America vs. Russia

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

juan grande 8/20/2008 7:09:04 PM

If the US politicians allow the war to be fought as it should, it will be no contest. Washington, regardless of who is in the White House, will keep the US forces from doing what needs to be done.

Quote Reply

StevoJH 8/20/2008 11:15:49 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

Just to make a point, metal storm was designed by an Australian and is being developed by an Australian Company. There is a Metalstorm grenade launcher being developed for the Australian AICW project. Not that metal storm is currently still in production and no metalstorm weapons systems are in production.

A large portion of the US airforce, including probably a lot of the F-22's will be unavailable for offensive operations over russia as they will be acting as interceptors in the US incase Russia comes to play with their T-160's and T-22M's. When undertaking operations against an intergrated air defense network (the russian equipment might be old, but if they spend the money, it will be on their air defense system) losses would be taken, B2's and B1's would be lost B52's would be useless for anything other then firing cruise missiles as they would be missile bait if they did anything else.

In terms of Ground forces, the russians have the advantage of terrain, the relative lack of infrastructure would help them as much as it hindered any attackers against them, if they destroy what infrustructure there is as they withdraw, new rail lines and roads will have to be built after each advance, giving the Russians time to mobalise reserves and get them trained up to combat standards. In my opinion it would be a very costly and very bloody stalemate. Just to make a point, some of the "Stalin" series tanks were spotted during home defense exercises as late as 1995, when they re-equip their forces, they store their old equipment, it is not disposed of. How many T72's, T80's, T64's and T55's do they have sitting in warehouses? Personally i wouldn't want to be the one to find out.

Quote Reply

mission ready 8/21/2008 9:52:32 AM

I agree any single offensive platform would be vulnerable to Russia defenses. The United States Military does one thing better by far than anyone. Integration and command and control. Our forces would strip layer upon layer of defenses until it is prudent to send in the vulnerable B 52's. We did it in Iraq. Sure Iraq had a much smaller military ,but it was the 4 th largest at the time and baghdad was one of the heaviest air defended city in the world. We lost one F 18. One brave pilot. F 117 went in first with Harm missiles to destroy the most capable and formidable defense radars. Cruise missiles from ships. F 18's. F 15 E bombers. F 111's, F 4 wild weasels to jam radar. We destroyed the 4 th largest military in weeks with much older less capable equipment than today.

B2s are very hard to find...only one has ever been hit and it was done by eye witness sightings and time to distance calculations, then the skies were saturated with anti aircraft fire. B 2's now fly random courses and utilize very sophisticated computers that guide the crew or pilot the plane to avoid radar hot spots. If it's all hot spots, drones, cruise missiles, AF 22 could clear a path.

As far as using most of the Air force to intercept Russian bombers. The U S has bases strategically located and equipped with enough aircraft to intercept the current operational number of bombers. The planes are dedicated to this sole mission.

We spend 600 billion on our military each year. The Russians less than 100. I think it's 28 billion. We have a 15.8 Trillion dollar economy. The E U 17.6 Trillion The Russians 1.7 Trillion. How could they ever win another arms race.

Most of our equipment is 2 to 3 generations ahead. In the past few years the have hit the lottery with their vast oil and gas reserves. I am happy their country is reaping their reward. The reward is the .7 part of the trillion dollars.

As far as having time to train. How long has it taken us to train Iraq police and military. 5 years and counting ?? How long do you really think the Russians would have time to train? Do we believe a war with Russian would last years? We did in 2 days what the Russians could not do in 10 years. We own Afghanistan. The war was won the first hour the second time in Iraq. We owned the country in less than a month. I could never imagine a war with Russia in which we would ever invade their country. We defend long before we go on offense.

As far as the tanks in the warehouse. Ever leave car in a garage for a couple of years, never mind 20 years. It usually takes more than the car is worth to get it running never mind dependable transportation. . A T 55, T 64 is worth about 1,000 dollars in scrape metal and 1500 as a target for artillery practice.(includes shipping) It wouldn't be worth it if they were abandoned 10 year old T 90's. Remember battle ready going against new M1 A2's . Tanks require an amazing amount of maintenance. Cost big money. I read that the Russian invasion of Georgia was hampered by mechanical failure of their tanks. Had to keep pushing them out of the way to make room for the ones they could keep running. It would have been like shooting dead fish in a cup for our A 10s C130,s and Apache's.

Quote Reply

mission ready correction 8/24/2008 5:11:07 PM

You can get a lot of different fiqures on the web. Must check the dates. 62 Aegis Destroyers. 18 trident subs 12 equiped with the D 5 missile. 6 with the older D 4 shorter range less accurate missile. The oldest of the 18 which currently carry the D 4 because of treaty obligations will be retrofitted with 154 1000lb conventional tomahawk cruise missiles that can all be fired within 6 minutes. Because of S.A.L.T. no operational nuclear cruise missiles at this time.

Just for the record we have 714 tank killing A 10 tunderbolt II. 1048 AH-64 Apache copters. 5970 M1 tanks of which 1174 are the new M 1 A 2 main battle tank. 1458 F-18's. 15000 military aircraft total.

69 of the best attack subs in the world. 62 Los angeles class, 3 sea wolf class, 4 virginia class.

Quote Reply

StevoJH 8/25/2008 12:46:45 AM

69 of the best attack subs in the world. 62 Los angeles class, 3 sea wolf class, 4 virginia class.

In regards to the number of Aircraft the US has lost on operations, i have this to ask, when was the last time the USAF and USN fought an oponent with an up to date and fully integrated defense network? While Iraq did have some old SAMs, it did not have AWACs (the russians do), they did not have modern SAMs (the russians do) and most of their Air defense network was made up by anti-aircraft guns which do not have the range to hit aircraft at high altitude. They also didn't have the number or quality of combat aircraft owned by the Russians
----------------------------
Your numbers are wrong
US Navy Combatants
Ticondaroga Class CG: 22
Burke Class DDG: 52 in Commission as of 8/8
Perry Class FFG: ~30 in commission
SSBN: 14 Ohio
SSGN: 4 Ohio
SSN: 45 LA Class, 3 Seawolf class, 4 Viginia class.
Carriers: 1 Kitty Hawk, 1 Enterprise, 9 Nimitz
LHD: 7 Wasp
LHA: 3 Tarawa
I'm to lazy to look up the LPD and LSD's

US Combat Aircraft (numbers in service, not number owned, counting combat units and not combat aircraft used only for training eg.F5E)
AV-8B Harrier II: 100
A-10 Thunderbold II: 248
AC-130: 21
B-1B Lancer: 64
B-2A Spirit: 20
B-52 Stratofortress: 94
F-15: 422
F-15E: 224
F-16: 1111
F/A-18: 114
F-18 E/F: 107E, 127F
F-22A: 122

Totals:
CAS: 593 (A10, AC-130, F-15E)
Fighter: 544 (F22 & F15A+C)
Multi-role: 1459
Bomber: 178

Attack Choppers
AH1W Super Cobra: 167
AH-6 Little Bird: 20
AH-64 Apache: 698
Total: 885

Yes there are 5970 Abrams tanks, however the M1A2 is just an upgraded M1A1, plus the armour they have is obsolete, because the british (who developed the armour for the abrams) have developed a replacement to the chobham armour on the abrams, this replacement is fitted to their challenger 2 tanks.

Of course you have to get all these aircraft, ships and Tanks into the theatre and then maintain them for the duration of the war, have fun with that.

Russian Air Force
Fighters:
SU27: 281-350
SU30: 10
SU33+SU35: 28
Mig 29: 260-400
Mig 31: 188-256
Total: 767-1044

CAS
SU-25: 241

Tactical Bomber
SU24M: 450

Strategic Bomber
TU-22M3: 124
TU-95MS: 64
TU-160: 16
Total: 204

Quote Reply

NORAD 8/25/2008 11:56:22 PM

I had to reply to this because some people just sounds really really stupid claiming that the U.S. has 250 aircraft to Russia's 2,500. Let me say it again your dumb and should not be on here at all. A U.S. Aircraft Carrier can carry more that 80 to 90 Aircraft, I am pretty sure we have about 5 or 6 Aircraft Carriers. That's more that 250 aircraft you fool. And if anyone thinks that a Russia can beat the US needs to go back to school. Russia equipment is outdated, and needs repair. The United States spends more money on millitary needs then the next 13 nations combind. The U.S. can but a missle, bomb, ICBM, or anything else anywhere on the planet.

Quote Reply

StevoJH 8/26/2008 2:23:59 AM

Yeah, US has ~7,500 aircraft total including all noncombat aircraft owned by the services. I'm not saying that russia can defeat the US, i'm saying that the US cannot defeat russia on its own home soil (including invasion). As for the ICBM's, they are irrelivent as Russia has them as well, they would never be used.

Quote Reply

Knjaz 8/26/2008 11:42:24 AM

These numbers doesn't make any sense. Such conflict would be very limited or it would go nuclear very fast. I mean the use of tactical nukes - u may read the russian military doctrine.

AND to say "lets exclude use of nukes" is the same as to make an assumption that USA wont use Carriers. It's just the part of their doctrine, as everything else.

Quote Reply

Yimmy 8/26/2008 12:04:39 PM

AND to say "lets exclude use of nukes"

That is exactly what happened in WWII when dealing with the issue of chemical weapons. The British developments in chemical warfare alone in the inter-war years would have made the mustard gas of WWI look like childs play.

Quote Reply

Yimmy 8/26/2008 1:05:48 PM

During the Cold War it was NATO, not Russia (SU than), which was dependant on the use of tactical nukes. Russia always relied on material superiority and numbers,

I believe the Russians were rather planning to bombard our positions with Hydrogen-Cyanide, a non-persistent blood agent, before pushing their armour and infantry through. It would likely be in response to this, and out forward positions being steam rolled, that we would employ tactical nukes. Of course, this is while the Soviets were attacking our surface fleets with tactical nukes already (I believe they saw a distinction between these and land detonated (or indeed air-bursts over land) nuclear weapons).

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT