US would lose War with Russia

[+DieChecker]

13 hours ago, White Unicorn said:

One of Putnim's strategies of taking over another country south of Russian was to send in as his puppet a  Russian politician running for president. He was ousted after election and went back to Russia. US was much more powerful than Russia in the late 80s. They had boasted about more than they really had. They lacked founding to keep all the important things up to date and functional. I imagine Putnim focused all resources to the newer advanced technologies but I still don't think they have enough resources compared to the US to be ahead of us yet. 

I would agree that the Russians have upgraded their stuff. However I do believe that once we start using that stuff, that the US and Europe will be able to replace their stuff (tanks, planes, ammo...) a lot faster then the Russians could. That's just my opinion however.

[Unusual Tournament]

What better way to get congress and the American public to approve more "democracy" for third world country's and money for weapons than to resurrect another bad guy. In this case Putin. 

[+DieChecker]

I didn't know this before... But apparently the US has more then twice the population of Russia?

US has four times the combat aircraft, but half the tanks, IFV and mobile artillery.

Russia has a bunch of smaller sea craft, but only one aircraft carrier worth the title. The US has 19 aircraft carriers (or 10 depending on how you define "aircraft carrier".) and twice the larger craft of the Russians.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=united-states-of-america&country2=russia&Submit=COMPARE

Looks to me like the US would rule the air, and the sea... and though the Russians would fight hard to retain ground with superior numbers of tanks and vehicles, as they lost men and equipment, it would not be replaced quickly. They'd end up using second rank reserve soldiers to fight our front line soldiers and in the end, like Napoleon, they'd be forced to pull back and only hold onto the core of what they once had.

Any war with Russia would have to be quick, and the ground quickly fortified, in order for the Russians to "win". Since the losses in a grab at a European state would be cost prohibitive, they'll never do so. 

Bordering states with Russia and if they would be attacked by Russia. (Personal assessment... for what it is worth.)

• Norway - Doubtful. Norway is not part of the EU, but is a member of NATO. 
• Finland - Nope. EU and NATO protected.
• Estonia - Nope. EU and NATO protected.
• Latvia - Nope. EU and NATO protected.
• Lithuania - Nope. EU and NATO protected.
• Belarus - Russian Ally state. 
• Ukraine - Possibly. Not protected by EU or NATO.
• Georgia - Possibly. Not protected by EU or NATO.
• Azerbaijan - Possibly. Not protected by EU or NATO.
• Kazakhstan - Russian Ally state. 
• China - Very, very doubtful
• Mongolia - Possibly, 
• North Korea - Doubtful. Nukes could quickly get involved.
• Japan - Nope. Still protected by the US.

Seems to me like the Caucus would be the obvious choice for expansion. Turkey and Iran probably wouldn't like it much however.

Interesting read... https://www.military1.com/all/article/402211-how-much-stronger-is-the-us-military-compared-with-the-next-strongest-power/

I liked this infographic from another recent article. 

Edited September 22, 2016 by DieChecker

[Myles]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I didn't know this before... But apparently the US has more then twice the population of Russia?

US has four times the combat aircraft, but half the tanks, IFV and mobile artillery.

Russia has a bunch of smaller sea craft, but only one aircraft carrier worth the title. The US has 19 aircraft carriers (or 10 depending on how you define "aircraft carrier".) and twice the larger craft of the Russians.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=united-states-of-america&country2=russia&Submit=COMPARE

Looks to me like the US would rule the air, and the sea... and though the Russians would fight hard to retain ground with superior numbers of tanks and vehicles, as they lost men and equipment, it would not be replaced quickly. They'd end up using second rank reserve soldiers to fight our front line soldiers and in the end, like Napoleon, they'd be forced to pull back and only hold onto the core of what they once had.

Any war with Russia would have to be quick, and the ground quickly fortified, in order for the Russians to "win". Since the losses in a grab at a European state would be cost prohibitive, they'll never do so. 

Bordering states with Russia and if they would be attacked by Russia. (Personal assessment... for what it is worth.)

• Norway - Doubtful. Norway is not part of the EU, but is a member of NATO. 
• Finland - Nope. EU and NATO protected.
• Estonia - Nope. EU and NATO protected.
• Latvia - Nope. EU and NATO protected.
• Lithuania - Nope. EU and NATO protected.
• Belarus - Russian Ally state. 
• Ukraine - Possibly. Not protected by EU or NATO.
• Georgia - Possibly. Not protected by EU or NATO.
• Azerbaijan - Possibly. Not protected by EU or NATO.
• Kazakhstan - Russian Ally state. 
• China - Very, very doubtful
• Mongolia - Possibly, 
• North Korea - Doubtful. Nukes could quickly get involved.
• Japan - Nope. Still protected by the US.

Seems to me like the Caucus would be the obvious choice for expansion. Turkey and Iran probably wouldn't like it much however.

Interesting read... https://www.military1.com/all/article/402211-how-much-stronger-is-the-us-military-compared-with-the-next-strongest-power/

I liked this infographic from another recent article. 

I wonder how accurate that is.   Putin seems to be a guy who would not release all the stats on his military equipment.

 

[Thanato]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I didn't know this before... But apparently the US has more then twice the population of Russia?

US has four times the combat aircraft, but half the tanks, IFV and mobile artillery.

Russia has a bunch of smaller sea craft, but only one aircraft carrier worth the title. The US has 19 aircraft carriers (or 10 depending on how you define "aircraft carrier".) and twice the larger craft of the Russians.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=united-states-of-america&country2=russia&Submit=COMPARE

Looks to me like the US would rule the air, and the sea... and though the Russians would fight hard to retain ground with superior numbers of tanks and vehicles, as they lost men and equipment, it would not be replaced quickly. They'd end up using second rank reserve soldiers to fight our front line soldiers and in the end, like Napoleon, they'd be forced to pull back and only hold onto the core of what they once had.

Any war with Russia would have to be quick, and the ground quickly fortified, in order for the Russians to "win". Since the losses in a grab at a European state would be cost prohibitive, they'll never do so. 

Bordering states with Russia and if they would be attacked by Russia. (Personal assessment... for what it is worth.)

• Norway - Doubtful. Norway is not part of the EU, but is a member of NATO. 
• Finland - Nope. EU and NATO protected.
• Estonia - Nope. EU and NATO protected.
• Latvia - Nope. EU and NATO protected.
• Lithuania - Nope. EU and NATO protected.
• Belarus - Russian Ally state. 
• Ukraine - Possibly. Not protected by EU or NATO.
• Georgia - Possibly. Not protected by EU or NATO.
• Azerbaijan - Possibly. Not protected by EU or NATO.
• Kazakhstan - Russian Ally state. 
• China - Very, very doubtful
• Mongolia - Possibly, 
• North Korea - Doubtful. Nukes could quickly get involved.
• Japan - Nope. Still protected by the US.

Seems to me like the Caucus would be the obvious choice for expansion. Turkey and Iran probably wouldn't like it much however.

Interesting read... https://www.military1.com/all/article/402211-how-much-stronger-is-the-us-military-compared-with-the-next-strongest-power/

I liked this infographic from another recent article. 

You also have to remember that the bulk of Russia's tanks are T72s and other Cold War era tanks that haven't really been modernized past the 80s.

also most of Russia's navy is permanently in harbour as they lack the capability to deploy them forward. The US excels at force projection, an area that Russia is trying to expand only now.

[Lucas Cooper Merrin]

On 20/09/2016 at 6:02 PM, and then said:

The force has been gutted over the last 8 years. If Putin decided to attack the Baltic nations it would be NATO's responsibility to defend and since NATO basically means the US, they'd be screwed.  The thing is, you don't just magically appear out of nowhere in a campaign like that.  There would be a very noticeable mobilization.  European nations would be screaming for help and my guess is that a LOT of really serious rhetoric would fly.  The US Army has today only a shell of what was there in the cold war.  It would still be formidable against a Russian force and it would only need to hold on until a few airborne divisions could be flown in.  The real danger would be that Putin would use tactical nukes to achieve his objectives.  Someone who threatens to use nukes isn't a man holding all the cards, far from it.  When I see articles like this I immediately think of a ploy for increased defense spending.  If the money is for personnel and training I'd be supportive.  The really high dollar, low return weapons platforms, not so much.  This situation that Obama's administration and the Dems have created guarantees that even Trump would still spend  a trillion a year more than we have.  If Putin decides to roll into Europe I can only say that elections have consequences.  Frankly, I have no desire to be nuked for the sake of any country in the EU.  They need to put on their big boy pants and man up.

Possibly the best post i have read on these forums! 

I couldn't agree with you more

[White Unicorn]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

I wonder how accurate that is.   Putin seems to be a guy who would not release all the stats on his military equipment.

 

Intel not Putnim release.

[White Unicorn]

1 hour ago, Thanato said:

You also have to remember that the bulk of Russia's tanks are T72s and other Cold War era tanks that haven't really been modernized past the 80s.

also most of Russia's navy is permanently in harbour as they lack the capability to deploy them forward. The US excels at force projection, an area that Russia is trying to expand only now.

In the late 80's during the time the wall went down. Our military discovered a lot of their nukes were not kept functional. They had economic devastation of changes in their government. The so called Russian mafia groups were even selling nuclear supplies to other nations.

 The average person in Russia was feeling new extremes of poverty. Putnim gained power and tried put everything back together to make Russia strong again, by the old fashioned KGB ways. 

I don't believe Russia is as strong as Putnim would like us to believe. US and allies have much more resources at their disposal than Russia.

However, like China, Russia has some very talented IT hackers and even recruited some of our best. That is worrisome.

 

[spud the mackem]

22 hours ago, and then said:

I think such an exchange is unlikely but I do agree that no country would be unscathed.  In fact I believe our economies are so interdependent that it would all collapse.  Putin has no desire to die or for his country to die.  The real issue as I see it is that he is thoroughly convinced that the US president is weak and there is little or no cost to pushing him.  The unintended consequences may leave us all in the dark. My comment about Europe standing up and taking responsibility for their own defense is only natural.  NATO was a successful buffer against Soviet aggression and when the Soviet threat appeared to be gone, resources were not put into self defense any longer - at least on a realistic scale.  The EU seems to finally grasp that America cannot be counted on to pull the load any longer and worse, may not come to the rescue in time if Putin were to get ideas.  The new EU superstate army may be a reality in a decade or less. 

The one thing I DO believe is straightforward is that at some point these weapons will be used on a large scale.  The fact that Putin began talking about tactical first use and the retrofitting of US B61's to variable yield weapons is an indication that our leaders really do seem to believe they can be used in some measured way. Insanity. 

It has been proven that Europe would capitulate in the face of a superior enemy (ref :- WW1 & WW2) the Russians aren't the bad guys in this day and age as they have terrorist problems the same as us.I think the only guys to use nukes would be the Israel's against the Middle East if and or when they step over the line.

[Thanato]

3 hours ago, spud the mackem said:

It has been proven that Europe would capitulate in the face of a superior enemy (ref :- WW1 & WW2) the Russians aren't the bad guys in this day and age as they have terrorist problems the same as us.I think the only guys to use nukes would be the Israel's against the Middle East if and or when they step over the line.

Why did you say Europe would Capitulate and then reference WW1? The Second world War was more superior tactics instead of numbers as France could of halted the Germans, had they didnt have antiquated WW1 era tactics. They had superior numbers and better tanks.

[aztek]

yet their superior numbers and tanks  was worth nothing with no will to fight.  you could have blamed tactics if they tried and failed, but they did not even try, Germans took France without a fight.

Edited September 22, 2016 by aztek

[lightly]

  an unnamed " military expert "  says all Nuclear weapons in the world will be eliminated within one year.

[bmk1245]

4 hours ago, White Unicorn said:

In the late 80's during the time the wall went down. Our military discovered a lot of their nukes were not kept functional. They had economic devastation of changes in their government. The so called Russian mafia groups were even selling nuclear supplies to other nations.

 The average person in Russia was feeling new extremes of poverty. Putnim gained power and tried put everything back together to make Russia strong again, by the old fashioned KGB ways. 

I don't believe Russia is as strong as Putnim would like us to believe. US and allies have much more resources at their disposal than Russia.

However, like China, Russia has some very talented IT hackers and even recruited some of our best. That is worrisome.

 

That... And add to that, west has a bargain on the table, i.e. assets and numerous relatives of Putin's patsies. Freeze all accounts/assets and deport all ex-wifes, suns, daughters, grandkids, etc.  of high ranking officials, and you'll have Putlers head on the silver plate.

[bmk1245]

3 hours ago, spud the mackem said:

It has been proven that Europe would capitulate in the face of a superior enemy (ref :- WW1 & WW2) the Russians aren't the bad guys in this day and age as they have terrorist problems the same as us.I think the only guys to use nukes would be the Israel's against the Middle East if and or when they step over the line.

Finland back in 1939 what reminds you of? Resistance in Baltic states up to 1953 what reminds you of? Small mobile units can wreck havoc on advancing army... What do you think Russkies will think when cargo 200 will start commin' back, and in large quantities?

[aztek]

4 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

 What do you think Russkies will think when cargo 200 will start commin' back, and in large quantities?

they wont, they will be buried in mass graves, on the spot. or thrown in caves and entrances blown up. they already do that in ukraine,

[stevewinn]

USA v Russia If we are going to have a "fight" let them do it in Syria, whoever the victor - they install whichever regime they want without interference. 

 

[seeder]

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I didn't know this before... But apparently the US has more then twice the population of Russia?

US has four times the combat aircraft, but half the tanks, IFV and mobile artillery.

Russia has a bunch of smaller sea craft, but only one aircraft carrier worth the title. The US has 19 aircraft carriers (or 10 depending on how you define "aircraft carrier".) and twice the larger craft of the Russians.

 

 

 

The thing is...the US has a lot of stuff overseas.....so its unlikely to be all one place just for Russia....but Russia hardware is all in one place....except the planes in the Mid East

 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2016 by seeder

[Thanato]

3 hours ago, aztek said:

yet their superior numbers and tanks  was worth nothing with no will to fight.  you could have blamed tactics if they tried and failed, but they did not even try, Germans took France without a fight.

They tried, however the leadership was what failed. The French Soldiers had a will to fight and fought on for weeks after the fall of France along the Maginot Line. Then you have the resistance which had a lot of french military in it.

The problem was that during the Second World War the leadership failed France, however during the first world war the leadership saved France. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I didn't know this before... But apparently the US has more then twice the population of Russia?

US has four times the combat aircraft, but half the tanks, IFV and mobile artillery.

Russia has a bunch of smaller sea craft, but only one aircraft carrier worth the title. The US has 19 aircraft carriers (or 10 depending on how you define "aircraft carrier".) and twice the larger craft of the Russians.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=united-states-of-america&country2=russia&Submit=COMPARE

Looks to me like the US would rule the air, and the sea... and though the Russians would fight hard to retain ground with superior numbers of tanks and vehicles, as they lost men and equipment, it would not be replaced quickly. They'd end up using second rank reserve soldiers to fight our front line soldiers and in the end, like Napoleon, they'd be forced to pull back and only hold onto the core of what they once had.

Any war with Russia would have to be quick, and the ground quickly fortified, in order for the Russians to "win". Since the losses in a grab at a European state would be cost prohibitive, they'll never do so. 

Bordering states with Russia and if they would be attacked by Russia. (Personal assessment... for what it is worth.)

• Norway - Doubtful. Norway is not part of the EU, but is a member of NATO. 
• Finland - Nope. EU and NATO protected.
• Estonia - Nope. EU and NATO protected.
• Latvia - Nope. EU and NATO protected.
• Lithuania - Nope. EU and NATO protected.
• Belarus - Russian Ally state. 
• Ukraine - Possibly. Not protected by EU or NATO.
• Georgia - Possibly. Not protected by EU or NATO.
• Azerbaijan - Possibly. Not protected by EU or NATO.
• Kazakhstan - Russian Ally state. 
• China - Very, very doubtful
• Mongolia - Possibly, 
• North Korea - Doubtful. Nukes could quickly get involved.
• Japan - Nope. Still protected by the US.

Seems to me like the Caucus would be the obvious choice for expansion. Turkey and Iran probably wouldn't like it much however.

Interesting read... https://www.military1.com/all/article/402211-how-much-stronger-is-the-us-military-compared-with-the-next-strongest-power/

I liked this infographic from another recent article. 

As they proved in WW2, the Russians might be outclassed, or even out numbered but they're never out produced. The T34 won the battle of Kursk because for ever tank destroyed they could field another one within days. 

The Battle of Britain was one against vastly superior numbers and forces because the Brits could field new planes sometimes with hours of losses.

 

America will need to ship in new materiel, Russia will just have to drive it in.

 

 

the only way America will stand a chance is to bomb the roads and train lines and dominate the water. 

[Thorvir]

8 hours ago, Myles said:

I wonder how accurate that is.   Putin seems to be a guy who would not release all the stats on his military equipment.

Or pad the stats to look stronger.

[Thorvir]

6 hours ago, spud the mackem said:

It has been proven that Europe would capitulate in the face of a superior enemy (ref :- WW1 & WW2)

Um...you should actually reference that first.

[Thorvir]

28 minutes ago, Lord Fedorable said:

As they proved in WW2, the Russians might be outclassed, or even out numbered but they're never out produced. The T34 won the battle of Kursk because for ever tank destroyed they could field another one within days. 

Yeah, lets see how swarms of T-34s perform today.

And you're assuming that Russia lives in a vacuum, where the rest of us don't know anything about history and won't learn from it.

28 minutes ago, Lord Fedorable said:

The Battle of Britain was one against vastly superior numbers and forces because the Brits could field new planes sometimes with hours of losses.

Good for Britain.  But WWII Britain is not 2016 Russia.  First off, in this scenario, the Russians are the aggressors (actually, they are anyway...)

28 minutes ago, Lord Fedorable said:

America will need to ship in new materiel, Russia will just have to drive it in.

They'll run out before the US and the West will.

28 minutes ago, Lord Fedorable said:

the only way America will stand a chance is to bomb the roads and train lines and dominate the water. 

Not entirely accurate, but doing so will definitely help.

[Thanato]

1 hour ago, Lord Fedorable said:

As they proved in WW2, the Russians might be outclassed, or even out numbered but they're never out produced. The T34 won the battle of Kursk because for ever tank destroyed they could field another one within days. 

The Battle of Britain was one against vastly superior numbers and forces because the Brits could field new planes sometimes with hours of losses.

 

America will need to ship in new materiel, Russia will just have to drive it in.

 

 

the only way America will stand a chance is to bomb the roads and train lines and dominate the water. 

The Battle of Britain was won, not because the British could easily replace thier airplanes (They couldnt), it was won because thier pilots didnt need to be in the air and be tired all the time. They had Radar, which would detect incoming concentrations of bombers and they would scramble thier pilots and get them into the air to those areas. So by the time the bombers reached the coast the british had dozens of fighter plans waiting for them with dozens more getting into the air. Had they not had radar it is arguable that they would of lost the battle and thus had to make peace with Germany.

[Golden Duck]

4 hours ago, aztek said:

yet their superior numbers and tanks  was worth nothing with no will to fight.  you could have blamed tactics if they tried and failed, but they did not even try, Germans took France without a fight.

Except for the French Resistance 

[DarkHunter]

6 hours ago, Lord Fedorable said:

As they proved in WW2, the Russians might be outclassed, or even out numbered but they're never out produced. The T34 won the battle of Kursk because for ever tank destroyed they could field another one within days. 

It helped that the USSR moved all of its industry east of the Ural mountains which kept it safe from capture or bombing by Germany during WW2 and that Germany was having its industry heavily bombed.

Even then your Russia is never outproduced comment is just factually incorrect.  During WW2 Russia produced 106,025 tanks/spg, 197,000 other type vehicles, 516,648 artillery, 200,300 mortars, 1,447,400 machine guns, and 136,223 aircraft.

Germany during WW2 produced 67,429 tanks/spg, 345,914 armored vehicles, 159,147 other type vehicles, 73,484 artillery, 674,280 mortars, 1,000,730 machine guns, and 133,387 aircraft.

America during WW2 produced 102,410 tanks/spg, 2,382,311 other type vehicles, 257,390 artillery, 105,055 mortars, 2,679,840 machine guns, and 324,000 aircraft.

This leaves out the naval production component that both Germany and Russia largely didn't do and which the United States did extensively.

Even with Russian industry completely protected like American industry, Russia was barely able to outproduce Germany whose industry was under heavy bombing for a decent part of the war.