Comparing US and Russian military equipment and technology

I honestly don't even know anymore.

An urban setting would be more likely imo. War has moved away from large engagements and towards small flashpoint battles.

 

Well as far as urban warfare goes I already made myself clear. High end equipment does not have such a huge impact. Couple of skilled troops with AK-47 are not much inferior to someone with more modern US assault rifles.

 

A good insight into the contrast between American and Russian tactics can be seen at the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994-1995)
And also the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999-2000_battle_of_Grozny ...

Both American and Russian tactics seem to have a trend of failing in an urban setting where they have vastly superior support...however with drones etc Americans have the ability to avoid such hefty casualties and avoid older styles of tank warfare

Though i guess this is more centered around equipment which i know little about.

Also Putin seems to have been listening in on us http://www.rferl.org/content/Ask_Th...Shows_Who_Is_In_Charge_In_Russia/1916999.html
>>

I think politics will continue to be the battlefield for a few decades to come

 

In modern-day Russia, forum post on YOU!!

Seriously though, in responce to the first question: "When we talk about offensive strategic systems in Russia, we are speaking only about nuclear weapons."

... :X

 

True, but its not always about range when it comes to accuracy. The AK47 is a much heavier weapon which can effect your aim greatly.

However, at the same token the M-16 has a smaller round and can't penetrate armor as effectively.

Its really a difficult thing to debate about. I've shot both rifles, and while the AK-47 is a lot easier to handle in terms of learning how to shoot it. Plus its got amazing durability, and you can clean it in half a second. The M-16 is lighter, and more accurate.

"Initially the Russians were taken by surprise, and their armored columns – which were supposed to take the city without difficulty, as Soviet forces had taken Budapest in 1956 – were decimated in fighting more reminiscent of the Battle of Budapest in late 1944. As a short-term measure, the Russians deployed self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (ZSU-23-4 and 9M311 Tunguska) to engage the Chechen combat groups, as the main gun of the tanks they used could not elevate and depress enough to engage the fire teams, and the armored vehicle's machine gun could not suppress the fire of several different fire teams simultaneously."

From the Wikipedia article posted. This is a good example as to why the US military would have a big advantage over the Russians. Glad I got to read up on this. If this had been the US military we would not have sent in ground forces so quickly. We'd attack the city from the air first while also obtaining Intel on their fighting strength. It wouldn't be so easy to take US forces by surprise when they have a big eye in space looking down on you.

 

were watching you, always. Just waiting for the right moment, then bam, awesomness arrives.

 

I think the rule of Super Powers comes into play if US and Russia were to go to war.

Super Power vs Regional Power - Super Power Wins (IE: The official war of America vs Iraq. Not this "war on terror" ****, I mean the actual invasion)
Super Power vs Super Power - Draw, heavy casualties on both sides (US vs Russia)

And some of the main post is skewed, well, one part. We use the F-35 now, which is far superior to any Russian aircraft I believe. The M16A4 and M4 are far more accurate as far as I know as well than the AK, but the AK is far more reliable. So it all comes down to the situations. It also comes down to this: Who is invading who? Is it on neutral ground (IE: Another country), are Russians invading America, or vice versa? That plays a huge role in who may 'win'. People also need to realize that our navy is a ****ing monster compared to Russia.

We have 13 super-carriers. I can go find a link on Super Carriers in a moment, but the fact is, Russia has none. Well, they have half of one they were building in the Cold War and cut because of price cuts. 2 Super Carriers alone could mount an airbourne invasion of Russia and give intense harassment on resources with hundreds of F-35's and F-22's along with other gunships. Not to mention, we have dozens of more regular Aircraft Carriers than them. Last I checked, I think we had somewhere around 65 and Russia had like, 12 I think. I can't remember exactly, but we were just miles ahead of them in number. So we could easily set up blockades on them seawise and airwise. All speculation of course.

In a straight up battle it all depends as well. I don't think it's a matter of an M1Abrams being stronger than a T-90, but how effective they are vs their intended targets. What's better at suppressing enemy light armor and infantry, and providing cover for their own? I would have to say the M1Abrams from a few documentaries I've seen on it and all the cool **** it has. Also, I have to point out the Striker. I just have to. The Striker-APC can be a dealbreaker on the American's part. For those of you whom don't know, the Striker-APC is just that. It's an APC with openable hatches on the side for infantry to fire out of, a gatling gun on the top (similar to one on an Apache). Oh, and here's the kicker. Whenever a rocket (specifically the RPG-7 or RPG-29 and other variations of such) is fired at it--it immediately targets it with one of 6 launchers and fires an explosive round at the rocket with pinpoint accuracy. Blowing up the rocket about 6 feet (~2 meters I believe) away from the APC. I don't think Russia has anything like that.

Now, to defend Russia. I find their troops to be well...more badass averagely. However, my friend pointed out something that I feel that I should mention. He said that Russian's tend to train their men to rely on their officers much more than American's do. Meaning? That if you took out for instance the Lieutenant (or whatever is equivalent in the Russian Military) and their main Sergeant, the other 6 men or whatever in the group would be completely dumbfounded. Well, not dumbfounded but they wouldn't know what to do. Like they rely on their officers more, y'know? This is speculation, I don't know this for a fact--just something told to me.

We are both very powerful superpowers. It's a case of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction). We'll both be wiped out, or pretty close to it if we went to war.

EDIT: It depends on the time of the war too. In a short, few month long (or shorter) war, America would probably win. In a longer, few year long war, Russia would probably win.

 

You raise valid points....But:

Google result for US Special forces training:



Yeah, they're pretty cool, there was some others with like Rambo things going one (Rainforest with a bow kinda thing.) The search for SEAL training was also fairly cool.

Then I google'd Spetsnaz, Russian Special Forces.



*Cough*

 

Ok so USA has a bunch of guys with guns and the Russians have a psychopath wo has a tendency to jump upside down and throw axes at people.
How the hell is that an advantage in any of the scenarios we've discussed?

 

no, its just that they can do it, is his point, got to remember surprise factor. Anyway, i remember awhile back some show collected data on every weapon they used. Then pitted them in a simulation, appearantly it was the closest match they ever had with the spetnasz barely coming ahead, with an awesome shooting knife. So case in case they wipe each other out.

 

While a upside down Russian flying through the are throwing axes at everyone around them might have some sort of surprise factor I would rather stick to good old fashioned assault rifles.

 

hey i wouldn't expect it if i was on guard duty.

 

I think Fenix' point wasn't surprise but awesome factor.

 

Gforce, you mean deadliest warrior?

The Russians beat the Green Beret's by the smallest percent. It was like, 50.3 Spetsnaz chance of winning, and 49.7% chance of Green Beret's winning. It's statistically too close to call. Refer to my original post where I said, we would just wipe each other out. It's just like that. Sure, they can do some giant frontflip with a tomahawk, but while they're in mid air we can just shoot them. I mean yeah, we'll be in awe for a moment but we'll still shoot them. And you posted really ambiguous pictures there. I could post American's doing crazy **** and Russian's walking slowly too. I mean, to be a Navy Seal you spend extended periods of time sitting in 30 degree water in the dead of night. That is a killer. Literally. And not like a pool. But the ocean, as waves beat against your face. Sure, we may not able to do aweosmesauce frontflips, but still. It's not like being able to do that makes you any more viable. I mean, some soldiers can do backflips too. But will that ever be used on the battlefield?

 

Honestly, I just googled Spetsnaz training and Special Forces training and picked the most badass image I could find (the bows are cool...But seriously)

I'm not doubting the effectiveness of US SF, and the SEALS are an astoundingly powerful force.

 

Double post, si, but it's separate idea.

I found this just now. It's basically a 'What if?" if NATO and the former USSR decides to nuke everything.

 

There's a saying that 15 well placed nuclear bombs can take out the entire civilized world as we know it. We have thousands. I think off the top of my head the locations were:

New York City, Chicago, Miami, Dallas, Hong Kong, Beijing, Somewhere in Japan, Washington DC, Moscow, London, Paris, Saudi Arabia (oil gone lolwut), Mexico City, Quebec, somewhere in India (the capital I think).

So yeah. It doesn't take many nukes to take out the world.

 

In that case I hope Itza still has that spot reserved for Meee at his place.