From tanks to rockets: Inside the military gap between Thailand and Cambodia as their militaries clash

The Thailand-Cambodia border conflict that erupted again on Thursday has laid bare the contrast between numerical superiority and strategic friction. On paper, Thailand is a regional military heavyweight with air power, naval reach and technological sophistication. Cambodia, by contrast, is significantly outmatched across nearly every defence metric.

Yet, recent events near the disputed Ta Muen Thom temple suggest that Cambodia is willing to assert itself militarily in ways that raise the stakes far beyond proportion. The question is no longer whether one side is stronger—but whether strength alone prevents conflict.

A historical dispute ignites again

The fighting on Thursday began with reports of Cambodian artillery opening fire on Thai positions near the ancient Ta Muen Thom temple — a centuries-old Khmer site located in a long-contested region along the northeastern border.

According to the Royal Thai Army, six locations saw simultaneous clashes by mid-morning. Thai F-16s were scrambled and deployed precision strikes on what military officials identified as Cambodian battalion command posts. At least one jet dropped two bombs, reportedly destroying a forward Cambodian base.

More from World

Beyond blame game: Thailand, Cambodia must understand their shared past Thailand bombs Cambodia military targets: Why tensions between two nations are rising

Thailand’s Ministry of Defence later confirmed that nine civilians were killed in the initial salvo, including a child. Some reports put the initial death toll at 11. No official word was reported on death toll by the Cambodian side till the filing of this report.

Cambodia, in its response, accused Thailand of “brutal military aggression.” Its Prime Minister Hun Manet warned of retaliation, invoking Cambodia’s right to national defence. The diplomatic fallout included mutual expulsions of ambassadors and the full closure of all border crossings.

Power disparity

Thailand’s military strength dwarfs Cambodia’s. According to the Global Firepower Index 2025, Thailand ranks 25th in the world—third in Asean behind Indonesia and Vietnam—while Cambodia ranks 95th.

Thailand’s total military personnel exceed 600,000, including over 360,000 active-duty troops, 221,000 reservists and 25,000 paramilitary forces. Cambodia has about 231,000 total personnel, most of whom are active duty, with only 10,000 in paramilitary roles.

Impact Shorts

View All

'We are aware': US State Department tells Firstpost on Munir's nuclear threats

Trump to meet one-on-one with Putin in Alaska — a repeat of infamous Helsinki summit

Thailand’s defence budget is approximately $5.89 billion in 2025, compared to Cambodia’s $860 million. Though Cambodia allocates a higher percentage of its GDP to defence—around 1.5 peer cent compared to Thailand’s 1.1 per cent—the disparity in raw expenditure is almost tenfold.

This financial muscle translates into a wide array of high-end military hardware. Thailand fields 635 main battle tanks, including M60A3 Patton and Ukrainian T-84 Oplot variants, supported by over 16,900 armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs), ranging from wheeled APCs to tracked IFVs. Cambodia, while surprisingly well-stocked in tanks with 644 (mostly ageing T-55 and Type 59 units), has only 3,627 AFVs in service.

Rocket artillery: Cambodia’s strategic lever

One of the more surprising details of this asymmetrical rivalry is Cambodia’s superior rocket artillery inventory. According to data from Nation Thailand, Cambodia fields 463 multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), including BM-21 Grad and RM-70 systems.

These Soviet and Czech-origin weapons, capable of launching 122mm rockets in rapid salvos, have a range of up to 20 kilometres and are often used for psychological and suppressive fire rather than precise strikes.

Thailand, despite its technological edge, operates only 26 MLRS. Its artillery doctrine focuses more on precision fire, supported by 50 self-propelled and 589 towed howitzers. Cambodia, by comparison, holds 30 self-propelled and 430 towed artillery pieces, suggesting a strategy centred on high-volume, area-saturation firepower. This is a classic example of quantity attempting to offset quality and mobility.

Thai air dominance

In the air domain, Thailand’s superiority is absolute. Its air force fields 493 aircraft, including 72 combat fighters — among them are American F-16s and Swedish Saab JAS 39 Gripens. These are multirole platforms capable of precision strikes, electronic warfare and air interdiction.

The fleet is supported by 20 dedicated attack aircraft, 54 military transport planes and 258 helicopters, including seven AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters.

Cambodia’s air force is almost nonexistent in comparison. It operates only 25 aircraft in total — mostly ageing Soviet-era helicopters and a few fixed-wing transports. Cambodia has no operational jet fighters or attack aircraft, making it wholly dependent on ground-based defences like radar-guided AA guns and MANPADS.

The border skirmish on Thursday emphasised this disparity. Thai F-16s crossed into Cambodian airspace with impunity, destroyed targets and returned without loss. Cambodia’s defence ministry confirmed the strike but had no means to contest it in real time, other than issuing diplomatic condemnation.

At sea: One navy, one patrol fleet

The naval disparity is equally pronounced. Thailand’s navy includes a helicopter carrier (HTMS Chakri Naruebet), seven frigates, six corvettes, five mine warfare vessels and 49 patrol ships. Thailand is also preparing to receive its first Chinese-built S26T submarine, further enhancing its blue-water ambitions.

Cambodia, in contrast, operates around 20 patrol boats, primarily tasked with riverine security and coastal surveillance. It has no frigates, corvettes or submarines. In any prolonged maritime engagement, the Royal Thai Navy would dominate within days.

Chong Bok flashpoint

Since June this year, tensions had been rising along the Chong Bok border zone. Thai aerial surveillance identified new Cambodian troop deployments — estimated at 12,000 soldiers—along with the installation of SH-1A self-propelled howitzers, radar installations and heavy armour. Cambodian forces reportedly dug trenches and erected field bunkers, positioning artillery to face Thai villages across the disputed boundary.

According to Thai army intelligence, Cambodia also placed BM-21 launchers near civilian areas, prompting accusations of using human shields. On July 23, a Thai soldier was maimed by what Thai authorities claimed was a newly laid landmine — a violation of demining agreements. Cambodia denied responsibility, blaming residual mines from past conflicts.

Diplomacy in freefall

The conflict escalated quickly from isolated skirmishes to an outright border shutdown. Thailand expelled Cambodia’s ambassador, citing violations of sovereignty. Cambodia reciprocated and suspended diplomatic channels.

Prime Minister Hun Manet took to Facebook, calling Thailand’s airstrike “armed aggression” and vowing a strong military response. Simultaneously, Cambodia reactivated its dormant conscription law, signalling a long-term preparation for escalation.

Back in Bangkok, Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra faced criticism over her handling of the conflict. A leaked call with former Cambodian PM Hun Sen caused political embarrassment and triggered an ethics probe, leading to her suspension. Thai nationalists have since called for emergency powers and military control of the border zones.

Strength vs strategy

Despite its smaller size, Cambodia has managed to use asymmetric tactics, political timing and artillery deployment to test Thailand’s strategic patience. It has done so without the air, sea or electronic warfare assets that a peer competitor would typically deploy.

Thailand, on the other hand, has relied on overwhelming superiority in ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance), precision strike capability and a well-equipped standing force. Yet its response has been measured—seeking to avoid drawing Asean into a wider regional conflict or prompting external intervention.

In doctrine and deterrence, Thailand leans on its ability to deliver a decisive blow if provoked. Cambodia appears to bank on political ambiguity and the high cost of escalation to buy time and territorial leverage.