A Guide to the World's Militaries, Suggested reading before fighting

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

In recognition of the role military operations play in this game (and especially this forum), and the fact that many players are only moderately knowledgeable about such things at best, a relatively brief guide has been created to help you understand the roles and capabilities of various militaries, units, and equipments.
This is a simple guide, and is not intended to tell all or even be 100% accurate in EVERY case. But it will be mostly accurate in most cases. However, this is no more than a supplement to the data that's available, and you are strongly urged to at least check the wiki pages on all participating militaries at the beginning of a conflict.


Index:
Rather than force you to scroll all around looking for what you want, I'm providing links to each post right here. Be advised that they may very well be updated, especially in the near term.


Links of Interest

Armies of the World

Navies of the World

Ground Forces Equipment Overview

Air Forces Equipment Overview

Naval Forces Equipment Overview

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

Links of Interest

I'm only putting ones that have broad value for a large segment of players here. So nifty, but highly specialized sites like http://www.armedforces.co.uk aren't going to be found here. Primary focus is on organization and equipment.


Wikipedia: What? You didn't think this deserves mention? Seriously, this provides the most data in the easiest to navigate place. Just search for something like "Military of [desired nation]" and watch the right pages come up. It will usually have equipment stocks, often some degree of data on organization, maybe modernization plans, opponents, deployments, etc. Really, check this first. And do actually READ it. You can skip history for the most part, but most other sections will provide important insight.

Armed Forces of the World Database: Rates the world's armies on several categories and overall capability. Room for contention, but a good starting resource. Even without the tables, the front page also lists most nations and briefly explains the military related problems they do, or could, face.

Infantry Based Opposing Force: Organization Guide: This is an official US Army field manual that deals with the hypothetical Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE) for a military made up mostly of infantry and based on a Soviet organizational model. Naturally, many former Soviet clients still use this, so it can be very useful for orders of battle (OrBats).

Armor- & Mechanized-Based Opposing Force (PDF): Well, if they had one for infantry, they would also have one for a primarily mechanized army, right? This is Soviet style organization, but is still used today by former Soviet states, Warsaw Pact members, and Soviet clients. That's a long list of countries.

US Army Tables of Organization & Equipment: If they have ones for opposing forces, they certainly have ones for their own, right? This is in a slightly different format, as it breaks down the division’s components and, for each one, links you to an appropriate portion of a field manual. Still official, but in many ways not as well structured as the opfor ones. On the other hand, it also gives equipment and operating costs, as well as personnel requirements (even if they be quite dated)!

The Rest of Globalsecurity
There’s a ton here, but a few sections that are relevant to more than just the US, and really jump out.
-Systems - an exhaustive section on the equipment of the US Army. A lot of data is out of date, but this is the best one-stop site for info on US equipment on the 'net. You could spend years browsing it and not have caught everything.
-Policy - While I already linked to the most important field manuals, there's a ton of other stuff here that may provide interesting insight on military operations.
-Countries – Only a small number (relatively) of nations are displayed, but those that are get a nice rundown on equipment, military industry, and a host of other things. And while sometimes out of date and of questionable accuracy, most of the information is very, very good. If your nation has a section here, you should read it.
UPDATE: Globalsecurity has transitioned to a pay site, with access to only 7 free articles per month. Cost is fairly low for such things ($10 per month), but this does hamper its utility.

Scramble: Want to know what aircraft you have where? If your air force is posted here, the “order of battle” section will provide a MAP showing the location of your airbases, and information on both the units at each base, and what aircraft those units use. Data is not always complete, but this is an amazing resource.

Aeroflight Countries Index: Outdated inventory data in most cases, but more complete data in several key areas. Most importantly, it may be a bit more complete in orbat data than scramble. Best when used in conjunction with Scramble and Wiki.

Haze Gray & Underway World Navies Index: Well, there are ones for air forces, so one for navies isn't much of a stretch now. Again, data is often a bit dated, but this provides a full list of ALL ships that serve in many navies, and usually will have some stats. These aren't always completely accurate either, but you'll find that, for more obscure support vessels, this may be the only source of ship stats you can find.

Orbat: A site dedicated to, you guessed it, orders of battle. Pickings are a bit slim, but you've got some nice, fairly accurate orbats for a number of unit types from a number of countries. A solid reference.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

Armies of the World:


This is a resources that's intended to give a quick and very broad overview of what each nations' army is and isn't good at. This is done through a collection of broad categories that each nation is placed in. Note that, as with any simplification like this, the army of a given nation may not fit perfectly in the assigned category, but in such ambiguous cases, I've placed the army in the category that's most applicable. The categories are as follows:

Expeditionary

Projection

Total Defense

Mobile Defense

Focused

Dispersed

Garrison

Informal

Minor Force

No Standing Army

Unique Case

And finally, Transitional, which is just a supercategory indicating the army's current plans can be expected to change its category in the near future.


For convenience, the nations are listed alphabetically. They are based on the most common name, though if necessary for differentiation, I do have some listed with their full title (ie Democratic Republic of the Congo). Also, the most common name for Myanmar is Burma. Below is a list of about 180 nations and claimable disputed territories, with their miliary categorization.
A convenient map is also available
NOTE: This only applies to national militaries or those forces sanctioned by the government. Insurgent groups and informal militias are not counted, especially if they're against the central government. The only possible exception is a true failed state, which has an informal military by default.

Afghanistan: Garrison
Albania: Minor Force
Algeria: Dispersed
Andorra: No Standing Army
Angola: Dispersed
Argentina: Dispersed
Armenia: Focused
Australia: Transitional: Projection to Expeditionary
Austria: Unique Case
Azerbaijan: Focused
Bahamas: Unique Case
Bahrain: Minor Force
Bangladesh: Garrison
BarbadosMinor Force
Belgium: Unique Case
Belarus: Mobile Defense
Belize: Minor Force
Benin: Minor Force
Bhutan: Minor Force
Bolivia: Garrison
Bosnia & Herzegovina: Minor Force
Botswana: Minor Force
Brazil: Dispersed
Brunei: Minor Force
Bulgaria: Mobile Defense
Burkina Faso: Minor Force
Burma/Myanmar: Garrison
Burundi: Garrison
Cambodia: Transitional: Garrison to Dispersed
Cameroon: Dispersed
Canada: Projection
Cape Verde: Minor Force
Central African Republic: Minor Force
Chad: Garrison
Chile: Mobile Defense
China: Dispersed
Colombia: Garrison
Comoros: Minor Force
Costa Rica: No Standing Army
Côte d'Ivoire: Minor Force
Croatia: Minor Force
Cuba: Focused
Cyprus: Focused
Czech Republic: Mobile Defense
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Transitional: Informal to Garrison or Dispersed
Denmark: Projection
Djibouti: Minor Force
Dominica: No Standing Army
Dominican Republic: Garrison
East Timor: Minor Force
Ecuador: Focused
Egypt: Focused
El Salvador: Minor Force
Equatorial Guinea: Minor Force
Eritrea: Focused
Estonia: Unique Case
Ethiopia: Dispersed
Federated States of Micronesia: No Standing Army
Fiji: Minor Force
Finland: Focused
France: Expeditionary
Gabon: Minor Force
Gambia: Minor Force
Georgia: Focused
Germany: Projection
Ghana: Minor Force
Greece: Focused
Grenada: No Standing Army
Guatemala: Garrison
Guinea: Minor Force
Guinea-Bissau: Minor Force
Guyana: Minor Force
Haiti: No Standing Army
Honduras: Minor Force
Hungary: Mobile Defense
Iceland: No Standing Army
India: Dispersed, with elements of Focused
Indonesia: Garrison
Iran: Dispersed
Iraq: Transitional: Garrison to Focused or Dispersed
Ireland: Minor Force
Israel: Total Defense
Italy: Projection
Jamaica: Minor Force
Japan: Unique Case
Jordan: Mobile Defense
Kazakhstan: Dispersed
Kenya: Dispersed
Kiribati: No Standing Army
Kosovo: Minor Force
Kuwait: Total Defense
Kyrgyzstan: Minor Force
Laos: Garrison
Latvia: Minor Force
Lebanon: Focused
Lesotho: Minor Force
Liberia: Minor Force
Libya: Dispersed
Liechtenstein: No Standing Army
Lithuania: Unique Case
Luxembourg: Minor Force
Macedonia: Minor Force
Madagascar: Minor Force
Malaysia: Garrison
Malawi: Minor Force
Maldives: Minor Force
Mali: Minor Force
Malta: Minor Force
Marshall Islands: No Standing Army
Mauritania: Minor Force
Mauritius: No Standing Army
Mexico: Garrison
Moldova: Minor Force
Monaco: Minor Force
Mongolia: Minor Force
Montenegro: Minor Force
Morocco: Focused
Mozambique: Informal
Namibia: Minor Force
Nauru: No Standing Army
Nepal: Garrison
Netherlands: Projection
New Zealand: Minor Force
Nicaragua: Minor Force
Niger: Minor Force
Nigeria: Dispersed
North Korea: Focused
Norway: Garrison
Oman: Mobile Defense
Pakistan: Focused
Palau: No Standing Army
Palestinian Authority (Hamas): Informal
Panama: No Standing Army
Papua New Guinea: Minor Force
Paraguay: Minor Force
Peru: Dispersed
Philippines: Garrison
Poland: Mobile Defense
Portugal: Unique Case
Qatar: Minor Force
Republic of the Congo: Minor Force
Romania: Mobile Defense
Russia: Dispersed
Rwanda: Transitional: Informal to Garrison or Dispersed
Saint Kitts & Nevis: Minor Force
Saint Lucia: No Standing Army
Saint Vincent & the Grenadines: No Standing Army
Samoa: No Standing Army
San Marino: Minor Force
São Tomé and Príncipe: Minor Force
Saudi Arabia: Focused
Senegal: Minor Force
Serbia: Focused
Seychelles: Minor Force
Sierra Leone: Minor Force
Singapore: Total Defense
Slovakia: Mobile Defense
Slovenia: Minor Force
Solomon Islands: No Standing Army
Somalia: Informal
South Africa: Projection
South Korea: Total Defense
Spain: Projection
Sri Lanka: Focused
Sudan: Garrison
Swaziland: Minor Force
Sweden: Transitional: Focused to Projection
Switzerland: No Standing Army
Syria: Focused
Tanzania: Garrison
Taiwan: Focused
Thailand: Dispersed
Tajikistan: Minor Force
Togo: Minor Force
Tonga: Minor Force
Trinidad & Tobago: Minor Force
Tunisia: Mobile Defense
Turkmenistan: Minor Force
Turkey: Dispersed
Tuvalu: No Standing Army
Uganda: Garrison
Ukraine: Mobile Defense
United Arab Emirates: Unique Case
United Kingdom: Expeditionary
United States: Expeditionary
Uruguay: Mobile Defense
Uzbekistan: Mobile Defense
Vanuatu: Minor Force
Vatican City: No Standing Army
Venezuela: Dispersed
Vietnam: Garrison
Yemen: Garrison
Zambia: Minor Force
Zimbabwe: Garrison

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

EXPEDITIONARY:

Examples
France
United States
United Kingdom

Role: An expeditionary force is focused heavily, even almost entirely, on deploying large formations to distant locations. It defends the interests of the nation abroad more so than it protects the borders or provides internal security. Such armies represent true world powers in that they are actually capable of deploying to most countries in the world, and supporting extended operations therein. And all of this with no real assistance from other parties.

Ground Forces: Emphasis is on strategic and tactical mobility, and maximum flexibility. The primary unit of organization and maneuver is the reinforced brigade. Most units are fully mechanized and equipped with modern high-end equipment. Those that aren’t are either airborne forces or trained for operations in restrictive terrain like jungles or mountains. Troops are well trained, and utilize their training, mobility, and technological advantage to overpower numerically superior opponents.

Air Forces: Extremely modern, and very large. There’s usually a disproportionate emphasis on airlift and refueling assets, with combat aircraft being mostly modern multirole fighters. There is also significant electronic warfare capability, including jamming and AEW aircraft. As with the army, training and technology are used to overcome numerical inferiority.

Command & Control: Field commanders are given excellent latitude and flexibility at all levels of command, but are still ultimately answerable to the central government. Regulation mostly occurs in the forms of mission parameters, though there is the potential threat of excessive government interference in some instances.

Advantages: Man for man, expeditionary forces are among the most capable in the world, especially on the offense. With support from bases across the globe, these armies can deploy overwhelming combat power almost anywhere in the world whether welcome or not. They can also defeat most countries’ militaries on their home turf, as well as support major peacekeeping operations, even without international support.

Disadvantages: In addition to being extremely expensive to maintain just from an equipment standpoint, military deployments abroad also consume significant resources. These militaries also suffer from the societies that spawn them, which expect quick, easy victories and often refuse to accept casualties in any numbers. They also suffer from restrictions placed by the government, often in ignorance of military realities, and are over-criticized in both politics and the media. Finally, due to expenses, there’s a common trend of downsizing and canceling needed projects for budgetary reasons, even if this could severely hinder operations in the field.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

PROJECTION:

Examples
Germany
Italy
Spain

Role: A projection-oriented force is offensive in nature, and intended to deploy troops abroad. In the most simple terms, this is much like an expeditionary force, but without the logistical support needed to allow for an autonomous operation outside the region. These are regional powerhouses, but pose little threat of invading distant nations.

Ground Forces: As with expeditionary, these are highly trained, mostly mechanized, and equipped with high-end modern equipment (or at least far superior to that of any neighbors). The primary unit is usually a reinforced brigade, and units that aren’t mechanized are usually light airborne forces or trained for operations in restrictive terrain. The high quality of troops and equipment, as well as mobility and tactical flexibility, grant advantages over less modern militaries, despite numerical inferiority. However, they usually don’t have quite the emphasis on logistics that expeditionary forces do.

Air Forces: Very large and well equipped with top-of-the-line combat aircraft, but usually lacking in strategic airlift and aerial refueling assets necessary for true interregional force projection. Also, may be somewhat lacking in electronic warfare assets compared to expeditionary militaries.

Command & Control: As with expeditionary, there is officially a centralized control, but field commanders, at all levels, are given a great deal of latitude to act, except that they are often restrained by mission parameters that are usually set up by a civilian government.

Advantages: These militaries are highly mobile, well trained, well equipped, and fully capable of defeating much larger opponents. They also have the ability to support large-scale operations relatively close to home, and small scale ones almost anywhere in the world.

Disadvantages: Like expeditionary forces, they tend to be hampered by civilian interference in operational doctrine, as they ultimately answer to civilians that often know little of the realities of warfare. And as with expeditionary, they also tend to have an excessive trend toward cost-cutting and downsizing that could jeopardize their effectiveness in future conflicts. They also, as mentioned, do not have the ability to support major operations abroad, especially if deploying to hostile nations.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

TOTAL DEFENSE:

Examples
Israel
Singapore
South Korea

Role: It should be easy enough to figure out. This is an army that has so little ground to defend that it must adopt an all-or-nothing attitude toward defense. It may be surrounded by hostile foes or it may just have one numerically superior opponent or potential foe. Whatever the case, it’s either extremely small or just with a critical piece of real estate that’s way too close to the border for comfort, and it has to pull out all the stops in defending itself.

Ground Forces: Primary ground forces are well mechanized, well trained, and well equipped. These are among the best militaries man-for-man. They have to be. But what’s most remarkable is the reserves, which have several times the manpower of frontline forces, and usually possess a system for rapid call-up in the case of an emergency. Proportional to the population, these are among the largest armies on earth, and usually have 7-10% of their population under arms when reserves are included.

Air Forces: Relatively large, extremely well equipped and trained, and based almost exclusively on combat aircraft. They make up for lack of numbers with quality. However, these nations tend to have little need for transport beyond helicopters for airmobile troops.

Command & Control: Maximum flexibility is given to field commanders. Military realities take front seat to politics in these nations, and unit commanders must be able to seize the initiative even when cut off from higher command. As said before, this is all about defending no matter what it takes.

Advantages: These militaries are usually regional powerhouses, even if that’s not what they intend to be. They’re usually much better equipped and more capable than their opponents, and often fully capable of launching limited invasions beyond their borders by simple virtue of their highly mechanized nature. In defense, the small territory being defended and the focus of all military assets within provides obscene tactical flexibility. Even when they have to cover every border, the proximity of their forces to each other is still better than most focused militaries, so they can reinforce anywhere along the front with ease.

Disadvantages: These are phenomenally expensive. Almost all of the nations supporting such armies spend over 5% of their GDP on them, and are thus among the world’s heaviest military spenders. They may even require foreign assistance just to help control costs, including aid and hosting foreign soldiers. Most are also incapable of launching operations that far beyond their own borders because all the focus is on combat forces. Most importantly, when defending, a single breakthrough anywhere along their line can be a catastrophic event leading to the downfall of the entire nation.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

MOBILE DEFENSE:

Examples
Oman
Romania
Ukraine

Role: Most commonly seen in former Soviet territories and Warsaw Pact nations, this is something of a variation on a dispersed military. The difference is the modern, highly mechanized forces are both trained and capable of supporting each other – the idea being that if they can reposition forces quickly to react to a situation, less total forces are needed, saving costs. Naturally, this requires nations to be geographically smaller, or at least have only a small area to defend.

Ground Forces: These are well trained, well equipped, being at least equal to those of neighboring countries, and fully mechanized. Total forces tend to be smaller, made up for by the ability to mass combat power. Depending on the specific situation, the entire force could be relatively centrally located and just sent to any territory under threat, or more likely, moderate forces are dispersed throughout the country, but ready to redeploy quickly if needed.

Air Forces: Air forces are moderately to well trained and equipped. The focus, as with any defensive force, is on frontline combat aircraft rather than transportation or special missions.

Command & Control: Despite the fact that forces are usually dispersed, control is usually centralized so that redeployments can be properly coordinated. The level of freedom enjoyed by commanders in the field can vary considerably depending on the specific model adopted.

Advantages: Naturally, this format provides good defensive capabilities at a relatively low cost. Troops can thus afford to be relatively well trained and equipped. The degree of mechanization also guarantees the ability to conduct offensive operations or provide local force projection, and the flexibility of these forces can be quite valuable.

Disadvantages: The biggest problem is that, in the case of a major threat, forces defending other areas must redeploy to face it. This means that, in reacting to protect one territory, it tends to leave others under-defended. Naturally, the army is easily overwhelmed by conflicts on multiple fronts. Also, while it possesses a mechanized force, there is no infrastructure to deploy beyond neighboring countries.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

FOCUSED:

Examples
Egypt
North Korea
Pakistan

Role: A focused military is one that has a single major adversary, be it genuine or perceived. This opponent, usually more powerful in some way or another, is the central emphasis of all military planning and deployment, to the point that the majority of the military’s power (usually 60-80%) is focused there. Almost all planning and deployments are based around an armed conflict with that one enemy.

Ground Forces: These are very large armies (representing 2 of the top 10 in total personnel), and if not truly modern, at least mostly mechanized. There may be a two-tiered system with all of the best-equipped units arrayed against the main threat, but forces elsewhere equipped with much older equipment. There are often relatively large airborne and/or airmobile forces to provide tactical advantage. Except for smaller/less populous nations, these militaries still deploy and operate at the division level.

Air Forces: Large, if not necessarily modern. The focus is primarily on combat, with very little in the way of strategic transport, and almost all airlift is related to battlefield roles of delivering special forces and airborne or airmobile troops. Depending on the nation, they may or may not be well trained or well equipped, but they are at least capable, usually as a regional influence if nothing else.

Command & Control: Most operations are based on carefully rehearsed plans developed in response to potential outbreaks of war. There’s usually a degree of centralization in control, but units in the field may have some latitude.

Advantages: Against their perceived enemy, these militaries have large forces and excellent infrastructure in place to support a major campaign on short notice. Militaries are professional and generally well equipped. When given foreign support, they are also well equipped for peacekeeping.

Disadvantages: Equipment is often outdated due to the difficulty in supporting such disproportionately large forces. Military forces may lack flexibility, and are particularly weak against any threats that may appear outside of their “main” enemy. There is very little infrastructure to support major forces or operations beyond the predicted battlefield.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

DISPERSED:

Examples
China
Russia
Turkey

Role: A dispersed army is an attempt to deal with multiple current or potential conflicts simultaneously. It always appears in geographically large or sparsely populated nations that have current or potential conflicts on multiple borders. These nations lack the resources to provide a centralized force with enough mobility to deal with all threats, so the solution is to create semi-independent regional commands.

Ground Forces: These forces are usually still dominated by light or truck-mounted infantry formations, but may be fully mechanized depending on their opponents and resources. As with garrison forces, there is a centralized mobile reserve to reinforce local formations if a conflict erupts. Equipment is usually relatively modern to completely obsolete, depending on the specific situation, and training averages at mediocre. Naturally, these represent some of the largest militaries in the world, including 6 of the top 10.

Air Forces: Typically very large, with an emphasis on combat. However, there is usually at least a degree of strategic airlift and refueling assets, even if primarily for internal use. However, despite their size, these forces are still relatively dispersed

Command & Control: Most regional commands operate pretty much independently of each other, though with oversight of the central government. As with garrison forces, they often respond to the needs of local governments more often than the central one. Mobile reserves are tightly controlled, but may become subordinate to local regional commands once deployed to the field.

Advantages: The one greatest advantage of this type is that it is truly capable of supporting wars on multiple fronts, something few militaries can do, since each regional command is almost its own separate army in most respects. Given time, they may also be able to mass overwhelming power against any single neighbor. Dispersed armies are also quite capable of fighting most insurgencies due to their forces being spread out.

Disadvantages: Logistics is a problem, or this type wouldn’t be adopted at all. If the local forces and strategic reserve aren’t enough to deal with a threat, it may be in trouble, since this type of military has only limited capability to concentrate its power. Furthermore, such militaries are extremely expensive to operate and maintain, and thus difficult to keep well equipped.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

GARRISON:

Examples
Indonesia
Myanmar
Sudan

Role: A garrison army is designed to maintain control over a large territory. Usually this is in response to a large-scale insurgency, but may also simply reflect logistical issues of policing and defending, such as in the case of island nations, or those with significant jungle or mountainous territory.

Ground Forces: The main force is comprised of large number of relatively independent units of battalion size or smaller. These are almost always light infantry forces, with little heavy equipment, and are backed up by a centralized mobile reserve which represents the only force trained and equipped for frontline combat.
Garrison armies tend to be very large relative to the size of the nation.

Air Forces: Usually relatively small and made up of older aircraft, with a focus on ground attack, patrol/surveillance, and local transportation. Small numbers of modern, capable fighters may be present to support mobile reserves, and discourage foreign intervention.

Command & Control: The garrison forces are primarily subservient to the local governments on whose territory they operate, and are usually given great autonomy and flexibility in performing their missions. By contrast, the mobile reserves are tightly controlled and regulated by the high command.

Advantages: Garrison forces are highly responsive to local security needs and excellent at dealing with small and mid-scale insurgencies. Garrison troops also build a rapport with local civilians and government, know the lay of the land, have excellent autonomy, and are often experienced in counter-insurgency tactics. As a result, these can become extremely effective insurgents if invaded.

Disadvantages: With the exception of the central reserve, troops are usually undertrained and poorly equipped for heavy combat. Garrison units also tend to be inexperienced in operating as part of a larger force. Poor logistics and limited mobile forces make responding to a major crisis difficult. Garrison armies are rarely able to deploy much beyond their own borders, with no more than 15-20% of total forces available for any external operation, even in a best-case scenario. Thus, these nations have minimal offensive capabilities.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

INFORMAL:

Examples
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Palestinian Authority
Somalia

Role: Predominant in Africa, these represent armies that the government simply can’t afford, but still needs. Found in impoverished nations, there is usually only a small core of truly trained and properly equipped soldiers, while most of the military’s power comes from untrained militia fighters. This also refers to nations in a state of civil war or anarchy where there is no clear-cut government to begin with. These armies usually have extensive insurgency problems to deal with, and often threats from neighboring nations on multiple borders.

Ground Forces: May have significant numbers, but made up almost entirely of “Joe from hut B, plus rifle” types. That’s it, just villagers with guns in loosely formed forces. Even calling them light infantry may be a stretch. Armored and mechanized forces are almost unheard of. Training is negligible to completely nonexistent, with soldiers who live long enough relying almost entirely on “on-the-job training.” As with garrison forces troops are dispersed throughout the territory and operate within regional commands.

Air Forces: If they’re very lucky, they’ve seen a plane in more than just pictures. Air forces are extremely small, a few dozen total aircraft at most, and even many of those may not be serviceable. Aircraft are mostly for surveillance and transport, though a handful of combat units may exist. When they do, that provides a decisive advantage.

Command & Control: For regulars, they are usually directly under the central government. For militia, there is often minimal command and no control. They may receive directions from superiors, often more in local governments than from the central one, but usually act in their own interests. Naturally, the extensive use of militia is a major reason for rampant war crimes.

Advantages: Its amazingly cheap. For a rifle, a few bullets, and a little bit of food each day, you get a soldier that will happily fight for you. The nature of the forces, and their lack of inhibitions in due to self-interest taking precedence, make them much more capable of operating far from regular supply bases for extended periods. Also, with no logistical tail, they can easily be transferred from one end of the country to another, even in large numbers. There’s also no shortage of willing soldiers.

Disadvantages: Militia are virtually impossible to control and prone to violence. Rape, extortion, and ethnic cleansing are common in militia-held territory, especially if it used to be held by someone else. These militaries are also afraid to send those few troops with proper training and equipment at the front, for simple fear of losing their investment. Extremely poor equipment also leads to these forces being easily overrun by any military with any degree of mechanization and fire support. Furthermore, what vehicles exist are often unserviceable and useless in combat. Also, as with any impoverished area, there is extensive corruption within the ranks of most of these militaries, at all levels of command.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

MINOR FORCE:

Examples
Albania
Mali
Tajikistan

Role: Some nations are very, very small. They may lack the manpower, the financial resources, or maybe just a reason to build up a significant army. Some expect a larger power to come to their aid, others are so far isolated that no one would bother with them. Still others just don’t have the resources to draw enough troops to fully defend themselves, even if they want to. Whatever the case, their militaries are barely adequate for maintaining internal security and/or territorial integrity, if even that.

Ground Forces: Really, really small. A total military of under 20,000 personnel doesn’t leave much. Equipment and training varies, but is always about equal to neighboring countries. Naturally, European and Central Asian ones tend to be heavily mechanized and operate similarly to a mobile defense army, while African, Latin American, and Asian ones tend to be more along garrison lines.

Air Forces: Typically nonexistent. Maybe a handful of aircraft and a few people to fly them. However, fully mechanized armies may have a few squadrons worth of combat aircraft to back them up.

Command & Control: Usually quite centralized for the simple fact that there isn’t very much to command. Forces are usually tightly controlled, but in larger (geographically) nations, they may be much like garrison forces in that they mostly serve the local government.

Advantages: Really not much besides that they’re obviously cheap and not manpower-intensive. Mechanized ones may have some offensive capability, assuming the neighbor also has a minor force.

Disadvantages: The most obvious problem is that little army does not hold up well against big brother. Many of these nations, if not on some isolated island, have one or more neighbors that can easily field a force large enough to completely overrun them. Naturally, that forces some degree of kissing up. Of course, these nations also lack the ability to impose their will on neighbors, since their forces are far too insignificant to provide for a real offensive operation. Finally, they are easily overwhelmed by not just opponents with numerical superiority, but also by multiple conflicts. As such, any that already have one conflict will go out of their way to avoid another. That, or most likely collapse under the pressure.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

NO STANDING ARMY:

Examples
Costa Rica
Iceland
Marshall Islands

Role: For a number of reasons, there are nations without standing armies – actually numbering over 10% of the countries in the world. These nations, due to history, international agreements, or just plain lack of need, simply don’t have an army. In this category, rather than try something crazy like showing the blatantly obvious advantages and disadvantages, we can instead look at the reasons and types.
NOTICE: Lack of a standing army does not mean the complete absence of any military capability. It just means that there is no regular, full-time military establishment. Two nations in this category (Switzerland & Panama), can put up a rather significant defense force.

Defense Agreement: Five pacific nations have defense provided by their previous owners.
Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau, all former US territories, signed compacts of free association with the US, which, among other things, grants basing rights in exchange for US-provided defense. Some also include provision for local citizens to serve in the US Army without the normal citizenship restrictions.
Two other countries are protected by, and naturally retain strong ties with, Commonwealth nations they used to be part of: Nauru by Australia and Samoa by New Zealand.
The only nation outside the pacific that enjoys this is Iceland, which, as a vital strategic asset against the Soviet Union, had protection under NATO, which it is still provided. As such, it has refrained from forming its own military, though it regularly hosts those of other NATO members.

Bad History: Three Latin American nations simply have a bad history of military actions within their own borders, leading to abolishment upon the subsequent regime changes: Costa Rica, Haiti, and Panama. However, while Haiti and Costa Rica do not, Panama still retains an extremely large police force that could provide a decent degree of military protection if needed.

Police: Many nations without a military have all necessary roles fulfilled by the police force, including coast guard when applicable. These include Dominica, Grenada, Kiribati, Mauritius, the Solomon Islands, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent & the Grenadines, and Tuvalu. One thing most have in common is that they’re out-of-the-way island nations with little threat of foreign incursion.

Neutrality: Liechtenstein is a fun one. It’s been almost 150 years since the nation last fielded any armed force (hey, I see a 150th anniversary RP possibility!), and its small size and complete neutrality guarantee that no one bothers it. In fact, the lack of an army could be considered an instrument of foreign policy.
The Vatican is in a similar situation, but additionally protected in that the only way to it is through Italy.

Reserve Army: Switzerland and Andorra both only have a small corps of regular troops whose job is to provide training and command. However, everyone is required to undertake training and become part of a vast nationwide reserve.
Now, Switzerland does have an "active reserve" that acts somewhat like, and could be considered, a standing army. However, it does not have the core of professional soldiers that a true standing army would require, and it's actual role and operation are more akin to the US National Guard.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

UNIQUE CASES

Austria: Technically neutral, Austria maintains a relatively modern force, which is akin to a mobile defense force. This is the result of the Balkans conflicts in the 1990s, which led to a lifting of restrictions in what the army could have. But since it's neutral, it can't really do much outside of support roles in peacekeeping operations, and has little threat of anyone attacking it. However, it does want to be more active in the world, but just can't without discarding its long-cherished neutrality. If that did happen, it would be a projection force in no time.

The Bahamas: Now, if you want one of the most interesting cases out there, here you have it. While the Bahamas does indeed have a military, it does not have an army, or an air force for that matter. The only service branch present is a navy, which is responsible for all defense needs.

Belgium and Portugal: Poor little Belgium, trying to do more than it can. Based on NATO commitments, Belgium has tried, quite hard, to build up a projection force. It hasn't quite succeeded. It's not defensive in nature, but at the same time has no real offensive capability. Complicated politics have prevented it from properly focusing on something, and it thus soldiers on with an army that's not quite designed for its role.
Portugal is somewhat similar. Political and financial realities consistently prevent it from building up the regional projection force it wants to have. Again, an offensively oriented force that can't attack.

Estonia & Lithuania: On one hand, the active forces would dictate that these be a minor force. On another, the massive reserves in the hundreds of thousands would indicate something more along the lines of a total defense. Yet, they don't have well trained or equipped militaries either. Both nations are indeed minor forces if not invaded. If invaded, they will throw everything they've got as in total defense, just with the extreme casualties you can expect from poorly trained and equipped militia. They just hope the sheer numbers are enough to discourage larger ex-Warsaw Pact neighbors from trying anything.

Japan: Oh, where to begin. Japan is technically forbidden from having an army at all due to a provision in its constitution, but a liberal interpretation allows for a "self defense force." This is indeed a modern army, but because of its original role of defending against a large-scale invasion, the funny legal situation, and the logistical issues its terrain creates, it has aspects of several types. The equipment and training match any expeditionary or projection force, but the logistics are horrible by comparison, much more akin to a dispersed force at best. It's also somewhere between total and mobile defense if invaded, with most of the army deployed to either the Tokyo area or Hokkaido.
Most notably, Japan cannot deploy combat forces beyond its own borders without amending the constitution, and, of course kissing up to every other country in the region. Memories of WWII atrocities remain strong.

United Arab Emirates: The UAE has one of the strangest systems out there. Each emirate acts as a semi-independent nation, and it shows. The armed forces were formed by three emirates that pooled their resources together to form a central Union Defense Force, but individual emirates may have their own standing armies as well.
Naturally, the exact role and composition of the armed forces can change based upon which emirate(s) is/are being engaged. But in general, expect a total defense force. The country is tiny by itself, and protecting each of the seven emirates is vital to its survival.
To further complicate things, most enlisted personnel in the Union Defense Force are foreign nationals.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

Navies of the World



As with the army section, this is here to provide a brief overview of the differing roles and capabilities of various navies, and which nations have what. I'd stick this with a paragraph under each army type, but the truth is that some factors that dictate naval design are independent of the factors that influence armies. Thus, two nations with the same type of army can have very different navies.

Now, there are two different ways to classify navies. The most common and popular is the blue/green/brown water system, which is too broad to really help that much - it focuses only on one aspect: how far from home the fleet can operate.
The other, which I will use primarily, will be based more on the specific role the navy fills.


Blue, Brown, & Green: What does it mean?


Naval Roles:

Expeditionary

Projection

Regional Control

Defensive

Denial

Patrol

Inland

Unique Case



As with armies, the navies will be listed alphabetically by nation. Same format, just a much shorter list.
A convenient map is also available
NOTE: this only includes nations with official navies or naval components (this may change later). Those that have "coast guards" or lack any independent or semi-independent naval force are not included. A coast guard is a police force that only undertakes a portion of the duties even a patrol navy takes on. The nations are as follows:

Albania: Patrol
Algeria: Denial
Angola: Patrol
Argentina: Defensive
Australia: Transitional: Projection to Expeditionary
Azerbaijan: Patrol
Bahamas: Patrol
Bahrain: Defensive
Bangladesh: Denial
Belgium: Unique Case
Benin: Patrol
Bolivia: Inland
Brazil: Regional Control
Brunei: Defensive
Bulgaria: Defensive
Burma (Myanmar): Unique Case
Burundi: Inland
Cambodia: Patrol
Cameroon: Patrol
Canada: Transitional: Unique Case to Projection
Central African Republic: Inland
Chile: Defensive
China: Transitional: Defensive to Regional Control
Columbia: Regional Control
Côte d'Ivoire: Patrol
Croatia: Denial
Cuba: Denial
Cyprus: Patrol
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Patrol
Denmark: Patrol
Djibouti: Patrol
Dominican Republic: Patrol
East Timor: Patrol
Ecuador: Denial
Egypt: Defensive
El Salvador: Patrol
Equatorial Guinea: Patrol
Eritrea: Patrol
Estonia: Patrol
Fiji: Patrol
Finland: Denial
France: Expeditionary
Gabon: Patrol
Gambia: Patrol
Georgia: Patrol
Germany: Regional Control
Ghana: Patrol
Greece: Defensive
Guatemala: Patrol
Guinea: Patrol
Guinea-Bissau: Patrol
Guyana: Patrol
India: Transitional: Regional Control to Projection
Indonesia: Unique Case
Iran: Defensive
Iraq: Patrol
Ireland: Patrol
Israel: Defensive
Italy: Projection
Japan: Unique Case
Kazakhstan: Patrol
Kenya: Patrol
Laos: Inland
Latvia: Patrol
Lebanon: Patrol
Libya: Denial
Lithuania: Patrol
Madagascar: Patrol
Malawi: Inland
Malaysia: Defensive
Malta: Patrol
Mauritania: Patrol
Mexico: Defensive
Montenegro: Denial
Morocco: Defensive
Mozambique: Patrol
Namibia: Patrol
Netherlands: Projection
New Zealand: Patrol
Nicaragua: Patrol
Nigeria: Patrol
North Korea: Denial
Norway: Defensive
Oman: Denial
Pakistan: Defensive
Papua New Guinea: Patrol
Paraguay: Inland
Peru: Regional Control
Philippines: Patrol
Poland: Defensive
Portugal: Defensive
Qatar: Denial
Republic of the Congo: Patrol
Romania: Patrol
Russia: Regional Control
Rwanda: Inland
Saudi Arabia: Regional Control
Senegal: Patrol
Serbia: Inland
Sierra Leone: Patrol
Singapore: Projection
Slovenia: Patrol
South Korea: Transitional: Regional Control to Projection
South Africa: Defensive
Spain: Projection
Sri Lanka: Patrol
Sudan: Patrol
Suriname: Patrol
Sweden: Defensive
Syria: Denial
Taiwan: Sea Control
Tanzania: Patrol
Thailand: Regional Control
Togo: Patrol
Tunisia: Denial
Turkey: Transitional: Defensive to Regional Control
Turkmenistan: Patrol
Uganda: Inland
Ukraine: Defensive
United Arab Emirates: Transitional: Patrol to Defensive
United Kingdom: Expeditionary
United States: Expeditionary
Uruguay: Defensive
Venezuela: Defensive
Vietnam: Defensive
Yemen: Denial

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

Blue, Brown, & Green: What Does it Mean?


A classic form of categorizing navies uses these three terms, indicating how far from shore the fleet can operate. While not really what I was thinking of when categorizing, it deserves mention if for no other reason than the fact that it is so prevalent. Here are the categories (with wiki links):


Brown Water Navy: It gets its name from the murkey, sediment-filled water most commonly found in rivers, and like that water, doesn't reach very far beyond the coastline. A brown-water navy is a riverine or short-range force that is just sufficient to protect the nation's coastal waters from incursion. It has virtually no offense or power projection capability, and relies mostly on small missile and patrol boats.

Green Water Navy: A relatively new term, that used to be part of the brown-water navy. It has some decent-sized vessels that can actually go out for a month or two at a time, and thus can range much further - throughout the entire EEZ of the nation.

Blue Water Navy: A large force capable of true power projection through distant seas. Usually signified by excessive major combatants (see the ship guide), and, of course, aircraft carriers.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

EXPEDITIONARY NAVY

Examples
France
United States

Role: A true power projection force. It is fully equipped to deploy large fleet contingents virtually anywhere in the world, either as support for land operations or a method of intervention in its own right. Dominance is the name of the game.

Ships: Top-of-the-line warships - big ones in big numbers. This force is all about extended operations and force projection. Almost all vessels will be major surface combatants, and it will possess four types of vessel that are not found in most navies: aircraft carriers, amphibious transport ships, underway replenishment ships, and, at least in all current cases, nuclear-powered submarines. If all four of these are found in your navy in decent numbers, it's probably an expeditionary one.

Aircraft: Expect long-range maritime patrol aircraft in decent numbers, with a large fleet air arm consisting of transport helicopters, front-line combat aircraft, and carrier-borne AWACS. Planes will be extremely modern and extremely capable, and most combat and amphibious ships will have embarked helicopters as standard.

Power Projection: Extreme. Replenishment ships extend the range of combat forces without needing refueling stops. Most, if not all, ships have endurance measured in months. Carriers provide wide-ranging sea and air control, along with a deep strike capability. Nuclear submarines have the speed and endurance to deploy and patrol anywhere without support, and most ships have the capability to fire land attack cruise missiles.

Aphibious Capability: Extreme. Expect the ability to land at least a reinforced brigade on any coastline in the world, and support its combat operations for at least a month just without external supply. Most operations are performed from offshore amphibious vessels equipped with helicopters and smaller landing craft.

Littoral Defense: Negligable. Possibly some patrol craft, and minesweepers are a given, but there really isn't much littoeral defense, mostly because these are completely offensive.

Strengths: Obviously, this force can deploy anywhere, defeat almost any opposing navy, and establish an extended presence. It's also the only naval type capable of launching a genuine amphibious invasion on its own. In both tonnage and technology, these navies are the best.

Weaknesses: The cost! Even the nations that have these forces are constantly trying to cut back. Every single one has recently cancelled several major warships that were planned to be inducted, and older ones must soldier on past the end of their intended service life to maintain capability. As hinted, these navies are also much less prepared to deal with a threat that pops up on their own shores, especially while the main fleet is away.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

PROJECTION NAVY

Examples
Australia
Italy

Role: A projection navy is basically an expeditionary one without the amphibious or replenishment capabilities, and also without true fleet carriers. It's more of a regional power that maintains modest ability to deploy greater distances. It's still fully capable of power projection and dominating most navies, but doesn't quite have the staying power or capability to launch a full-scale amphibious invasion.

Ships: These are made up mostly of major warships of the same type you'll find in an expeditionary force. Fleet carriers are rare, but light carriers are common. You'll see the same amphibious and maybe replenishment ships as expeditionary forces, but in smaller numbers. Submarines will be mostly conventional, but capable.

Aircraft: There will be maritime patrol aircraft. There will be helicopters operating from every amphibious vessel and most surface combatants. There might be VTOL or STOVL aircraft such as the F-35B or Harrier, but do not expect normal combat aircraft unless there's a full-size fleet carrier. All of these should be modern and highly capable.

Power Projection: High. The only things lacking are the ability to maintain an extended presence at distant locations without a nearby base for support, and the lower air combat and amphibious capabilities. Well, and the fact that the submarines take forever to deploy anywhere.

Amphibious Capability: Moderate. Expect modest amphibious assets, with the ability to deploy 1-3 battalions, enough for a raid or supporting attack, but not a full invasion by itself.

Littoral Defense: Mostly small patrol vessels and minesweepers, but possibly some more bite than an expeditionary force. Still not that spectacular.

Strengths: It can deploy almost anywhere for short periods, and at least regionally for extended ones, and can also beat most foreign navies with ease.

Weaknesses: It may lack staying power in distant deployments. It still costs an arm and a leg to maintain, and without front-line fighters and AWACS support, is much more vulnerable to air or cruise missile attack than an expeditionary force.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

SEA CONTROL NAVY

Examples:
Brazil
Russia

Role: Want to be a major international player but don't have the funds? That's what we get right here. A navy devoted to sea control is designed to project its power within the region, and basically force any neighbors to cower in submission, but it doesn't have the overseas deployment capability of a projection force.

Ships: Expect to see an extensive core of major combatants, mabye even a few aircraft carriers in the largest ones. However, this may not be the case in some regions - if everyone else is running missile boats, just a few frigates could fulfill the sea control role quite well. There is also usually a significant inshore patrol force backing up the main strikers. Submarines are common, and may even include nuclear powered vessels in some cases. One thing that is most notably not present is long-range deployment assets. You usually won't find replenishment ships here, and even the amphibious vessels are made up almost entirely of LST and LSM-type ships, which are mostly for inshore operations.

Aircraft: For the major players, there's usually a large naval air arm, but with the exception of helicopters, and maybe aircraft carrier complements, most planes are land-based. But the land-based aircraft may include significant numbers of front-line fighters and strike aircraft. Naturally, it's often preferable in these navies to operate primarily within range of land-based aircraft.
However, smaller nations that operate in weaker regions may just have some maritime patrol aircraft and helicopters.

Power Projection: Local only. An emphasis on major combat vessels provides obvious capability by simple virtue of range and capability. However, lack of replenishment assets dictates that patrols usually return back to their port of origin for resupply, thus limiting range and patrol endurance.

Amphibious Capability: No long-range deployment capability. Emphasis is entirely on breaching-type landing ships that have short range and poor seakeeping, and are generally restricted to relatively short range deployments. However, the numbers may be quite significant, and a sea control force could actually be able to deploy more troops and equipment than an expeditionary one - just not as far.

Littoral Defene: Pretty good actually. Most still have a strong unit of corvettes and missile boats that provide excellent defense of local waters.

Strengths: As long as it's operating relatively near its home ports, this represents an extremely powerful force. It's also quite flexible, being equipped for most situations, as opposed to a completely offensive or defensive force.

Weaknesses: Depending on the ships, radius of operation for extended deployments is often only about 1500-2500 nm without a distant refueling base, and even less for amphibious operations. Also, since it does a little bit of everything, its cost effectiveness can come into question, and it generally can be foiled by both a strong defensive navy, or a strong offensive (projection or expeditionary) one.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

DEFENSIVE NAVY

Examples
Greece
South Africa

Role: A defensive navy is a locally powerful force designed to protect the nation's interest within its EEZ. The most important thing here is that this is designed to maintain control of this area even against a larger force.

Ships: There's usually a mix of both minor and major surface combatants, though the latter may be outdated. Emphasis is on fast missile-armed attack craft, but with larger combat vessels to provide sea control capabilities. Submarines may be present in modest or even decent numbers. Expect some LST-type amphibious assets as well, and maybe some other short-range landing craft.

Aircraft: Usually just a handful of helicopters and maybe a few maritime patrol aircraft, but depending on the threat, there may be a number of land-based aircraft dedicated to maritime strikes.

Power Projection: Varies from negligable to moderate. Major surface combatants will be able to range through waters of neighboring nations, but may not be present in significant enough numbers to actually control the area.

Amphibious Capability: Low. A handful of LST-type units and landing craft will provide a degree of short-range capability, but are usually intended for operations within the nation's own EEZ, and will be hard pressed to deploy troops that far from home.

Littoral Defense: Very good. Expect a good number of small combatants and patrol craft that will provide excellent cover for the coastline. These nations are often among the strongest in the littoral environment.

Strengths: Within its own territory, this kind of navy is quite strong, and even capable of causing trouble for much larger forces. It also possesses some minor offensive power.

Weaknesses: It has no ability to deploy outside the region without a foreign base. And even when deploying, it only has a handful of major warships to send off, and might not be able to afford doing so. It's also relatively easy for a larger navy to overwhelm a defensive force if it plays its cards right.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

DENIAL NAVY

Examples:
Cuba
Libya

Role: Some nations have an "opponent" that they have no chance of even marginally matching, or maybe just so few resources that they can't hope to match anyone. They follow the axiom that if you can't control the territory yourself, at least deny control to the enemy. They invest in minelayers and swarms of fast attack craft that make approaching the coast a hazard to even the largest navies.

Ships: Almost exclusively fast attack craft and patrol vessels, though one or two old frigates might be present. There's often a few landing craft, even some LSTs in some cases. Submarines are usually not present, but one or two may be available in some nations.

Aircraft: Pretty much a land based air arm only. Few ships have any capability to embark helicopters to begin with. Land based aircraft are usually limited to just helicopters for search and rescue and maritime patrol duties.

Power Projection: None whatsoever.

Amphibious Capability: There may be a token to moderate force of landing craft or even LST-type vessels, depending on the specific situation, but generally negligable without a significant number of islands to cover.

Littoral Defense: Good. Large number of missile craft, possibly some submarines, and mine warfare assets make approaching shore dangerous for anyone, but low endurance of vessels leaves potential openings.

Advantages: The cheapest way to keep unwanted visitors away from your coastline.

Disadvantages: No real offensive capability. Fast attack craft are vulnerable to aircraft without friendly air cover, which the navy can't provide. Their limited endurance means that it's difficult to provide a continuous defense for extended periods. Finally, this force is really not sufficient to protect the entire EEZ from incursions.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

PATROL NAVY

Examples
Denmark
Philippines

Role: Most navies in the world don't really have any combat power, their primary role being to enforce the nation's maritime borders against criminals and civilian incursions (ie: fishermen, waste dumping). As such, the navy is only a token force of patrol vessels.

Ships: Almost exclusively patrol craft armed only with light guns. There may be a handful of missile boats in larger navies, and a few even have frigates, though of ancient and completely obsolete designs. Some amphibious vessels may also be present.

Aircraft: Usually none. If they are present, they're almost guaranteed to be little more than a squadron or two of helicopters for SAR duty.

Power Projection: They can't even project 10 feet from the pier.

Amphibious Capability: If it's an island nation, there may be some landng ships. Otherwise, nothing to look at here.

Littoral Defense: Unless someone's dumb enough to let a patrol boat right next to their shiny destroyer so it can cut loose with machine guns, don't expect much here.

Advantages: Well, such a force is cheap enough that any nation could maintain one.

Disadvantages: Worthless in any type of combat.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

INLAND NAVY

Examples:
Bolivia
Serbia

Role: Some nations, despite being landlocked, still have a navy. Fancy that. Usually, this revolves around the fact that there is a large lake that many nations border, and thus provides justification for some measure of naval presence on said lake. On the other hand, it might just be a river patrol force, or even, as in the case of Bolivia, pining for a lost coastline. Whatever the reason, these "navies" are deisnged to patrol a very limited area.
Note that, while some would qualify them as so, I do not consider the nations on the Caspian Sea to be landlocked, as it's large enough and boasts enough. The only thing it lacks is a direct link to other seas.

Ships: Mostly small patrol boats, often optimized for the calmer waters found in rivers or lakes. Some relatively large (a few hundred tons) patrol vessels may be present. There may be small transports to support river assaults in some cases.

Aircraft: Not a single one.

Power Projection: Well, the river units might be good for a quick raid somewhere upstream, but that's about it.

Amphibious Capability: A handful can support a river assault on a small scale. Beyond that, nothing.

Littoral Defense: They defend their rivers and lakeshores quite well. After all, there's no threat of anything truly dangerous to begin with.

Advantages: It's there. Said nation can honestly claim to have a navy. Also, river patrol forces are good against insurgents.

Disadvantages: Not much really. I could harp about how weak they are, but they're not exactly going to find themselves fighting the United States Navy to begin with.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

UNIQUE CASES

Belgium: Once again, we meet the little nation that almost could. The Belgian Naval component is best described as a mini-control force, but even that doesn't seem quite right. All it has is a pair of frigates, half a dozen mine hunters, and a dozen assorted support and auxiliary craft. Of those dozen, only four have any value to military operations, the rest being for oceanographic survey or public relations. That and the requisite Royal Yacht. If the actual combat forces were five times the size, I could call this a sea control force. But as it stands, the Belgian Naval Component is only good for providing support to larger navies, and mostly political at that.

Burma (Myanmar): An interesting hybrid here. The navy of Myanmar has a heavy emphasis on riverine operations, and in fact devotes much of its resources to that area. Not surprising considering its insurgency problems, but it does have the largest riverine navy out there, which is interesting since it's not landlocked. In fact, it also has a modest denial force with several dozen missile boats.

Canada: This is a navy in transition. A much needed transition. Canada is currently something of a slightly larger Belgium. It has local survey vessels and tugs and other auxiliaries, and a number of frigates, but not much else. Most importantly, it lacks amphibious vessels, and just sending frigates across the ocean doesn't account for much on their own. It is, however, getting aphibious vessels soon, which will eventually make it a proper projection force.

Indonesia: Another one that doesn't quite fit in. Indonesia is mostly a patrol navy, just with the added complication of having a vast network of islands to do it for. To that end, it actually does have a number of larger warships, that are even capable of fighting. They're still small, none much more than 2000 tons, and all of them are old and in questionable condition, but it actually does have a credible combat force of frigates and corvettes. A total of 13 corvettes and frigates are capable of combat, with two submarines. This is negligable for defending a nation with so much area to cover, but more than would be expected from a patrol force. Thus, this is something of a patrol/defense hybrid.

Japan: Technically, I should call this a projection force. In fact, some argue that Japan has the world's 3rd most powerful navy after the US and UK due to its sheer numbers of modern frigates, destroyers, and submarines. On the other hand, Japan cannot really project, at least not legally, so it gets funny. It gets even more interesting in that some aspirations (not necessarily projects, but at least known desires) would put this at a solid expeditionary force by including nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers.

[Venezuela [CSJ]]

Ground Forces Equipment Overview


This segment is intended for players who want to RP actual combat, but aren't as familiar with military equipment. It's here to provide a brief introduction to the various classes of combat systems and their roles, along with some of the key advantages and disadvantages of specific types of each. I will not go into much depth here, and will not include personal weapons like pistols, rifles, and grenades. Hopefully, you should know what those are good for.


Equipment Classes

Tanks

Infantry Fighting Vehicles

Armored Reconnaissance Vehicles

Armored Personnel Carriers

Field Artillery

Rocket Artillery

Area Air Defense

Self-Propelled Air Defense

Towed Air Defense

Manportable Missiles

Crew-Served Weapons