Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Russia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: America vs. Russia
sooner    1/30/2004 11:22:14 AM
Allies--supposedly. Who would strategically win a war?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17   NEXT
afrc       5/15/2008 9:43:34 PM
How old are you, Redrussian? Five?

Hey dont even try to compare Russia to mexico.  Russia is conected by mainly railroads. I dotn see what you really prove by this but it is hard to manage roads and railroads. Im sure the cost of how much Russia and Mexico spend on roads is way diffrent. wana know why? cause of teh winter. water freeezes in cracks and roads have huge cracks. so im sure aroudn half teh money goes to upkeep.; If you are comparing terain then russian is in a disatvantage in sowem aspects


I don't care if Mexico has better roars. We are talking about war with Russia anyway. Here's another argument... in case of war Russian army will  need to be supplied and it will be very very very difficult without a good road system. Tanks and planes need fuel... guns need ammo... soldiers need food, etc.


Who?? Poland?? shit they have hated Russians all through 1500 till present. read up on it very intrestign shit. Also who china? Shit right now is getting alot better with em. They accepted only 1 countries help so far in their earthquake and that Russian help. And please dotn tell me taht America si loved by all.


Ukraine does not particularly like Russia either... except for regions next to Russia and Crimea with sizable Russian population. Georgia talks about war. That's on the West side. In the East China steals Russian military technology and Chinese illegal immigrants are invading Siberia. If they want Russia to help them more while they rip Russia off - by all means... go ahead.


What problems please list 1. Are u gona tell me that they do not compete against the m-1??? Well the m-1 is teh firstmodern tank. The t-72 was a great tank for its tiem and now it is obsolete ina  first world country war
.

How about 2?
Since you are Russian, I advise you to find Russian "Tank Encyclopedia" by general Maev (at least you cannot say that it's American propaganda) and on page 514 there is a armor penetration table. You will see that 120mm shells defeat T-90 armor, while 125mm Russian shell cannot defeat M1A2. By the way, you can also see there the armor improvement between M1, M1A1 and M1A2 models which should tell you that M1A2 is better than M1, just like T-90 is better than T-72.
Also keep in mind that ammunition is still stored within T-90 together with the tank crew and no one solved detonation problem - shells detonate when tank is hit and crew dies. At least M1 crew has a chance to survive a direct hit. Also it is very hard to reload T-90 gun manually if autoloader fails.


No its not Cant lie about that but what about the new Su-(forgot the series think 37) This is also an air superiority fighter which will give America a run for its money. Also teh new missle defence systems that Russia has designed cans hoot down bird flyign at supersonic so i think it can take a palne too.

All right, we finally figured out that Su-47 does not exist. Even Su-37 technically is not the right model... it's more like demonstrator. There are several models in service there Su-30, Su-33, Su-35, so we can call the whole series Su-3X. Those planes can do some damage to F-15's, but F-22 is much more survivable in modern combat... even if we forget about quality problems of Russian planes and short service life of Sukhoi engines. Americans will never fly F-22 against Su-3X planes in mock dogfights because every time they fly they will give away secrets, and since US has no plans to sell F-22 to anyone, they don't need PR. If they need to try F-22 they will buy Su-3X and quietly test it.

Does new Russian missile defense system have combat experience? No? Oh well... better luck next time. Old systems did not help Syria during Israeli air raid. At least SM-3 system was tried and tested and works pretty good, and it was even tested in real life situation against an out of control satellite and hit it right on the spot.

Oh HAHAHHAHAHAHAH lol you knwo why u lost all them ships hahah cause u were idiots. You send 50 of you OLD small cruisers to Brition and when the germans went wth operation Drumbeat you could protect your boats for leik 2 years lol. that not experience that stupidity. Also i dotn think America even participated in was that much. look its 1 small battle after another. that all smallchange. and even in teh Pacific Russia hat to clear out all of the mainland asia thaty Jaopan conquered. Also you sher

 
Quote    Reply

nyetneinnon    WWII victory debates   5/16/2008 1:56:32 AM
I have to vote the 'who actually won the war debates' as one of the most imbecilic debates on the net.  As far as WWII-Europe is concerned however, there is a sure value in discussing the pretext to the cataclysmic war, imo.
 
The ultimate hatred/disgust between ultra-extremist Hitler and Stalin and their respective ideological apparatus and each of their ultimate sights on a mutual trophy - i.e. the west - formed a perfect storm giving pretext to the two's massive pre-war war mobilizations, jockeying and planning.
 
This 'Extreme' Hitler/Stalin-forming storm, on each other's doorsteps, sparked the Mother of all Tornadoes.
 
Enter: the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. 
 
In one sweep of the pen, the 'Pact', combined with each own's respective Extreme designs for the world/Europe, once again signed Europe away to imminent obliteration and hell to come, regardless of the rapidly unfolding tacts and chess playing to that end. 
-----------
 
Regarding this thread:  let the world be very careful and swift to identify any such history-repeating propaganda and rhetoric between super-powers of the day, mobilizing respective citizens and infrastructures in preparation for such another clash.  May we always keep watch on the sky's horizon for such brewing storms and counter this rhetoric in urgency and absolute seriousness.
 
Quote    Reply

historynut       5/16/2008 3:07:02 PM





Look at the size of Russia. ITs big hu.
That's one of the problems Russia has, it's big but has few roads, rail lines or airports. If you say compare Russia to Mexico, Russia is the one that comes up short. Mexico has more and better roads, rail lines and airports. While Russia has some long roads and rail lines for the most part it falls well behind Mexico.
A person in Mexico is a lot more likely to have electricity and indoor plumbing then someone in Russia.




Hey dont even try to compare Russia to mexico.  Russia is conected by mainly railroads. I dotn see what you really prove by this but it is hard to manage roads and railroads. Im sure the cost of how much Russia and Mexico spend on roads is way diffrent. wana know why? cause of teh winter. water freeezes in cracks and roads have huge cracks. so im sure aroudn half teh money goes to upkeep.; If you are comparing terain then russian is in a disatvantage in sowem aspects


1. If I look at Russia, I see a  terrain problem best managed by long-line rail and river traffic. So it was solved. Its a poorly managed traffic system though.


 


Well how do you think Russia got all taht teritory. By War and conquest. It wasent open. Nothing is ever free. I dont think you understand the militaristic moral and feel of teh people. Thats why your neighbors do not trust you very muc


Who?? Poland?? shit they have hated Russians all through 1500 till present. read up on it very intrestign shit. Also who china? Shit right now is getting alot better with em. They accepted only 1 countries help so far in their earthquake and that Russian help. And please dotn tell me taht America si loved by all.


Say goodbye  to Siberia. The US isn't the only nation with an illegal immigrant problem. 

 




The T-90 is an elite tank and yes it is a developmnt or built of the T-72 but i dont see why that really matters. The Ma1 has served its grand period of 20 years of domination and it is time for others to take the lead.





It's an updating of an old design and has done nothing to correct the problems the old design had.





 What problems please list 1. Are u gona tell me that they do not compete against the m-1??? Well the m-1 is teh firstmodern tank. The t-72 was a great tank for its tiem and now it is obsolete ina  first world country war.


The T-90 can hit with about 5 megajoules at the strike. The M-1 is easily rated for that SMASH across its frontal arcs. The T-90 is barely rated for its gun. The M-1 strikes with about 7+ megajoules at its range which by the way still outranges the T-90.-even with the short 44 caliber gun. The export T-72 was and is no match for its contemporary the M-60. But then it wasn't supposed to be, different roles and missions. The Russian tank was/is designed as a swarm tank to overwhelm at close range and by sheer numbers. Well guess what?  Russia  doesn't have the numbers any more and the M-1 put the  kibosh on swarm tactics. Ever hear of 73 Easting?  The largest current tank park belongs to the US by the way.


Look at su-47 I dotn think you have seen this. This is a conmpletely new jet. OH the creaters of this plane have given out a chalange to the USA to do a mock air battle against the SU-47. The US has yet to respond. this doesnt really meen anything but peopel sont stick their face out like that without being confident.





One - it's not yet in service with the Russian air force. Two - what they say it does and what it's been seen to do don't match.





 No its not Cant lie about that but what about the new Su-(forgot the series think 37) This is also an air superiority fighter which will give America a run for its money. Also teh new missle defence systems that Russia has designed cans hoot down bird flyign at supersonic so i think it can take a palne too.


???????????????????????

Language problem I think. Some facts I give and not some propaganda. Most of the "new
 
Quote    Reply

historynut       5/16/2008 3:26:17 PM

Herald, historynut, and
afrc, aside from your excellent observations, I don't understand why
anyone is bothering to try to address RedRussian's disjointed
collection of comments regarding a couple modern Russian weapon
systems, a couple modern Russian prototype weapon systems that they
don't have yet, and some Russian history from 60+ years ago that has
essentially nothing to do with anything today.  RedRussian, what is
your point, anyway?  Feel free to now describe how any of what you've
said has anything to do with Russia defeating America in any war. 
Maybe tell me how Russia will fly their Su-47s (if and when they ever
get some) over Kansas City, or drive their T-90s (what few they have)
through downtown Chicago, or beat the Nazi German army of 1944 with
your Soviet Russian army of 1944 in the great plains of America's
mid-west?


Displacedjim, I generally agree, it is a pretty useless to talk to this guy... it seems like he is no older than 10... or 5. However, maybe if we show him that he is dumb he will go away and start reading books instead of watching propaganda. Even if he just goes away without learning a lesson this forum will be cleaner.

It's just that Russia comes so close sometimes then does dumb things. They make a good plane then don't make the supplies to maintane it. They build tanks then forget to send anti-freeze when winter comes. Like one ex-Russian I knew, he went to the target range a number of times when he was in the army but never fired his rifle. Why? Because they never had ammo. 
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       7/8/2008 4:33:45 AM

Jastayme3, over the next few weeks and months, please tak to family, friends, and co-workers who are recent East Asian immigrants, and ask them give you their opinions about how they think people in the old country view "face" and how they think Americans born and raised here view "face."  I'll do the same.  When we get opinions from about a dozen or so each, let's compare notes.

 

I do not have to do so. I already know. And I never said that Americans care about face to the same degree or in the same manner as East Asians. And I fail to see why an Asian's opinion about how Americans view face carries more weight then an American's.
I simply said that it is not true that Americans have no concern. If they did not, then such palpably absurd projects as going to the moon would not be so popular. Nor would the Revolutionary War, the Barbary Coast wars, the War of 1812, World War I, or for that matter World War II(which was from our point of view, largely about Remembering Pearl Harbor). Nor would Godfather, High Noon, and umpteen John Waynes, have  been particularly popular. Nor would we have been so pleased at beating the Russians at hockey or at chess. Nor for that matter would we like sports so much. And as this whole thread is about a nationalistic contest between America and Russia over who is the toughest, one might wonder if this is mildly odd.

If you define having a concern for face as feeling a need to kill oneself if one spills a cup of tea, then Americans have little sense of face. But in that case definitions have diverged and arguing is useless. 
 
In any case I don't see what you are angry about. I have heard worse things said about Americans then that they care about their prestiege.
 
Quote    Reply

stro06    russia stronger than U.S?   7/31/2008 2:09:17 PM
this should dispell any rumors that the Russian military is stronger than that of the United States. Lets forget that we have the best hardware in the world for conventional fighting( ie abrahams m2, F22 raptor). Lets forget that we can shoot down Russian ICBM's with our missile defense system(ie Thad). Lets forget that we can shoot down Russian logistical and communication satellites with just one of our naval destroyers. Oh yeah just one of our new submarines has enough nukes to cripple Moscow and they can fire under water and not be detected by the sonar of any other nation on this earth, but throw all that out the window. One word ruskies, METALSTORM. One Metalstorm platform can fire over a million conventional rounds per minute, or 16,000 40 mm grenades per second. We could obliterate the entire nation of Russia without one pair of American boots on the ground if we really wanted to, but war with Russia would be bad for the entire world so it's likely that it would never happen, so we fight proxy and political wars versus eachother. The term M.A.D comes to mind
 
Quote    Reply

stro06    russia stronger than U.S?   7/31/2008 2:12:09 PM
this should dispell any rumors that the Russian military is stronger than that of the United States. Lets forget that we have the best hardware in the world for conventional fighting( ie abrahams m2, F22 raptor). Lets forget that we can shoot down Russian ICBM's with our missile defense system(ie Thad). Lets forget that we can shoot down Russian logistical and communication satellites with just one of our naval destroyers. Oh yeah just one of our new submarines has enough nukes to cripple Moscow and they can fire under water and not be detected by the sonar of any other nation on this earth, but throw all that out the window. One word ruskies, METALSTORM. One Metalstorm platform can fire over a million conventional rounds per minute, or 16,000 40 mm grenades per second. We could obliterate the entire nation of Russia without one pair of American boots on the ground if we really wanted to, but war with Russia would be bad for the entire world so it's likely that it would never happen, so we fight proxy and political wars versus eachother. The term M.A.D comes to mind
 
Quote    Reply

stro06       7/31/2008 2:21:49 PM
sorry for the double post, page refreshed on me :)
 
Quote    Reply

mission ready       8/20/2008 2:24:20 PM
Just a thought.  every time a Russian bear bomber flys it is surrounded by the countries interceptors. Pictures every-where escorting Bears. The Russians state you know we're there. Tell me how many pictures exist where Russian planes ever escort B 2's  They will never know we are there. 94  B 52 's   93 B 1 B   18 B 2's   All mission ready. All strategic map, altering, doomsday weapons. Fueled, manned and ready to go.  God forbid they are ever needed. (2001 FAS)
 
20 trident subs.... each with   24 D 5 Ballistic Missiles, 8 warheads 100 kilotons each for a total of 192 warheads.(~5 to 8 sq miles turned to glass each warhead) Some missiles with 3, 300 plus kiloton warheads.  Some subs are now being equipped with a D 5 , with 24 individually target cruise missiles.That could mean 576 500lb warheads. Delivered anywhere in the world from over 5000 miles away.
 
The russians just deployed 12 S S 21's in Georgia. Each with a 300 lb warhead.
 
Aegis Destroyers each equipped with 128 re loadable highly accurate SAM missiles.   Torpedoes, Tomahawk cruise missiles.  Capable of targeting and destroying  dozens of targets at one time. Spy radar that can find a beach ball on the surface of the ocean 90 miles away.   We have ~ 20 of these.
 
10 aircraft carriers with 40 - 50 combat aircraft and another 50 support aircraft. Not to mention the vast array of offensive weapons.
 
Our M 1   A1 tank wiped out the republican quard in Iraq ,  greatly out numbered. They had T 72's.  We are currently deploying M1 A2 tanks. Currently The best in the world. 
 
I could go on and on.  Any one of these weapon systems are incredably distructive. Each alone is highly capable of destroying targets on an unimaginable level. I dread the day the world ever witnesses the full force of the U S military in battle. I am thankful we are measured and patient. I am thankful for the Brave and Honerable men and woman of the U S armed forces for protecting the world.
 
Quote    Reply

Lance Blade       8/20/2008 3:20:59 PM
I definitely know who would win at football :-)
 
(and I don't mean American football)
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics