Who has the strongest military in Europe?

**~~Feanor~~** · 13 Aug 07,, 20:55

Originally Posted by Stan187

Its not the size that matters, but the locomotion in the ocean.

Like I said it's by far not the most capable, he just claimed that the Turkish one was the largest.

**nzabwbm** · 13 Aug 07,, 21:43

i dont understand your harsh reactions to me. people,i dont favour any armies, nor am i from europe. But there is a discussion matter here and i gave my opinion.I am just a researcher about militaries.I think you just should research about other armies as well as Turkish Armed Forces.They really use technology well and have a huge capasity and qualifications. search about the military conquests, their red berrets team always win. thatz not the only matter of course. and let me give a historical info. when every one thought they had been gone after ww1, they won a glarious(and embraccing to the opposite side) victory against emperialism.( surely, i am talking about turkish war of independence) and since then,they even have improved much.

note:i wont give any comments any more.(as you people are so harsh)

**glyn** · 13 Aug 07,, 21:58

[QUOTE=nzabwbm;397457]

note:i wont give any comments any more.(as you people are so harsh)

Did you ever consider introducing yourself or completing your public profile before you started posting?

**dave lukins** · 13 Aug 07,, 22:24

Originally Posted by nzabwbm

note:i wont give any comments any more.(as you people are so harsh)

NO NO don't give in..just listen to all sides, and dont be blinkered by your "research". WABbers will argue, so be sure you have all the FACTS. To "run away", because you think they are Harsh, shows lack of commitment to your argument. If you have all the facts then there is no need to fear them

**Itzaak** · 31 Aug 07,, 20:47

Originally Posted by nzabwbm

hello people. this topic is a boiling one but i have been into this subject for years and with my data and experiences, i will try ro express my idea. i think Turkish Armed Forces is the most powerful in europe and the second in NATO. It is the largest in europe in terms of number. And is again one of the strongest ones in terms of equipment and using technology.

I think you are confused and I doubt you have much of a military background. You are confusing mythology with reality. The Turkish armed forces is largely tied down and probably has the lowest deployable force numbers. After two tours at Incirlik and several at other Nato countries I can tell you that you are vastly overestimating. The army is not very well tested against a serious opposing armed force in many generations and before that they had as many spectacular defeats as victories.

**Ucar** · 05 Sep 07,, 08:43

I think you are confused and I doubt you have much of a military background. You are confusing mythology with reality. The Turkish armed forces is largely tied down and probably has the lowest deployable force numbers. After two tours at Incirlik and several at other Nato countries I can tell you that you are vastly overestimating. The army is not very well tested against a serious opposing armed force in many generations and before that they had as many spectacular defeats as victories.

Just to set the record straight...

I believe the reference above is remarking on Turkish Army and not the whole of Turkish Armed Forces. Those are two distinctively seperate entities.

Turkish Army ranks 9th in the world in the number of serving personnel. This number fluctuates between 500.000-525.000 depending on the draft period. Of this, 400.000-420.000 serve with the Army branch of Turkish Armed Forces.

These 400.000+ personnel are grouped under 4 Army Group commands of which 3 are active and 1 is a semi-training command. Also the Gendarmarie General Command needs to be included under the Army branch for ease of calculation.

These army groups and the Gendermarie General Command contain the following active combat organizations :

Army Command :
2 Mech.Inf Divisions
1 Inf. Division
14 Mech.Inf.Brigades
14 Armored Brigades
12 Inf. Internal Security Brigades
5 Commando Brigades

Gendermarie Command :
4 Gendermarie Commando Brigades
8 Gendermarie Mountain Commando Battalions (detached)

Also not included here are various Special Forces regiments, Naval Forces Amphibious Units, Police Forces Special Operations units and various other units not counted in the above 400.000+ figure.

Of the above forces 2 Mech. Inf Brigades, 12 Inf. Internal Security Brigades, 5 Commando Brigades, 4 Gendermarie Commando Brigades and 8 Gendermarie Mountain Commando Battalions are regularly conducting internal security operations. With each of these units containing app. 5000 personnel (1000 for battalions) we may calculate that around 125.000 active duty personnel are "tied down". I will make this 150.000 for ease of calculation.

This gives us a figue of roughly 250.000 personnel not included in any "tying down" activity. Let us subtract another 50.000 (a generous overestimation) for various other reasons i.e. Gendermarie general security forces, training commands...etc.

One could safely assume that Turkish Army could field another 200.000 aside from all personnel that are "tied down". Please bear in mind that this figure will include 8 of the 14 Armored Brigades, 6 of the 14 Mech.Inf. Brigades and 2 Mech. Inf. Division app. 80.000 men who represent the majority of Turkish Army's firepower. Also bear in mind that most of the modern equipment of the Army is distributed throughout these units including Leopard 2s, upgraded M60s, MLRS units, and various other up-date equipment.

I believe the above figures are enough to indicate that the current state of the Turkish Army is well established to meet a conventional threat with a significant force structure; and that the force is not tied down as indicated in the previous post.

With regards to being tested in combat, very few countries (luckily and thank God) can claim to be tested and certified in combat throughout the world. Turkish Armed Froces Land and Air units can claim such a title, as both services have been continiously operating against PKK terrorism in SE Turkey with units being regularly rotated. The last conventional operation the Turkish Army conducted was the Cyprus Operation in 1973 in which the objectives were achieved with particular success. Before that it was the Korean War, where the achievements of the Turkish Expeditionary Brigade are well documented. I believe all military operations, defeats and victories before this date are out of the scope of this thread.

Among European Armies, Turkish Armed Forces, United Kingdom Armed Forces, and Russian Federation Armed Forces can certainly claim to be the only three with actual combat experience against serious opponents.

I think spending several hours at an Air Force Base are not enough to judge the operational capabilities of an Armed Force. Moreover, very few Armed Forces in the world can claim to be well tested against serious opposing armed forces. Turkish Armed Forces is certainly to be included in this list.

**~~Feanor~~** · 05 Sep 07,, 09:38

Originally Posted by Ucar

Among European Armies, Turkish Armed Forces, United Kingdom Armed Forces, and Russian Federation Armed Forces can certainly claim to be the only three with actual combat experience against serious opponents.

While you gave a thorough analysis, it seems that your definition of "combat experience against a serious opponent is rather vague". I'm not suer what you mean by that. What would be the date of expiration for the experience? After WWII since you ignored mots of it's participants. Also what qualifies as a serious opponent? I don't recall the RF Armed Forces facing any serious opponents unless you count Afghanistan, which was the Soviet Army a compeltly different thing from the modern Russian Army, or Chechnya which was really more of a major counter-insurgency operation rather then a war.

**Ucar** · 05 Sep 07,, 11:48

The definition in the previous post was vague to start with. Thus I could only come up with a generalized definition of what a serious armed opposition is.

To keep the argument in a "modern" sense I tried to think of the instances where armed conflict on a significant scale i.e. not a small border post clash occured since 1980s. Thus, for example for the RF forces Afghanistan, and the Chechen war are good examples of serious struggles. Although the scales are limited when compared to WW II or Vietnam, they are still credible instances of armed conflict between RF forces and serious armed opponents. To date RF forces are reported to have lost 10.000 personnel in the Chechen conflict, which I believe has merit to be considered a significant issue. Same for the ongoing PKK terrorism and Turkish Armed Forces losses in SE Turkey which has passed the 37.000+ mark since early 1980s. Certainly the experiences of such conflicts are being passed on through staff schools and education. I personally know how the lessons are being implemented in the Turkish Armed Forces staff schools.

The definition of war is cause for much debate, so I do not want to go into that argument under this thread.

**Officer of Engineers** · 05 Sep 07,, 12:25

Captain,

A question. Why is it hard for Turkey to post more than a brigade to Afghanistan? From the looks of it, a division should not be out of the question.

**Alex_Ivanov** · 05 Sep 07,, 12:29

Originally Posted by Feanor

I don't recall the RF Armed Forces facing any serious opponents unless you count Afghanistan, which was the Soviet Army a compeltly different thing from the modern Russian Army, or Chechnya which was really more of a major counter-insurgency operation rather then a war.

In first Chechen war Russian army fought against mini-Soviet army led by Soviet officers. It was very serious opponent.

**Officer of Engineers** · 05 Sep 07,, 12:32

The Battles for Grozny and the 2nd Chechen Invasion of 100,000 men were conventional fights.

**Ucar** · 06 Sep 07,, 07:27

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Captain,

A question. Why is it hard for Turkey to post more than a brigade to Afghanistan? From the looks of it, a division should not be out of the question.

The primary problem arises from domestic politics, not logistics.

Turkish citizens are Muslims, and there is a strong anti-American sentiment in general public about the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A little psychologic background on this.

Turkey has been waging an undeclared war against PKK terrorism since early 1980s. It has been well documented that in the past 25+ years, PKK organization has received significant amounts of material and financial support from certain circles in European countries.

Following 9/11 US declared an open war on terror, and intiated various operations on a global scale to break down terrorist organizations. However, the Turkish public was not well informed about the cause and aims of these actions. Therefore, the general perspective turned into a question "We have been fighting terrorists for years, and nobody was there to help us. Why should we help you now ?". This was bolstered by domestic political engineering moves that coincided with the War in Iraq. Iraqi people were reflected as brothers and US as the invader. Of course, the issue is much deeper than that, but at the time nationalistic motives, and vote concerns prevented a move in the opposite direction.

Thus the rejection of US appeals to join and support the War in Iraq via a Northern Front...etc.

This brings us to today, where Turkey can not deploy significant forces abroad to help US led coalition operations anywhere in the world. Previous political ranting and rhetoric has brought us to a point where deploying troops alongside with US forces is perceived as treason to Muslim brothers.
I have served alongside with US forces and do not consider myself a traitor to my country...

What is funny, is that this rhetoric is supported not by the Islamic oriented government party, but by the so-called socialist and nationalist opposition parties !!!!!!!

**Officer of Engineers** · 06 Sep 07,, 14:52

Captain,

Please forgive my ignorance on this matter but what is your casualty rate against the PKK in recent years? A follow up question is how many casualties could Turkey politically tolerate if she were to lead the ISAF again but this time into combat as per the Brits and Canadians?

**J`ve** · 06 Sep 07,, 18:03

Casualties,

Security Forces : 5546
PKK : 18958

**glyn** · 06 Sep 07,, 18:20

[QUOTE=Ucar;403702]

It has been well documented that in the past 25+ years, PKK organization has received significant amounts of material and financial support from certain circles in European countries.

Can you provide us with more details please, as I have not heard of this being mentioned?