7. Conventional Military Forces - the US and the EU Members Compared

This page and the following page contrast EU and US conventional military forces. The central message is that while basic comparisons of military forces place the EU on a rough par with the US the much more complex policy making procedures and requirements in the EU significantly reduces the extent to which the EU can play a role on the international stage.

A number of caveats are in order regarding the data:

First, the data is very limited in that it does not take into account a series of critical capabilities, such as logistics, intelligence, surveillance, command and control, the degree of professionalism of the forces, the quality and serviceability of the equipment, force projection capabilities, et al. While summing the European countries' military forces gives a rough sense of the relative military sizes of the US and the EU, the fact that the European militaries are extremely diverse and varied in terms of training, equipment used, military structures, command and control facilities, etc, reduces their overall capability. Moreover, in contrast to the US, logistics, surveillance, intelligence and other support services are replicated in each EU country. As a result, there is a significant duplication of tasks across the EU that reduces the extent to which Armed Forces Personnel comparisons between the US and EU is reflective of actual capabilities.

Key to Abbreviations:

TAF Personnel		Total Armed Forces Personnel
MBTs		Main Battle Tanks
PSC (Subs)		Principal Surface Combatants (number of submarines)
CBTAC		Combat Aircraft

Tables contrasting EU and US conventional military forces
Source: The Military Balance 2002-2003, International Institute for Strategic Studies

Table 1: Current EU Member Countries
Table 2: Applicant Countries & United States Summary Information