Ok so; globalfirepower.com has to grossly oversimplify things and leave certain things out in order to even be able to calculate some sort of idiotic "firepower index". How is Sweden's military greater than Finland's? In which way? How do you even measure that in such vague terms? Force projection? Territorial defence?

Examples of these gross oversimplifications: globalfirepower.com counts any tank as a tank and gives it a value of 1 tank no matter what type it is. A WW2 era T-34 has a value of "1 tank" just like a M1A2SEPv2 Abrams or a Leopard 2A7 has a value of "1 tank" and are therefore equal by globalfirepower.com's standards. That's like saying that your grandfather's old Volvo is just as fast as a Formula 1 car, because they're both... cars. See the problem?

And it doesn't stop at tanks, the same problem is extended to every other type of military hardware in globalfirepower.com's list. Russia, for example has "15,398 tanks", when over two thirds (2/3) are basic model T-72's rusting away at old soviet era depots in the Russian hinterland, completely lacking night vision capability, completely lacking ditigal battle management systems, fire-control computers, thermal imagers, hunter-killer capability, even lacking main gun stabilization systems. They are therefore close to useless in a modern battlefield but nonetheless, they are given a value of "1 tank".

Same can be said about fighter aircraft, where by globalfirepower.com's standards a MiG-21 has the same value that a F-22 Raptor has.

Then there's a high emphasis on "available military age men", completely ignoring for example education. A illiterate sub-saharan African tribal warrior has the same value that a college educated soldier or a "military age man" from a developed country has.

globalfirepower.com also completely ignores tactics, doctrine and culture. Finland, for example has a highly specialized military designed and developed for over a century to accomplish virtually one single task: to defend the nation against the invading Russians in our own soil. Whereas many other nations, especially super powers such as the U.S. have a military that has no one single task, it has to be able to operate anywhere in the world in every condition and terrain imaginable, this means that the bulk of U.S. forces are not specialized, but rather "jacks of all trades, but truly master of none", because they have to prepare for so many different scenarios that truly mastering something becomes incredible difficult. Whereas for example the Finnish Defence Forces would probably perform badly in the open deserts of middle-east or the great European plains, but truly master territorial defence in Finnish soil against the Russian military.

These things are incredibly important but are all ignored or simplified by globalfirepower.com, because otherwise it couldn't rank countries in the way that it does. And that's what makes globalfirepower.com a incredibly poor "source" for anything really.