Comparing US and Russian military equipment and technology

Who has the upper hand?

US vehicles (i.e. M1A2 Abrams, Stryker, M3 Bradley CFV, etc.) OR Russian vehicles (i.e. T-90, BTR-90, BMP-3, etc.)?

US helicopters (i.e. AH-64 Apache, UH-60 Black Hawk, CH-47 Chinook, etc.) OR Russian helicopters (i.e. Mil Mi-28, Kamov Ka-60, etc.)

US aircraft (i.e. F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-22 Raptor, B-1 Lancer, etc.) OR Russian aircraft (i.e. Sukhoi Su-30, Mikoyan MiG-31, Tupolev Tu-160, etc.)?

US weapons (i.e. M9 pistol, M16A4 rifle, M4 carbine, M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, M240 machine gun, M2 Browning machine gun, AT4, FGM-148 Javelin, etc.) OR Russian weapons (i.e. Makarov PM, AK-74M, AKS-74U, RPK-74, PK machine gun, NSV machine gun, RPG-29, 9M133 Kornet, etc.)?

US military training (i.e. Rangers) OR Russian military training (i.e. Spetsnaz)

US technology OR Russian technology (in general i.e. satellites, radars, etc.)?

Last of all, if US and Russia were at war, who would win? Why?

 

I am not a war freak so I will not answer most of the questions although US does have superior technology to Russia in most fields of warfare. Full out war would probably end up in nuking each other to oblivion but US does have superior navy and satellite technology so they might be able to sucessfuly prevent and deliver more nuclear missiles than Russia.

 

Actualy if a war between Russia and the US started we would be on par with each other. Since the soviet Unions collapse they still have all their vechiles and Tactical nukes held up.

Tanks: The abrhams and the T-90 were made to beat one another so basicly it would come down to crew and exp.

Helos: This one im not to sure about, would have to ask one of my friends.

INF weapons: Now most of the infantry weapons here follow a rock/paper/scissors here depending on the enviroment you're fighting inside of. In most urban settings the AK will have an advantage over the M16 since it's shorter and is full auto, but its countered by the M4.

For anti tank, the AT4 is vastly superior to RPG29. When firing an RPG you have no real way of knowing if you going to hit that target with any certainty, you have that with the AT4; however the AT4 is mostly a light anti-armor, the RPG is for everythig that needs to die in front of you. Frankly go with javelins, they're awesome.

 

Oh Javelins rape absolutely anything. Can they effectively hit moving targets though?

 

There's a seek-and-destroy Javelin varient, but it's anti-light and IR to boot. It might cripple a tank, but wouldn't stop it. Plus IR is notoriously sucky on a battlefield, due to the fact that EVERYTHING is hot.

Like what most have been saying, US tech is far superior to pretty much any nation. However, Russia has much more brute force imo. More AD, more nukes, more people. Plus they practically invented spying.

I can honestly say that when WWIII comes around, I hope China and Russia are on my side.

 

Does it really matter? US still has enough nukes to nuke Russia five time over. Once you reach certain number the surpluss is not very relevant. They do have more brute force but that is not very useful when battling USA, unless you have a huge bridge.

 

Russian nuclear weapons would be far more effective against us than ours against them.

Name some large Russian cities.

Then, name some large American cities.

Population density is a huge factor in determining nuclear strikes (given that we're so far gone, civs are fair game). Sure, we could fairly easily carpet bomb Russia. But most those nukes would touch nary a soul, especially in the more northern regions.

We'd hit Moscow, St. Petersburg, Novosibirsk, maybe a few others.

In the US, tasty and easily accessible targets pretty much line the West Coast. LA would be basically a giant target holding a 'nuke me' sign, and New York, though harder, would be the target of all targets.


As far as land based troops, yeah, they wouldn't be able to attack us directly, but as at least some of Europe would be on our side (ok, so maybe just the UK), they'd be easily assaulted by Russian armor. That'd knock an ally out of the game, as well as give any potential enemies a staging ground. Once you have North Europe, it's a fairly short boatride to Greenland, then to Canadia, then a hop skip and a jump and BAM you've taken over Maine.

 

Well you are talking about civillian targets and overall civil casaulties. I thought we are talking more about a military victory. But yes nuking USA would on average be more effective than nuking Russia but you would still get a fair chance of getting vapourized.
Europe would get raped by Russia without the use of nukes (and with nukes both sides would get raped as well).

edit: I mean it all comes to what scenario is this thread created for. If you have a flat plain and X amount of US troops on one side and X Russian troops on the other or if you take geographics into account and if its a total war or just limited war... This is too vague.

 

@ Edit - Very true. Our surgical strike capability is far beyond pretty much anything anywhere. Our hunter-killer drones are pretty much death machines. I think the OP wasn't considereing a war scenario, just a general 'what beats what' matchup. In that, US edges out ahead. However, in a total war scenario....Whoever wins, we lose.

[/cliche]

 

OK, then how about we compare the equipment and troops on open battlefield scenarios and then urban scenarios. and lets not count nuking because it's too many cheap kills; lets say that both nations are following the geneva convention (it's stupid, I know).

yeah, and I also meant a 'what beats what' matchup, not just the war scenario.

 

Open battlefield being the afore mentioned plains? Russia 100%. Heavy casualites, but their armored division is the second largest on the planet, and their MiGs are good at bomber-killing.

Urban setting, I take it we're avoiding civcas? So no carpet bombs and crap. I'd say it's a standstill tbh. US may have higher end tech, but nothing says 'you're dead' like a Kalashnikov bullet to the whereever.

 

High-end tech is really not all that useful in urban warfare, that what makes it so specific. Open plains: Well russia does have the 'zerg' advantage although I am not sure how much since it is not what it used to be during USSR. However what is to stop USA (and Russia) from simply flooding the opponent side with missiles and/or artillery? Even without nukes there are some potential explosives out there and open plains make it easy to target enemy troops. Also doesn't USA have high altitude bombers which should be able to avoid MiGs?

 

I was thinking along the lines of robots, ultrasonic imagers, that sort of thing in urban environs.

For the second bit, that's why that kind of battle isn't fought anymore. However, once they engage at infantry distance, friendly casualties from shelling would be astronomical.

 

The Abrams are still the most sophisticated tank on the planet. Their depleted uranium shells they fire rip through enemy tanks armor like a hot knife through butter. They have superior range due to their GPS systems. How ever their advanced technology leads to one major flaw. They are gas gusslers and require a lot of fuel to keep moving. So they don't have a lot of mobility.

As for the T-90 while it does have advanced weaponry( and i'm not sure if they have the depleted uranium shells.) it doesn't have the capabilities that the Abram has. The Abram will most likely have a T-90 in its sights before the Russian tank crew even knows they aren't alone.

As far as helicopters are concerned its really no contest. The US has the most superior air craft in the world, and their helicopters again with the assistance of GPS have the capability killing enemy helicopters before they can get into range to return fire.

Again the US airforce is the most advanced in the world. The F-16 I'm pretty sure isn't used so much any more as the F-18 and F-22 are superior to it. Though back in the cold war era the Russian airforce's MIGs were effective in countering US air craft today they do not. As for bombers the B-2 stealth bomber remains the only stealth bomber of its kind, and only the US has them. So we obviously top the Bombing capabilities of the Russian Airforce.

The M-16 vs AK 47 argument has been going on for ever, and really it's hard to choose which one is better. While the AK 47 fires a bigger round and is more durable; the M-16 is better in long range and when trained right can be far more deadly. I'll have to look for it but I believe there was a study shown from the afghanistan war where they showed the US soldiers using the M-16 had far superior accuracy to their enemy who was using the AK-47.

As for anti tank weapons, again I have to give it to the US because of the javelins ability to track its targets and hit a tank directly on top of a tank(which is a tanks weakest point.) means its deadlier then the russian counter part.

As for a war with russia it depends. Lets say if it was just Russia and the US going to war and their allies didn't join in. Well Russia has superior resources in the way of oil due to Siberia. However, Russia still does not have a way to detect our stealth bombers which give us a big edge when it comes to doing strategic bombing. Also our navy is also capable of dismantling most of Russia's coast lines.

As for nukes I highly doubt either side would resort to this. Mainly because if nukes are launched then both sides are completely whiped off the map. If they a side surrenders although they might be occupied they would still have a country. So it makes absolutely 0 sense to nuke the US unless they were fighting for control over each others territory (which historically has never been successful with either country.)

Another thing to keep in mind is although we might not know the exact locations of their nuclear weapons. We have the capability of disabling the ones we have located. With cruise missiles and stealth bombers it wouldn't be too hard to disable their ability to launch nukes.

Then you of course have the ground battle which sadly despite superior training and technology of the US, We could never win against Russia if we were fighting them on their own turf. The main reason of course being their massive population and numbers. They can out produce the US by a mile. This also can be applied to our own nation as well. Russia could never reach US borders because their navy would not be capable of getting past our own. Maybe they could get to Alaska, but from there they would be stuck unless they violated canadian borders and thus going to war with them.

If it did go to nukes our nuclear missile deployment systems are years ahead of anyone else. We can deploy our nukes almost an hour before they can.

Needless to say both countries armies would be crippled by the conflict. Although they wouldn't be open for invasion; they would be capable to attacking another country for a long time. Occupation wouldn't be possible for Russia or the US. The countries are just too big, and there are far too many obstacles in the way. I mean Russia's territory is so massive it would be impossible to scout out all of it for enemy out posts, and the police force in the US is has better weapons and training then most militarys.

 

Well i pretty much agree with what Jshep said. Sign me up for it.

 

US army will win that`s for sure

 

Agree with Jshep except on the AK-47.

Any gun that can literally be pulled out of the mud and fired is infinitely superior to almost anything. The M16 is famous for jamming if the slightest bit of ANYTHING gets in the chassis.

However, this is only taking into account the weapons systems we know about. I'm 100% the US military has over 9000 tricks up their sleeves, and Russia probably has a few as well.

 

I dont think there is any debate over kalashnikovs superiority as far as durability goes but in the scenario that we are presented durability isnt a real issue and more accurate weapons will prevail.

 

The AK47 is accurate to about 100m, the M16 is accurate to about 300m. In an urban setting, you're going to be much much closer than that.

 

I thought we were talking about the open plain scenario?