I bet many will say Russia solely because Russia has never shown its power and thus people have to imagine how powerful the bear really is.
OT: conventionally, I believe the US would easily defeat the Russians. But other factors come into play and thus a total victory cannot be obtained imo.
Mobile airpower
"The enemy dies relaxed," observed a Lockheed Martin manager.
This message has been edited by Nighthawk00 on May 1, 2008 4:23 PM
Russia hasnt shown its power? I think Hitler and Napoleon would beg to differ. If the third reich couldnt do it, no one can. Russia might not be able to project power outside of the caucasses, but as far as defense, its unbreakable. The Raptor is of no use when you have 7 or 8 dozen S-400 battalions on the ground, land forces are going up against the best artillery force in the world....
Plz dnt think USA has shown all of its arsenal in the war on iraq....i assure u USA hav weapons that would make the world be in awe...
Russia sure is powerfull and i agree against any other nation it would fair very well,(i.e win), but against USA it would be obliterated...
maybe russia in artillery but they r no use when confronted with the high tech weaponry at USA's disposal...no1 will be able to catch up with USA might for a looooonnnng time, and that includes Russia.
Plz dnt think USA has shown all of its arsenal in the war on iraq....i assure u USA hav weapons that would make the world be in awe...
Russia sure is powerfull and i agree against any other nation it would fair very well,(i.e win), but against USA it would be obliterated...
maybe russia in artillery but they r no use when confronted with the high tech weaponry at USA's disposal...no1 will be able to catch up with USA might for a looooonnnng time, and that includes Russia.
-------------------------------------------
You have no clue what are you jabbing and bllabing areund and you are high on CRACK arent you ... ?
russia can obliterate usa many more times than usa can do to russia, russia has more powerful and more nukes, and more landmass, usa has more people, higher density, fewer nukes etc.
brother swed, plz dont make conspiracy theories. usa's biggest weapons are political lies, media propaganda, ability to print billions of $ bills, that's it.
==========
Bhangees
Bhangees have the world's largest democracy, the world's largest number of poor people, largest number of illiterates, largest number of hungry, world leader in urine therapy, longest uninterrupted history of military defeats at hands of foreigners, being ruled by foreigners even today, most of its legal, education, military, scientific, technological, entertainment, sport and other fields of endeavour being shaped by its most recent master of 200 years - UK! India was the most loyal of britain's servants and had sent millions of 'volunteer' (servants) to serve her master Britain, and many thousand Indians died to please her master UK. This is nation of Gandhis that now wields million 'weak' armed forces and nukes, despite the above FACTS! World's largest democracy in action!
It would be a complete disaster for the entire world! With each sides nuclear arsenal (nevermind their bio-weapons, or the massive amounts of toxins each carries), the world as we know it would effectively come to an end. It has been projected that 90% + of all species would die off (including humans), and the world would be plunged into a nuclear winter. There would be no one left alive in the U.S., Russia, or anywhere else on the world to declare victory.
This message has been edited by dalek113 on May 1, 2008 11:16 PM
Theres one big reason why US will get nowhere, and thats because its tactics have shifted into air dominance and urban warfare. Air dominance doesnt work when you try to attack the largest country on Earth, you might control some parts of the sky, but to hold control over the entire Russian airspeace is impossible even for the whole USN and USAF. Second is their move towards urban battles, to go up against the Russian artillery force and the rest of the land army you would need a strong land army. US still relies on Bradleys and M1A2s, if anyone thinks US has the capability win a conventional war with Russia on Russian soil is just nuts.
If afghan farmers with AK/74s can kill 15,000 russians total americans can kill millions. For every russian tank airjet navyvessel US has it better. Non of the countries can occupy eachother but america wins hands down ofcourse
lol, farmers? These people came out of their mothers womb with an AK in their hands, dont put them out to be some ordinary farmer that has never seen combat. You must be an idiot to try to attack the 10000 that died in combat when you look at over 1000000 Agfhans killed. Even if there only were 1 militants in 10 killed, that still gives the Russian forces a 10:1 kill ration.
--------------------------------------------
This message has been edited by filin on May 1, 2008 11:42 PM
In a full out war scenario it would be Israel v. Lebanon on a much larger scale. Russian ATGM's will cook American tanks like popcorn and Americans air power will vaporize conventional Russian military power within a month of two but the US will never be able to hold any territory because ATGM's, drones and modern SAMS's will render armor and helicopters easy pickings for small units. The US will lose 1/4 of its armor within a month to ATGM's.
Attrition would be horrendous on both sides and the US would have to impose a draft since it does not have sufficient men at arms at present to even attempt an invasion of Russia.
Russia maintains huge war time food and fuel reserves, the US does as well, but no other nation save China even attempts to keep such wartime reserves. In part it will be a question of how long these reserves last on both sides. Once each sides oil is gone the war is over even if there are tanks and soldiers left.
Russia will threaten to nuke the mid east if the arabs continue to sell oil to the US.
Russian cruise missile attacks against Saudi oil facilities are also likely as are American attacks on Russian oil.
In a limited war scenario the most likely scenario is a Russian breakout from Kaliningrad into the Baltics. US and NATO naval forces would TLAM Russian positions and would attempt an air war but both would have limited success since Russian troops would live inside civilian buildings and would utilize civilian as shields on mass on a scale the Iraqis could never hope to achieve.
Russian forces in the mean time would also slaughter Baltic civilians on mass and lay waste to entire cities thus achieving their objectives even if an ultimate withdrawal is inevitable.
Escalation of fighting beyond a month is unlikely since Russian political leaders would know they have limited time while NATO mobilizes and would unilaterally sue for peace within weeks to prevent a full out confrontation. Those weeks are all they need to seal Russian majorities in the Baltic countries anyway.
Baltic shipping will prove uniquely vulnerable to the combination of Su-27 + Kh-59. Most commercial vessels in the Baltic will be sunk by the Russian air force within 3-5 days. Their wrecks will render NATO ASW operations very difficult in the Baltic. NATO will be looking for Russian warships when the real threat is from ground based fighters given a new naval role. Russian naval assets may well not even enter the fight.
Why the Baltic? I mean we already have Belarus, what else is there thats even remotely valuable? Food and oil stocks are enormous, in 02 Russia has enough food to last for 1.5 years, which is an enormous amount of supplies. I dont know about oil, but thats one thing that Russia has covered, the problem with hitting the oil supplies are micro-drills and micro-refineries that would be deployed. They are too small and there are too many of them for an effecting bombing strategy to take them out.
In a war the Russian navy will be a speed bump for the USN, but if that war lasts for more than a month the fight will go into the undeveloped areas. These are not deserts from Iraq where the biggest problem was the dust getting into the engines, this is -40C, frost, blizzards, woods with countless terrain obstacles, US will loose half of their army just to the weather.
its the weakest and most likely target. Kaliningrad is also very militarized and the most likely launch pad for any strike into Europe.
Would you attack Finland or Poland instead? All these scenarios are insane since Russia is no too integrated into Europe to ever fight a land war in Europe again. Even direct wars with CIS countries are highly unlikely, certainly NEVER with Ukraine.
Kaliningrad is also one of the fastest growing Russian regions so seeing it destroyed by NATO would be a real shame.
US cant risk its large cities to be bombed, thats why a war will never happen, and if it does it sucks to be you. War with Ukraine wont happen because its Ukraine and Russia can starve it in "civil" ways.
As Irkut says, the most vulnerable point in Russia would be Kaliningrad Oblast, where the USN could blockade and most likely make an amphibious landing, allowing for air supply points and a place to start hitting Western Russia.
In this scenario there is no way Russia would pull in Poland (not because it is a war winning 'contributor', though having half a million extra men would serve well) but because it would be a massive staging point for the US which it would not be able to subdue like the Baltic states.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
What the hell is wrong with you people? And why don't mods just delete such absurd stupid topics that make no sense and force retards to post claims and replys like : US WILL WIN EASY , RUSSIA WILL DESTROY THEM etc...
In a conventional war(for example Usa invades Russia)....then i bolive Russia would succed in defending her self.....US high tech dosent mather here,just as German high tech didnt mather in ww2......USA is having real difficulticis dealing with Taliban,Yet allone Russian Gerrila Warfare(in wich Russians are expersts BTW....)
Ur mass immgaine how hard it was for the Germans to deal with this.................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats why i bolive Russia could defend its Ground........no mather who attacks.
The terain ,the sheer size and harsh Climate would be hard for US troops...............
On top of that Russia has proven countless times that it can indure incredible punishment....
It would be just a mather of time before Usa has to withdraw..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But then again Usa can isolate Russia,and force a stalmate........for example........
oh yes,BTW,,,,,this is a dumb topic.......we will newer know for sure what would happaned.....
Cus Nuklear Weappons would defently be used......like it or not.
This message has been edited by Veles25 on May 2, 2008 6:38 AM
with the use of Nukes nobody will win since they will finally destroy the entire planet, without the use of Nukes the US has the potential advantage comparing to Russia since her military forces are combat exprerienced and their techonology especially in electronics is more advanced comparing to Russias, however Russia is a huge country with a great number of conventional ground forces and armoured formations this makes their country practically impregnable to the invading forces unless they want to be massacred, despite that the Russian airforce and Navy is quite capable of inflicting heavy losses to the Americans so in case of a conventional war between them it is possible that the Americans will win several battles especially in the air but they will never manage to totally defeat Russia and fully eliminate their forces, after all Russia has the industrial background and capabilities to replace their losses and convert their economy to military in case of war so i predict initial American victories but a final stalemate with both opponents "crying" about their huge losses and their stupidity to beggin such a war in the first place.
ODYSSEUS KILLING THE SUITORS
This message has been edited by ontyseas on May 4, 2008 6:21 PM
wars are won not only by quality of weaponry (which isn't higher for usa like you say either). otherwise germany would've won WWII.
other factors are included. yanks are pansies will sh!t their pants at sound of russian music!
==========
Bhangees
Bhangees have the world's largest democracy, the world's largest number of poor people, largest number of illiterates, largest number of hungry, world leader in urine therapy(drinking own urine),most prostitutes, longest uninterrupted history of military defeats at hands of foreigners, being ruled by foreigners even today, most of its legal, education, military, scientific, technological, entertainment, sport and other fields of endeavour being shaped by its most recent master of 200 years - UK! India was the most loyal of britain's servants and had sent millions of 'volunteer' (servants) to serve her master Britain, and many thousand Indians died to please her master UK. This is nation of Gandhis that now wields million 'weak' armed forces and nukes, despite the above FACTS! World's largest democracy in action!
thats why i didnt say that the US will win the war, if you read what i said i mentioned the word "stalemate" and yes US is superior in electronics and stealth technology but this doesnt mean that Russia does not have sophisticated weapons in her arsenal as far as Germany is concerned it is a completely different issue, it is true that initially the Germans had the upper hand in technology however this didnt last for long since the Soviet army removed its factories to Siberia and they beggun constructing high quality weapons endurable to exrtemely cold conditions unlike the Germans who could not use their weapons due to the exteme cold and their armored brigades and weapons became useless. The same applies to the war against the allies where the Germans beggun loosing their technological advantage and aircrafts like Mustang were introduced to the asernal of the allies not to mention the modern shermans introduced in the desert war by the americans , the introduction of radars and especially sonars eliminated the threat coming from the U boats so the battle for the Atlantic was finally lost and the allies had the opportunity to open the routes for theri ships , to rearm and refuel their armies , not the mention the breaking of the Enigma code machine and countless other examples so the German technological advantage did not last for long
ODYSSEUS KILLING THE SUITORS
This message has been edited by ontyseas on May 5, 2008 2:51 PM This message has been edited by ontyseas on May 5, 2008 2:36 PM This message has been edited by ontyseas on May 5, 2008 2:26 PM This message has been edited by ontyseas on May 5, 2008 2:26 PM This message has been edited by ontyseas on May 5, 2008 2:18 PM
yes US is superior in electronics and stealth technology but this doesnt mean that Russia does not have sophisticated weapons in her arsenal
-------------------------------------------
Yes Russia has long wave radar system like Nebo and Oborona class witch was specialy designed to detect stealth ... both types can be integrated in any airdefence system including newest ones like S-400 and can even guide missiles like 30N6 and 64N6 radars ... while while working togeather no stealth will pass by.
dear koniev, dont use facts, use fiction. using facts may offend our yank and proyankee forumers. haha
dear gayreek f@ggot (dont remember ur name), listen mate, german subs were hunted down in atlantic by anglos, when outnumbered ~40 to 1. not due to higher quality of weaponry. no matter how much higher quality you have, without resources, and without enough numbers to offset the quantitative advantage enjoyed by opposition, you'll lose as germans did.
germans did win at beginning against anglos, what happened then was typical of british treachery, they won in deserts of north africa. typical of british treachery, the north africans were repaid in no way at all and instead today are maligned in their media and held up as 'bad'regimes. lol typical of bloody pathetic anglos.
the bloody anglos cut off german supplies, sent kiwis and other british serpents to attack germans from behind etc. yanks were getting mass murdered at first against nazis only due to british treachery and disgusting practices could they survive.
==========
Bhangees
Bhangees have the world's largest democracy, the world's largest number of poor people, largest number of illiterates, largest number of hungry, world leader in urine therapy(drinking own urine),most prostitutes, longest uninterrupted history of military defeats at hands of foreigners, being ruled by foreigners even today, most of its legal, education, military, scientific, technological, entertainment, sport and other fields of endeavour being shaped by its most recent master of 200 years - UK! India was the most loyal of britain's servants and had sent millions of 'volunteer' (servants) to serve her master Britain, and many thousand Indians died to please her master UK. This is nation of Gandhis that now wields million 'weak' armed forces and nukes, despite the above FACTS! World's largest democracy in action!
yes US is superior in electronics and stealth technology but this doesnt mean that Russia does not have sophisticated weapons in her arsenal
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree!
Also without the US airforce The US troops would not go far........Without Total aircover USa has
always huge dificulties......proven fact.
=====================================================================
But Russian indiastrial capabilitys are nowehr as high as US.........so its a tricky thing.....
It seems that you have an obsession with gay people isnt it so? maybe because you are one of them
now overcoming your weak and unfounded logic, i must say that i will not repeat what i said just because you didnt pay attention, when the Germans attacked France they did not have numerical superiority but they had technological superiority the continuation is well known, if you calculate the enemies of the Germans they should have lost the war long ago since their opponents were heavily outnumbering them but such a thing never happened as long as the Germans had the technological advantage they were victorious and nobody could stop them, a good example is the swift and easy German advance in the eastern front where they crushed numerous Soviet divisions without any serious casualties but as long as the Soviets rearmed themselves with modern weapons, then game over for the Germans, in the air the Germans never pocessed absolute advantage agaisnt the British who had a capable number of spitifires around 700 if im not mistaken to balance the mighty Luftwaffe, thats why they never managed to conquer England.(the German intelligence sucked big time by the way since they informed them that the British had far less aircraft available and by bombing London and other major cities they left the british airports and military industries intact to built more modern planes).
Finally the fact that the allies had bigger fleets did not prevent them from sinking the allied fleets continuously despite the support of the Americans to the British, but the Germans really lost the battle of the Atlantic only when the allies learned to effectively face the threats of the U boats, if the Allies had not discover a way to face this threat their fleets would have been decimated because no matter how many ships you have available or you have the potential to built you cannot afford having such great losses that the allies had and continue the war for very long, technology saved the allies also during the invasion of Normandy because without complete superiority in the air the allies would have faced a new Waterlo since it was Rommel who designed and prepared the defences of Normandy
Conclusions, with big numbers alone you dont win a a war you need to have technological advantage, good training, and of course you need to pocess a logical number of high tech weapons in order to balance the numerical advantage of your opponent so numbers are only important only in conjuction with technology otherwise you can owe many pieces of junk but those pieces of junk will dissapear from the face of the earth from only a few squadrons of high tech planes.
ODYSSEUS KILLING THE SUITORS
This message has been edited by ontyseas on May 6, 2008 3:38 PM
It is impossible to predict the outcome of this, regardless of what people may presume. The reason why is that neither of these two powers will one day say "Hey, lets start a war against each other". The only way for a clear winner to emerge will be to use tactics which will include a large element of suprise.
If Russia was an agressor, I would suspect that months or years of planning would see tactical nukes smuggled into the US (commercial air liners, Canadian or Mexican border, sea... take your pick) and detonated at primary targets (major airforce bases, naval bases). The same would be true of other bases located world wide. This would be followed up immediatly with the launch of a majority of Russia's ICBMs, holding back enough to deter others like China, GB, and France. The Russian airforce would use their strategic assets once the initial attack was over to subdue any further military resistance.
If successful, an ultimatum would be issued to America to stand down or risk loosing more cities. Of course, would Russia really want to occupy America? That would be as impossible as America occupying Russia.
This scenario could more than easily be reversed. American could easily hold the upper hand in the element of suprise, and most likely wipe most Russian elements of a nuclear response.
It is not always who has the biggest stick. In the end though, millions will die and both countries will most likley experience a setback of 50+ years. The only type of war that will be waged between these two countries is nuclear. Russia is the only country though, that has truely prepared for this scenario and contrary to what most posters here believe, nuclear war is survivable. My chips would be on Russia.
Are you saying that Russians can not produce missiles as fast as US can produce fighters
--------------------------------------
No,What i,m trying to say that without US airforce...Usa would have dificutys invading Russia...
and we all know that Russia still has a formidable airdefence........Thats what i meant with tricky..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ontyseas! You are right to a degree,,,except that hitler newer wanted to realy conquer UK........
He wanted peace with UK and offered several times a truce....
His focus was USSR..........In his mind Uk was beaten,and cut of from rest of the Empire by
German U-boots.That was Hitlers single bigest mistake....wich ewentualy cost him the War.
Uk became a unsinkable Aircraftcarrier and germany was streched to the limit by
fighting on 4 sides........
Like Rommel sayd....instead of fighting in Africa they sholdew counquerd UK,thus avoiding Afrikan theather and preventing USA to mass an Army in UK.
This is interesting subject i,m curently researching in books from several military analysts...
This message has been edited by Veles25 on May 7, 2008 3:25 AM
USA would win such a war in any day you want. Russian missiles will be shot down, on the way .
in the first part, all Russian power stations will be down, bombed, like all satellites, then industrial sites and oil fields. then you have a mass of starving people with no power, to fight against a better army.
to win fast, USA will need a blitzkrieg ..and forgot about Napoleon and Hitler...weather defeated them, not Russians.
and without england bombing Germany all Russians would be talking German now. so, Russians say thanks to US and UK.
Soviet Union was never rich to begin with. Over spending and poor infrastructure finished them off. However, its always good to have 2 superpowers to keep a form of balance. Its needed more so today.
USA would win such a war in any day you want. Russian missiles will be shot down, on the way .
in the first part, all Russian power stations will be down, bombed, like all satellites, then industrial sites and oil fields. then you have a mass of starving people with no power, to fight against a better army.
to win fast, USA will need a blitzkrieg ..and forgot about Napoleon and Hitler...weather defeated them, not Russians.
and without england bombing Germany all Russians would be talking German now. so, Russians say thanks to US and UK.
Yes I also agree with you yes , yes indeed the USA can easly destroy the 2nd most powerfull country in the world that is so far away from the USA and has enourmous depth and lenghts and weather conditions US soldiers are not trained to dealt with , and more mines than you can ever think of and a heritage from the Soviet Union that was designed to deal precisely with American weapons and counter them with a defence doctrine , this is not even a question or a statement I thought its common sense I mean come on what the hell does Russia such a small and pitifull country stand for right , they just have the best and widest anti air network and diesel subs hidding around in those very hard to track before your dead little underwater terrains , of course the mighty US will destroy them with no problems just look how they are doing in Iraq that is or was 10000 times weaker , inferior in every sense including tehnology.
Last but not least I suggest you stop posting bullcrap posts because your making a fool out of yourself and nobody else.
And another thing this thread is ridicilous how can some people even reply in it? Guess this forum is full of some kids or something..
There's no way such a conflict will remain "conventional"
Russia has far more nuclear warheads than the U.S., and a vaster territory to retreat or re-emerge after a nuclear war.
Both countries will be destroyed, but Russia has a higher chance of surviving and re-emerging.
Even though Russia will be extremely weakened and will probably lose loads of territory.
But the U.S. might cease to exist. It will eventually be divided between Canada and Mexico once the nuclear radiation effect is gone; i.e. within a century after the war ends.
Russians are also more used to living in sh*tty conditions; they have a lot of experience from WWI and WWII, and some lesser developed parts of the country are still quite sh*tty.
The sweetass Yanks can't live without luxury. They will quickly become demoralized.
There are many many factors why USa could not counquer Russia......but i wont go into it.
Anyways!
Like it or not,Nukes would be used.....Conventinal war betwen any gear Powers is untinkable nowdays.Thats why this Topic is worthless to discuss......
