, american men could get to the front quick, and for them to be of use, they needed local weapons at first.  I am sure they supplied the majority of certain weapons classes such as tanks for which the French were technologically ahead.  But I think if you looked at the 'IPC' value of the supplied, it was nowhere near the 'majority' of materials.  Moreover, the allies requested 'MEN', fresh meat.  By this time there were lots of heavy weapons in the field for the allies, they just needed more men for the meat grinder.  So, when the request is for men, don't hold it against the party for fulfilling the request. 

[Lazarus]

Relient is not a synonym for majority, moreover I was talking about aircraft in specific.  Now you show me a chart that documents numbers of aircraft flown by the US airforce and country of origin that shows 1/2 of the planes flown were made in France and I will then agree that a majority of planes flown by the americans were of French origins.

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Air_Service

Statement:"The 740 airplanes[24] equipping the AEF on November 11, 1918, were approximately 10% of the total aircraft strength of the Allied forces"

Footnote 24 :
Cooke (1996), p. 198. Quoting Mitchell, there were 196 American-made, 16 British-made, and 528 French-made aircraft

[ABWorsham]

Though, nobody could compete with the French and their production of white flags.

Would that be the same French who supplied most of the aircraft and equipment of the AEF in WW1?

Everyone is so quick to stamp and label coward and surrender to France and anyone who is french. Do we forget Napoleon and France's role in WWI?

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Fair enough, majority of planes in the AEF.  The 740 planes in the AEF represented less than 10% of the US total fleet of planes numbering 7,900.   Again, the allies told the americans to bring men we will supply the heavy equipment.

Yes, the French had past glories, so did the greeks and romans.  Recent history brings us the algerian war in the 50s and vietnam.  In any event, the French have a more impressive history then Canada so there's a bone for ya!

[Imperious Leader]

Stay on topic...  "strength of each army, after WW2"

not WW1 air forces and plane specs..

[Dylan the Canadian]

Well if you look at wars after World War II you see this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War Look at the strength part. Turkey and the Philippines.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Strength part?  I saw a list of casualities for each country, I am not sure what your point is in any event.  Are you saying those countries were strong or weak?

[Dylan the Canadian]

Under Commanders.

[calvinhobbesliker]

Under Commanders.

But that's not their total strength; just what was used in the war

[Dylan the Canadian]

Under Commanders.

But that's not their total strength; just what was used in the war

Still Turkey, why would they care, they most likely were strong enough, like look at it today.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/ This is today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present) this is todays war.

US 1 and 1
UK 2 and 5 (China, Russia, India did not fight)
Germany Very Close
France Very Close
Italy Most of the other countries between there did not fight
Canada Most of the countries between there did not fight
The list keeps on going.

So therefore I think they the strength in war gives you a rough estimate.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

If you are suggesting that based on the contributions of countries in any particular war or campaign you can draw conclusions on the overall size of their military?  That seems unlikely doesn't it?  Canada sent no men to fight in Vietnam so therefore Canada had no army then?  Iraq had 5-6 times as many men under arms during the second gulfwar therefore they were 5-6 times the strength of the US armed forces?