Beyond propaganda: Russia-U.S conventional military balance. “The US military was never designed to fight a major war against a sophisticated enemy….As for the Russian military, it was designed to be purely defensive and it has no capability to threaten anybody in Europe, much less so the United States…” In a recent column for the Unz Review I wrote that “under any conceivable scenario Russia does have the means to basically completely destroy the USA as a country in about 30min (the USA, of course, can do the same to Russia). Any US war planner would have to consider the escalatory potential of any military action against Russia.” This still begs the question of whether Russia could challenge the USA militarily if we assume, for demonstration’s sake, that neither side would be prepared to use nuclear weapons, including tactical ones. If, by some mysterious magic, all nuclear weapons were to disappear, what would the balance of power between Russian and the US look like? Why Bean Counting Makes Absolutely No Sense The typical reply to this kind of question resorts to what US force planners call “bean counting”. Typically, journalists use the yearly IISS Military Balance or a source like Global Firepower and tallies of the number of men, main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, infantry combat vehicles, combat aircraft, artillery pieces, bombers, missiles, surface ships, submarines, etc. presented by each side in a chart. The reality is that such bean counting means absolutely and strictly nothing. Let’s take a simple example: if a war happens between, say, China and Russia then the fact that China has, say, 1000 tanks in its Yunnan province, will make no difference to the war at all, simply because they are too distant. When we apply this caveat to the Russian-US conventional military balance we immediately ought to ask ourselves the following two basic questions: a) What part of the US military worldwide would be immediately available to the US commanders in case of a war with Russia? b) On how many reinforcements could this force count and how soon could they get there? Keep in mind that tanks, bombers, soldiers and artillery do not fight separately – they fight together in what is logically called “combined arms” battles. So even if the USA could get X number of soldiers to location A, if they don’t have all the other combined arms components to support them in combat they are just an easy target. Furthermore, any fighting force will require a major logistics/supply effort. It is all very well to get aircraft X to location A, but if its missiles, maintenance equipment and specialists are not there to help, they are useless. Armored forces are notorious for expending a huge amount of petroleum, oil and lubricants. According to one estimate, in 1991 a US armored division could sustain itself for only 5 days, and after that it needed a major supply effort. Finally, any force that the US would move from point A to point B would become unavailable to execute its normally assigned role at point A. Now consider that “point A” could mean the Middle-East, or Far East Asia and you will see that this might be a difficult decision for US commanders. “Heavy” warfare We have one very good example of how the US operates: Operation Desert Shield . During this huge operation it took the US six months and an unprecedented logistical effort to gather the forces needed to attack Iraq. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia had been prepared for decades to receive such a massive force (in compliance with the so-called Carter Doctrine ) and the US efforts was completely unopposed by Saddam Hussein. Now ask yourself the following questions: a) In case of war with Russia, which country neighboring Russia would have an infrastructure similar to the one of the KSA, prepositioned equipment, huge bases, runways, deep ports, etc. ? (Answer: none) b) How likely is it that the Russians would give the USA six months to prepare for war without taking any action? (Answer: impossible) One might object that not all wars run according to the “heavy” scenario of Desert Storm . What if the US was preparing a very ‘light’ military intervention using only US and NATO immediate or rapid reaction forces? Light (or rapid reaction) warfare I will repeat here something I wrote in December of last year: The Russians have no fear of the military threat posed by NATO. Their reaction to the latest NATO moves (new bases and personnel in Central Europe, more spending, etc.) is to denounce it as provocative, but Russian officials all insist that Russia can handle the military threat. As one Russian deputy said “5 rapid reaction diversionary groups is a problem we can solve with one missile”. A simplistic but basically correct formula. As I mentioned before, the decision to double the size of the Russian Airborne Forces and to upgrade the elite 45th Special Designation Airborne Regiment to full brigade-size has already been taken anyway. You could say that Russia preempted the creation of the 10’000 strong NATO force by bringing her own mobile (airborne) forces from 36’000 to 72’000. This is typical Putin. While NATO announces with fanfare and fireworks that NATO will create a special rapid reaction “spearhead” force of 10’000, Putin quietly doubles the size of the Russian Airborne Forces to 72’000. And, believe me, the battle hardened Russian Airborne Forces are a vastly more capable fighting force then the hedonistic and demotivated multi-national (28 countries) Euroforce of 5’000 NATO is struggling hard to put together. The US commanders fully understand that. In other words, “light” or “rapid reaction” warfare is where the Russians excel and not the kind of conflict the US or NATO could ever hope to prevail in. Besides, if the “light warfare” was to last longer than planned and had to be escalated to the “heavy” kind, would the USA or Russia have its heavy forces nearer? Shock and Awe There is, of course, another model available to the US commanders: the “shock and awe” model: massive cruise missile attacks backed by bomber strikes. Here I could easily object that bombing Russia is not comparable to bombing Iraq and that the Russian air defenses are the most formidable on the planet. Or I could say that while the USA has an excellent record of success when bombing civilians, its record against a military force like the Serbian Army Corps in Kosovo was an abject failure. [Sidebar : 78 days of non-stop US/NATO airstrikes, 1000+ aircraft and 38’000+ air sorties and all that to achieve what? Ten or so Serbian aircraft destroyed (most on the ground), 20+ APC and tanks destroyed and 1000+ Serbian soldiers dead or wounded. That is out of a force of 130’000+ Serbian soliders, 80+ aircraft, 1’400 artillery pieces, 1’270 tanks and 825 APCs (all figures according to Wikipedia). The 3rd Serbian Army Corps basically came out unharmed from this massive bombing campaign which will go down in history as arguably the worst defeat of airpower in history! ] But even if we assume that somehow the US succeeded in its favorite “remote” warfare, does anybody believe that this would seriously affect the Russian military or breaking the will of the Russian people? The people of Leningrad survived not 78, but 900 (nine hundred!) days of a infinitely worse siege and bombing and never even considered surrendering! The reality is that being on the defense gives Russia a huge advantage against the USA even if we only consider conventional weapons. Even if the conflict happened in the Ukraine or the Baltic states, geographic proximity would give Russia a decisive advantage over any conceivable US/NATO attack. American commanders all understand that very well even if they pretend otherwise. Conversely, a Russian attack on the USA or NATO is just as unlikely, and for the same reasons. Russia cannot project her power very far from her borders. In fact, if you look at the way the Russian military is organized, structured and trained, you will immediately see that it is a force designed primarily to defeat an enemy on the Russian border or within less than 1000km from it. Yes, sure, you will see Russian bombers, surface ships and submarines reaching much further, but these are also typical “showing the flag” missions, not combat training for actual military scenarios. The sole real purpose of the US military is to regularly beat up on some small, more or less defenseless country, either in order to rob it of its resources, overthrow a government daring to defy the World Hegemon, or just to make an example of it. The US military was never designed to fight a major war against a sophisticated enemy. Only the US strategic nuclear forces are tasked to defend the USA against another nuclear power (Russia or China) or actually fight in a major war. As for the Russian military, it was designed to be purely defensive and it has no capability to threaten anybody in Europe, much less so the United States. Of course, the western corporate media will continue to “bean count” US and Russian forces, but that is pure propaganda designed to create a sense of urgency and fear in the general public. The reality for the foreseeable future will remain that neither the USA nor Russia have the means to successfully attack each other, even with only conventional forces. The only real danger left is an unprepared and unforeseen sudden escalation which will lead to a confrontation neither side wants nor is prepared for. T he Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006 or the Georgian attack on Russian peacekeepers in 2008 are two scary reminders that sometimes dumb politicians take fantastically dumb decisions. I am confident that Putin and his team would never make such a dumb decision, but when I look at the current pool of US Presidential candidates I will tell you that I get very, very frightened.

I will appreciate if you can give us the source. Thanks.

kingkaspa:
I will appreciate if you can give us the source. Thanks.

http://off-guardian.org/2015/07/26/
beyond-propaganda-the-russia-u-s-
conventional-military-balance/

Thank God someone else knows. Alot of folks finds it appealing and easy to bean count between the US and Russian conventional ansenals while foolishly over looking the major determinants as highlighted up above in this thread.

I just dey laf.

I read some of the articles from the motleyfool and warisboring website and i see a lot of bean counting being done. Just like the writer said the Russians have the best airdefense system in the planet. And they have a long term history in the area of air defense. An example is the 1956 Arab/israeli War where Nasser asked the Russians to take charge of Egyptian airdefence and which they did with outstanding success.

Even in bean counting, the ruskies are ahead of the yanks in many areas such as:

Tanks
Nuclear bombs
Personnel reserves
Attack helicopters

In virtually all aspects of modern warfare, I think the Russians are decades ahead of the yanks. These aspects include: air power, with the new T 50 pak-fa bomber jet the f35 fighter jet of the yanks would be rendered useless.

The moderns SAM's of S400 will make their airspace impenetrable. The idea that Russia is far behind America in weapon technology only exists on the deluded minds of the yanks.

In this hypothetical war, all the US and it's allies need to do is place sanctions on China. Most of China's top 10 export partners are US friendly nations and it would result in yearly losses of up to 2-3 trillion USD.

Fleshly:
Even in bean counting, the ruskies are ahead of the yanks in many areas such as:

Tanks
Nuclear bombs
Personnel reserves
Attack helicopters

In virtually all aspects of modern warfare, I think the Russians are decades ahead of the yanks. These aspects include: air power, with the new T 50 pak-fa bomber jet the f35 fighter jet of the yanks would be rendered useless.

The moderns SAM's of S400 will make their airspace impenetrable. The idea that Russia is far behind America in weapon technology only exists on the deluded minds of the yanks.

Yeah! Too much Hollywood has brainwashed alot of folks, ande so many don't realise that it is our of "actual fear" that pentagon generals are whimpering bitterly,pretending as some will say, in the wake of Russia's re-emerging conventional military power. The US is still way ahead in terms of NUMBERS, but when it comes to actual fact regarding technological possession, they matched the Yankees in every areas in the sense that there is nothing own by the US the Russians don't have. And when it comes to effectiveness, it is either what the Russkies are deploying equally match those of the Yankees, counters it, or denies it, or simply outperform it.
Yes! The Americans are still way off in conventional capability, and apart from the blue water navy and over 800 bases world wide, i think they are also leading in the area of attack Helicopters you mentioned. But the real deal is that, while the US leads in Huge numbers, the Russians have made up for the margin by the strategy of deniability through increasingly notorious, unstopable missile programs and a very wicked array of Jamming electronic devices. Russia's mastery of electronic warfare is second to none! The latest noiseless electronic Jammers would make the US fleet Carriers useless, while becoming perfect ducks for Russian fifth generational missiles and underwater boats which the US have confessed they can' detect.

The latest Amata T14 Tank is 20 years ahead of whatever the Yankees have in that field. And come to think of it, is like the F35 raptor is already obsolete: why? Just look below.

Air Combat Weapons: USA- F35 Lightning - II This aircraft is capable of :
• Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+ (1,200 mph, 1,930 kmh)
(tested to Mach 1.61)
• Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel
• Combat radius: 613 nmi(1,135 km) on internal fuel
• Service ceiling: 50,000 ft(15,240 m)
• Wing loading: 107.7 lb/ft² (526 kg/m²; 745 kg/m²
max loaded)
• Thrust/weight:
◦ With full fuel: 0.87
◦ With 50% fuel: 1.07
• Maximum g-load: 9 g Armament
• Guns: 1 × General Dynamics 25 mm (0.984 in) GAU-22/
A 4-barrel Gatling gun, internally mounted with 180 rounds
• Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a
capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)and two internal bays with
two pylons eachfor a total weapons payload of 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)and provisions to carry combinations of:
◦ Missiles:
▪ Air-to-air missiles:
▪ AIM-120 AMRAAM
▪ AIM-9X Sidewinder
▪ IRIS-T ▪ MBDA Meteor (pending further funding)
▪ Air-to-surface missiles:
▪ AGM-88 AARGM[546]
▪ AGM-158 JASSM[251]
▪ Brimstone missile / MBDA SPEAR
▪ Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) ▪ Storm Shadow missile
▪ SOM
▪ Anti-ship missiles:
▪ Joint Strike Missile (JSM)
▪ Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)
◦ Bombs: ▪ Mark 84 or Mark 83 or Mark 82 GP bombs
▪ Mk.20 Rockeye II cluster bomb
▪ Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) capable
▪ Paveway series laser-guided bombs
▪ Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)
▪ Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) series ▪ AGM-154 JSOW
▪ B61 mod 12 nuclear bomb


Russia - PAK FA T-50 This aircraft is capable of:
• Maximum speed:
◦ At altitude: Mach 2.3 (2,440 km/h, 1,520 mph)
◦ Supercruise: Mach 1.6 (1,700 km/h, 1,060 mph)
• Range: 3,500 km (2,175 mi) subsonic
• Ferry range: 5,500 km (3,420 mi) with one in-flight refueling
• Service ceiling: 20,000 m (65,000 ft)
• Wing loading: 317–444 kg/m2 (65–91 lb/ft2)
• Thrust/weight:
◦ Saturn 117: 1.06 (1.19 at typical mission weight)
◦ izdeliye 30: 1.24 (1.41 at typical mission weight) • Maximum g-load: +9.0 g
Armament
• Guns: Provision for 1× 30 mm GSh-301 cannon in right
LEVCON root
• Air to air loadout:
◦ 6× K-77M or 4× izdeliye 810 ◦ 2× K-74M2 or 2× izdeliye 300
• Air to ground loadout:
◦ 4× Kh-38M or 4× Kh-58UShK or 8× KAB-250 or 4×
KAB-500
◦ 2× K-74M2 or 2× izdeliye 300
• Air to sea loadout: ◦ 4× Kh-35
◦ 2× K-74M2 or 2× izdeliye 300
• Hardpoints: Six external hardpoints.
◦ Kh-31
◦ R-73
◦ R-77 Avionics
• Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic
system (MIRES)
◦ N036 Byelka radar system
▪ N036-1-01: Frontal X-band AESA radar
▪ N036B-1-01: Cheek X-band AESA radars for increased angular coverage
▪ N036L-1-01: Slat L-band arrays for IFF
◦ L402 Himalayas ECM suite
• 101KS Atoll electro-optical system
◦ 101KS-O: Laser directional infrared countermeasures
◦ 101KS-V: Infrared search-and-track ◦ 101KS-U: Ultraviolet missile approach warning system
◦ 101KS-N: Targeting pod.

The truth is, war goes beyond movies and propaganda.

ArtanK:
In this hypothetical war, all the US and it's allies need to do is place sanctions on China. Most of China's top 10 export partners are US friendly nations and it would result in yearly losses of up to 2-3 trillion USD.

How would they be able to place sanctions against China when China is a major US creditor/bond bearer?

Appleyard:


Yeah! Too much Hollywood has brainwashed alot of folks, ande so many don't realise that it is our of "actual fear" that pentagon generals are whimpering bitterly,pretending as some will say, in the wake of Russia's re-emerging conventional military power. The US is still way ahead in terms of NUMBERS, but when it comes to actual fact regarding technological possession, they matched the Yankees in every areas in the sense that there is nothing own by the US the Russians don't have. And when it comes to effectiveness, it is either what the Russkies are deploying equally match those of the Yankees, counters it, or denies it, or simply outperform it.
Yes! The Americans are still way off in conventional capability, and apart from the blue water navy and over 800 bases world wide, i think they are also leading in the area of attack Helicopters you mentioned. But the real deal is that, while the US leads in Huge numbers, the Russians have made up for the margin by the strategy of deniability through increasingly notorious, unstopable missile programs and a very wicked array of Jamming electronic devices. Russia's mastery of electronic warfare is second to none! The latest noiseless electronic Jammers would make the US fleet Carriers useless, while becoming perfect ducks for Russian fifth generational missiles and underwater boats which the US have confessed they can' detect.

The latest Amata T14 Tank is 20 years ahead of whatever the Yankees have in that field. And come to think of it, is like the F35 raptor is already obsolete: why? Just look below.

Air Combat Weapons: USA- F35 Lightning - II This aircraft is capable of :
• Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+ (1,200 mph, 1,930 kmh)
(tested to Mach 1.61)
• Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel
• Combat radius: 613 nmi(1,135 km) on internal fuel
• Service ceiling: 50,000 ft(15,240 m)
• Wing loading: 107.7 lb/ft² (526 kg/m²; 745 kg/m²
max loaded)
• Thrust/weight:
◦ With full fuel: 0.87
◦ With 50% fuel: 1.07
• Maximum g-load: 9 g Armament
• Guns: 1 × General Dynamics 25 mm (0.984 in) GAU-22/
A 4-barrel Gatling gun, internally mounted with 180 rounds
• Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a
capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)and two internal bays with
two pylons eachfor a total weapons payload of 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)and provisions to carry combinations of:
◦ Missiles:
▪ Air-to-air missiles:
▪ AIM-120 AMRAAM
▪ AIM-9X Sidewinder
▪ IRIS-T ▪ MBDA Meteor (pending further funding)
▪ Air-to-surface missiles:
▪ AGM-88 AARGM[546]
▪ AGM-158 JASSM[251]
▪ Brimstone missile / MBDA SPEAR
▪ Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) ▪ Storm Shadow missile
▪ SOM
▪ Anti-ship missiles:
▪ Joint Strike Missile (JSM)
▪ Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)
◦ Bombs: ▪ Mark 84 or Mark 83 or Mark 82 GP bombs
▪ Mk.20 Rockeye II cluster bomb
▪ Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) capable
▪ Paveway series laser-guided bombs
▪ Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)
▪ Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) series ▪ AGM-154 JSOW
▪ B61 mod 12 nuclear bomb


Russia - PAK FA T-50 This aircraft is capable of:
• Maximum speed:
◦ At altitude: Mach 2.3 (2,440 km/h, 1,520 mph)
◦ Supercruise: Mach 1.6 (1,700 km/h, 1,060 mph)
• Range: 3,500 km (2,175 mi) subsonic
• Ferry range: 5,500 km (3,420 mi) with one in-flight refueling
• Service ceiling: 20,000 m (65,000 ft)
• Wing loading: 317–444 kg/m2 (65–91 lb/ft2)
• Thrust/weight:
◦ Saturn 117: 1.06 (1.19 at typical mission weight)
◦ izdeliye 30: 1.24 (1.41 at typical mission weight) • Maximum g-load: +9.0 g
Armament
• Guns: Provision for 1× 30 mm GSh-301 cannon in right
LEVCON root
• Air to air loadout:
◦ 6× K-77M or 4× izdeliye 810 ◦ 2× K-74M2 or 2× izdeliye 300
• Air to ground loadout:
◦ 4× Kh-38M or 4× Kh-58UShK or 8× KAB-250 or 4×
KAB-500
◦ 2× K-74M2 or 2× izdeliye 300
• Air to sea loadout: ◦ 4× Kh-35
◦ 2× K-74M2 or 2× izdeliye 300
• Hardpoints: Six external hardpoints.
◦ Kh-31
◦ R-73
◦ R-77 Avionics
• Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic
system (MIRES)
◦ N036 Byelka radar system
▪ N036-1-01: Frontal X-band AESA radar
▪ N036B-1-01: Cheek X-band AESA radars for increased angular coverage
▪ N036L-1-01: Slat L-band arrays for IFF
◦ L402 Himalayas ECM suite
• 101KS Atoll electro-optical system
◦ 101KS-O: Laser directional infrared countermeasures
◦ 101KS-V: Infrared search-and-track ◦ 101KS-U: Ultraviolet missile approach warning system
◦ 101KS-N: Targeting pod.

The truth is, war goes beyond movies and propaganda.

While I agree with most you said here I have a urge to put in my own 2cents worth

In a event where it would come to war I would put the yanks and there Nato Allies in a air to air confrontation a few notches ahead.

The F-35 vs T-50 is a non starter simply because both systems are still in there developmental stages. The T-50 would only be in the Russian inventory late 2016 or early 2017 at best and while the F-35 is already undergoing weapon systems trails, in both its sea and land variant.

The Su-35 with AESA radar can match a F-22 any day simply because the F-22's are also too few in numbers build(round 200) and if war breaks out especially in the Ukrainian peninsula Russia with its air and ground defense systems would have a advantage. But that said we are not counting in the Typhoons, Gripen E/NG and Rafale who in their own right are just as capable if not more then both F-22 and F-35's.

In my conclusion the Russians will only have an advantage due to there superior air defenses, but there fighters who in there own right is a match for any thing the West can through at them will simply loose because of sheer numbers and quality from Nato/US fighter jets.

On the side, judging by the current stance of EU countries like France/Germany they would rather sit on the side then go into a war with Russia. Besides the Ukrainian issue if the US wants war they should go at it alone and leave EU especially Baltic states out of it.

Fleshly:
Even in bean counting, the ruskies are ahead of the yanks in many areas such as:

Tanks
Nuclear bombs
Personnel reserves
Attack helicopters

[b]In virtually all aspects of modern warfare, I think the Russians are decades ahead of the yanks. [/b]These aspects include: air power, with the new T 50 pak-fa bomber jet the f35 fighter jet of the yanks would be rendered useless.

The moderns SAM's of S400 will make their airspace impenetrable. The idea that Russia is far behind America in weapon technology only exists on the deluded minds of the yanks.

Lol @ the bolded

You need to stop watching Youtube and smell the coffee. PAK FA is not even in service yet

What tank? Armata? cool toy but can Russia afford it?

Which Reserves? Over 40 percent of Russian troops are conscripts unlike the US.

DictatorZAR:


While I agree with most you said here I have a urge to put in my own 2cents worth

In a event where it would come to war I would put the yanks and there Nato Allies in a air to air confrontation a few notches ahead.

The F-35 vs T-50 is a non starter simply because both systems are still in there developmental stages. The T-50 would only be in the Russian inventory late 2016 or early 2017 at best and while the F-35 is already undergoing weapon systems trails, in both its sea and land variant.

The Su-35 with AESA radar can match a F-22 any day simply because the F-22's are also too few in numbers build(round 200) and if war breaks out especially in the Ukrainian peninsula Russia with its air and ground defense systems would have a advantage. But that said we are not counting in the Typhoons, Gripen E/NG and Rafale who in their own right are just as capable if not more then both F-22 and F-35's.

In my conclusion the Russians will only have an advantage due to there superior air defenses, but there fighters who in there own right is a match for any thing the West can through at them will simply loose because of sheer numbers and quality from Nato/US fighter jets.

On the side, judging by the current stance of EU countries like France/Germany they would rather sit on the side then go into a war with Russia. Besides the Ukrainian issue if the US wants war they should go at it alone and leave EU especially Baltic states out of it.

Honestly you make alot of sense in your concise analysis.
But come to think of it; why should one nation be up against 28 other nations? That won't be a fair fight, you know. The idea of NATO plus the US taken on Russia alone is something that always amuse me. It is amusing in the sense that, should this be the case, some myopic and brainwashed West/US fan boys still expect such a war to be conventional, when it is clear that from the first shot fired, Tactical Nuclear weapons would be the other of the day. And i can tell you, its Europe that will suffer most from such outcome. Not also forgeting the 99% possibility that the likes of China, Iran, Korea, the CSTO, BRICS, CIS member nations, and even some countries in core Europe would definitly their lot along side the Russians. This is most likely given the continuous breakage of the the world into small economic/political blocs/Units, as well as the ever increasing resentment of the US and its actions and inactions globally.
Another factor that would also play out against the attacking forces is the long and endemic history of hate and mistrust among some NATO member nations. Honestly i dont just see how the Turks and Greecians would work together.

On the other hand, France and Germany becoming hard against further antagonising of Russia, is simply out of understanding the backlash that would result from any foolish match on moscow. It would be suicidal to attack Moscow and expect the whole of Europe to remain the same again-both economically and politically. The truth is, Europe have much to lose than Russia in the event of any war.

Now, if NATO (say without France, Germany, ) along with US should attack Russia, the possibility of Nucluear use is still very high as Russia would be fighting on multiple fronts. But should China and the likes mentioned above joins the party, the East would easily swamp the West.

Now, lets consider a one on one face off between US vs Russia. If the US is to attack Russia, they will lose in a conventional sense.
I know that our American friends like to think that their
army is the best. But I would say most certainly that
USA will NOT win the conventional war on Russia's SOIL. Everywhere else, long way from Russian border USA has
more chances, but NO CHANCE whatsoever to win Mother Russia on her own land.
Remember Vietnam? War against peasants with outdated (since Russia didn't give them thier best tech, because of the fear Chinese would be able to copy it) even by that time standards Soviets tech? It's still considered as a hell by Americans and they lost this war embarrassingly to say the least. And now just imagine 1000x harder and tougher war. Start to imagine this? Russia has sophisticated weapons, tough soldiers, vast territory, sheer WILL of her people. Sorry to disappoint fanboys team USA but the SECOND this war will start, they'd be the first to regret to fight against Russia.

No country in the world is able to win a direct war against Russia on her own land, including USA.
If you would look at the history only Mongols were able to conquer Russia, however there wasn't Russia at that time, there was many small regions without central
government, so I can't say in that time there was a united Russia. As for WW2, remember that war? German
army was considered vastly superior to Soviet, arguably very similar how nowadays US army is considered superior to Russia's. And Hitler thought he will win the war quickly. He couldn't have been more wrong. Major reason why US can't win a war with Russia. US has
always relied on air-superiority. First bomb them heavily, only then boots on the ground will do the rest. However
Russian air is heavily protected. S400 SAM is the best in the world and it's just one example, although one of the mostdistinguished. Russia has a huge variety of surface-to-air sophisticated systems, such as Tornado, Bastion etc, etc.
You don't want to deal with Russian fighters like Su-35 either and 5gen fighter which arguably would be the best -PAK FA. Without dominant air superiority US will have to put boots on the ground.

First of all it's virtually impossible to conquer all this vast
amount of land. Land is actually weapon in itself and very important one. Also for Russia there's always a space to
regroup. On the ground there wouldn't be much ease for
Americans either. With Russia's sophisticated artillery (also in vast numbers and yes, including new models like
Koalitsiya SV which is superior to any analogue in the world) and huge numbers of tanks (including the best tank Armata ever built to date) as well as knowledge of the land. Army is undergoing a huge modernization right now.
And in terms of technical superiority it would be Russia superior when it comes to quality and USA with bigger quantity (for example USA will have more F-22 against smaller numbers of PAK FA, which according to preliminary reports will be better F-22 AND the list go on).

Americans will suffer huge casualties, they don't have war experience against tough opponent. They crushed helpless Serbs, Iraqis - yes, but it hardly can be considered a war -more of the elimination, extermination of the weak. Whereas Russia has recent experience in tough war in Chechnya. But more importantly, Russia has second to none experience with fighting tough, impossible wars. USA, on the contrary has only one such experience -Vietnam, where they lost embarrassingly. Which brings us to next point. Another point. US can't afford high number of casualties. Remember the last time where Americans faced rigorous resistance? Yes, Vietnam. There was low spirit among public about high number of casualties.
In case with all-out war with Russia, number of casualties would be 10-40x more (for each American soldier killed in Vietnam there will be 10-40 soldiers killed in Russia, if not more). Possible turmoil and unrest would stir American society from the inside. As we know US is pretty much a police state . And police will have to fight against their own people. On the contrary Russian people will be united and determined to fight till the last man standing. Civilians will also fight, not only military (that's actually one of the many reasons of popular stereotype that Russian military fight with quantity not quality, because of the high number of casualties in WW2. In reality USSR military lost 11 mln which is high, but the most casualties were actually the civilians. And Nazis also committed slaughters in vast numbers) . All population will support army in every possible way including children and women.

In a nutshell, The US would win any war with Russia but only outside Russia. But going to attack Russia in it's own turf would be suicidal.
And if NATO joins the party, then you can expect the skies of Europe and American cities to be illuminated with the happy cries of Nuclear missiles, and humanity shall be rolled back a hundred years, with the crocroaches, scorpions, and the bacteria taking the chief seat.

We just hope common sense prevails at the end!

Appleyard:


Honestly you make alot of sense in your concise analysis.
But come to think of it; why should one nation be up against 28 other nations? That won't be a fair fight, you know. The idea of NATO plus the US taken on Russia alone is something that always amuse me. It is amusing in the sense that, should this be the case, some myopic and brainwashed West/US fan boys still expect such a war to be conventional, when it is clear that from the first shot fired, Tactical Nuclear weapons would be the other of the day. And i can tell you, its Europe that will suffer most from such outcome. Not also forgeting the 99% possibility that the likes of China, Iran, Korea, the CSTO, BRICS, CIS member nations, and even some countries in core Europe would definitly their lot along side the Russians. This is most likely given the continuous breakage of the the world into small economic/political blocs/Units, as well as the ever increasing resentment of the US and its actions and inactions globally.
Another factor that would also play out against the attacking forces is the long and endemic history of hate and mistrust among some NATO member nations. Honestly i dont just see how the Turks and Greecians would work together.

On the other hand, France and Germany becoming hard against further antagonising of Russia, is simply out of understanding the backlash that would result from any foolish match on moscow. It would be suicidal to attack Moscow and expect the whole of Europe to remain the same again-both economically and politically. The truth is, Europe have much to lose than Russia in the event of any war.

Now, if NATO (say without France, Germany, ) along with US should attack Russia, the possibility of Nucluear use is still very high as Russia would be fighting on multiple fronts. But should China and the likes mentioned above joins the party, the East would easily swamp the West.

Now, lets consider a one on one face off between US vs Russia. If the US is to attack Russia, they will lose in a conventional sense.
I know that our American friends like to think that their
army is the best. But I would say most certainly that
USA will NOT win the conventional war on Russia's SOIL. Everywhere else, long way from Russian border USA has
more chances, but NO CHANCE whatsoever to win Mother Russia on her own land.
Remember Vietnam? War against peasants with outdated (since Russia didn't give them thier best tech, because of the fear Chinese would be able to copy it) even by that time standards Soviets tech? It's still considered as a hell by Americans and they lost this war embarrassingly to say the least. And now just imagine 1000x harder and tougher war. Start to imagine this? Russia has sophisticated weapons, tough soldiers, vast territory, sheer WILL of her people. Sorry to disappoint fanboys team USA but the SECOND this war will start, they'd be the first to regret to fight against Russia.

No country in the world is able to win a direct war against Russia on her own land, including USA.
If you would look at the history only Mongols were able to conquer Russia, however there wasn't Russia at that time, there was many small regions without central
government, so I can't say in that time there was a united Russia. As for WW2, remember that war? German
army was considered vastly superior to Soviet, arguably very similar how nowadays US army is considered superior to Russia's. And Hitler thought he will win the war quickly. He couldn't have been more wrong. Major reason why US can't win a war with Russia. US has
always relied on air-superiority. First bomb them heavily, only then boots on the ground will do the rest. However
Russian air is heavily protected. S400 SAM is the best in the world and it's just one example, although one of the mostdistinguished. Russia has a huge variety of surface-to-air sophisticated systems, such as Tornado, Bastion etc, etc.
You don't want to deal with Russian fighters like Su-35 either and 5gen fighter which arguably would be the best -PAK FA. Without dominant air superiority US will have to put boots on the ground.

First of all it's virtually impossible to conquer all this vast
amount of land. Land is actually weapon in itself and very important one. Also for Russia there's always a space to
regroup. On the ground there wouldn't be much ease for
Americans either. With Russia's sophisticated artillery (also in vast numbers and yes, including new models like
Koalitsiya SV which is superior to any analogue in the world) and huge numbers of tanks (including the best tank Armata ever built to date) as well as knowledge of the land. Army is undergoing a huge modernization right now.
And in terms of technical superiority it would be Russia superior when it comes to quality and USA with bigger quantity (for example USA will have more F-22 against smaller numbers of PAK FA, which according to preliminary reports will be better F-22 AND the list go on).

Americans will suffer huge casualties, they don't have war experience against tough opponent. They crushed helpless Serbs, Iraqis - yes, but it hardly can be considered a war -more of the elimination, extermination of the weak. Whereas Russia has recent experience in tough war in Chechnya. But more importantly, Russia has second to none experience with fighting tough, impossible wars. USA, on the contrary has only one such experience -Vietnam, where they lost embarrassingly. Which brings us to next point. Another point. US can't afford high number of casualties. Remember the last time where Americans faced rigorous resistance? Yes, Vietnam. There was low spirit among public about high number of casualties.
In case with all-out war with Russia, number of casualties would be 10-40x more (for each American soldier killed in Vietnam there will be 10-40 soldiers killed in Russia, if not more). Possible turmoil and unrest would stir American society from the inside. As we know US is pretty much a police state . And police will have to fight against their own people. On the contrary Russian people will be united and determined to fight till the last man standing. Civilians will also fight, not only military (that's actually one of the many reasons of popular stereotype that Russian military fight with quantity not quality, because of the high number of casualties in WW2. In reality USSR military lost 11 mln which is high, but the most casualties were actually the civilians. And Nazis also committed slaughters in vast numbers) . All population will support army in every possible way including children and women.

In a nutshell, The US would win any war with Russia but only outside Russia. But going to attack Russia in it's own turf would be suicidal.
And if NATO joins the party, then you can expect the skies of Europe and American cities to be illuminated with the happy cries of Nuclear missiles, and humanity shall be rolled back a hundred years, with the crocroaches, scorpions, and the bacteria taking the chief seat.

We just hope common sense prevails at the end!

I like your right up and analyses.... A lot of people have been(is still being) brainwashed that Uncle Sam Aristocrat can win battle against the Russia...
Too much of Hollywood is the problem... And even if Nato,SA,S.Korea, and all other US ally join the war against Russia... Will they expect CHina,N.Korea,Iran,Iraq,Syria,India and even from Africa (Algeria)(if GEJ is still President I can say Nigeria but Buhari will want to support USA) the likes of S.Africa will be like mercenary to both sides...... Will fold their alms and sit back.... I can bet it Germany and Japan will never join them...
That's why I'm calling on PMB to change the game against USA when Obama leaves office because all the present american presidential candidates are bigot,racist..

Missy89:


Lol @ the bolded

You need to stop watching Youtube and smell the coffee. PAK FA is not even in service yet

What tank? Armata? cool toy but can Russia afford it?

Which Reserves? Over 40 percent of Russian troops are conscripts unlike the US.

I don't understand your point.
Plead try and explain

Fleshly:



I don't understand your point.
Plead try and explain

which part?

In Conventional warfare Russia will most likely lose more soldiers than the US the same way they did in ww2, but they'd still manage to hold of the American. Russia suffered the most casualties during WW2. More than Japan actually.

Most analysts speculate that Russia managed to push back the Germans because of their numbers and ability to produce and replace dozens of tanks at a time.

So massing up a large number of troops is what will save Russia from the western quality of fighting.

Missy89:


which part?

Just answer me:

Pak Fa T50 fighter jets and F35 which is more lethal or more advanced.

Armata tank and Abrams which is more reliable and durable.

I need concrete answers backed with verifiable evidence and not conjectures.

Fleshly:


Just answer me:

Pak Fa T50 fighter jets and F35 which is more lethal or more advanced.

Armata tank and Abrams which is more reliable and durable.

I need concrete answers backed with verifiable evidence and not conjectures.

Pak Fa T50 ,F35 and the Armata tank are still in the their testing phase. Comparing them doesn't make any sense yet. Reading their features online is one thing. Using them on the battle field is another where tactics will play a significant role.

And what do you mean by durable? Tanks are not roofing sheets or bath tubs. They blow up if they are hit directly no matter how armored they are.

The important question you should be asking is how many PAK FA and Armata can Russia really afford to buy and deploy?

The problem is that you people always like assuming things.

You don't know anything about the T-50 yet you already assume that its the best.

You haven't seen its full flight and stealth capabilities but you think its already the best because its new.

When it comes to actual Air to Air combat Western Jets have proven superior to Russian and Israel is the Country that has proven this point.

Missy89:


Pak Fa T50 ,F35 and the Armata tank are still in the their testing phase. Comparing them doesn't make any sense yet. Reading their features online is one thing. Using them on the battle field is another where tactics will play a significant role.

And what do you mean by durable? Tanks are not roofing sheets or bath tubs. They blow up if they are hit directly no matter how armored they are.

The important question you should be asking is how many PAK FA and Armata can Russia really afford to buy and deploy?

Thank you!! Finally someone with common sense. The F-35 is already reported to have entired Service with the U.S Marines Already and the T-50 is still in its test phase.

Besides the amount of T-50s and Armatas the Russians can afford, the question is how well will it perform against the F-22 and F-35 or other west jets?

Might be relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lqKEn3ptoE

overhypedsteve:
I read some of the articles from the motleyfool and warisboring website and i see a lot of bean counting being done. Just like the writer said the Russians have the best airdefense system in the planet. And they have a long term history in the area of air defense. An example is the 1956 Arab/israeli War where Nasser asked the Russians to take charge of Egyptian airdefence and which they did with outstanding success.

Huh?

ValerianSteel:
Huh?

outstanding success because they held the air defense of a country as big as Egypt, a foreign country against hostile attacks from a capable enemy.

overhypedsteve:
outstanding success because they held the air defense of a country as big as Egypt, a foreign country against hostile attacks from a capable enemy.

You based your conclusions from articles on motleyfool and warisboring website.I see.