United States military compared to Russian military. Let's do the math and compare numbers.

a reply to: daaskapital

I thought the USA did have a presence in the Pacific Ocean?

Not less than 4 carriers are currently in (or capable of rapidly entering) the Pacific for operations.

I think that the chart in general is good, but it ignores intelligence assets as a metric, which is madness, since the US has well publicised infrastructure in that regard, and since the Russians have always relied heavily on the GRU to make things happen outside their recognised boundaries, which for any other nation would have to be done using some kind of visible military presence.

While on the face of it, America would appear to have the greater force projection potential, the Russian intelligence network is not to be underestimated.

originally posted by: liejunkie01
A recent explosion of Russian and American military comparisons here on ATS led me to look for some numbers.

I found this site that compares countries military strengths and weakness.

It takes in all factors related to this topic. It goes into detail of how they come to the conclusions.

I am going to link the page that directly compares the U.S. and Russia, but you can compare any country or look at individual countries.

www.globalfirepower.com...

Now I have never heard of this site. I only found it looking for comparisons of these two countries. Each country has it's strengths and weaknesses.

What do you think of the comparisons.

Well, the UNITED STATES of AMERICA have MORE;

- Manpower (by over 76 MILLION)
- Population Reaching Military Age Annually (by over 3 MILLION)
- More Aircraft (by over 10,000)
- TEN TIMES the amount of Helicopters
- TEN TIMES the amount of serviceable airports
- THREE times the amount of major ports and terminals
- Over 100 more naval vessels
- Aircraft Carriers: TEN TO ONE, literally
- TEN MORE FRIGATES
- FIFTY MORE DESTROYERS
- GREATER ANNUAL DEFENSE BUDGET
- GREATER PPP
- GREATER LFS
- GREATER Roadway and railway coverage.
And we're better suited for a land invasion than they are.

The RUSSIAN FEDERATION have more;
- Active Military Reserves (by 1,634,120)
- Tank Strength (by 7,157)
- AFV's (by 2,000)
- SPG's (by 6,000 - we're actually greatly outnumbered here)
- Artillery (by 3,000 - also greatly outnumbered)
- 2,000 more MLRS
- 750 more Marines
- 74 corvettes
- 21 more anti-mine warfare assets, and
More patrol craft and more reserves of foreign exchange and gold

So, the only instance I could really see the Federation trumping the U.S. in is if we invaded them unilaterally. And of course, they were alone themselves (which they would be). Really, the only way Russia could defeat America is if China and the EU helped them, which more than likely would not happen.

a reply to: liejunkie01

What you have to include though in my opinion is gun laws and population. In Russia, as far as I have read you cannot possess firearms. www.gunpolicy.org... The population of the US and fire arm laws Mean we have 314 million for a military www.google.com... ype&qsubts=1397891557586&devloc=0. Correct me if I'm wrong but, that means a "military/miltia". That's why it is almost impossible,almost, for anyone to invade us unless it was a semi occupation to take our resources. en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Davian

Really, the only way Russia could defeat America is if China and the EU helped them

The EU is the wildcard at this time in history. It is MVHO that the Russian tried (and failed) to drive in a wedge during a period of weak political projection from the current US administration.

What this serves to illustrate is exactly the impotence of military force as this period of history is written. If I was wrong, Putin would have already invaded Eastern Ukraine. Now we'll just have to wait and see if Kiev invites ethnic Russians to repatriate to Russian soil.

I have a very positive view of the future.

Im not sure the numbers should be compared so directly.

You have tech and strike times and lots of other considerations, not to mention the chance of a direct head to head are slim.

I think the states is in a better position overall if it were ever to come to a non nuclear show down.

a reply to: liejunkie01

I believe it to be an accurate portrayal as well. Lest we not forget a couple of left out bennies which each nation could call upon. The US of course has a strong set of Allies whose interest are sure to be more of a concern to them if something ugly should erupt and the differences in some of the area like tanks would be quickly made a non issues...at least for the US.

China would be a big question in the equation and I believe they would at least initially stay out of any fray...at least as long as they could...most certainly until it was good for them...and I do believe they would take advantage of some nearby properties they have had their eye on for awhile like Taiwan. We also have the advantage of our Civil Air Reserve for moving people, equipment and supplies and a maritime equivalent that perhaps the other guy does not have.

Without being the typical arrogant American, I do believe that technology wise, at least for the time being we are way ahead but losing ground quickly. More of Russian technology has come from what they have stolen from us and from what we have given them over the years...much depending on how they have been able to back engineer it into their own designs.

I believe it all comes down to a no win situation for everyone if there is a major confrontation between one and two...it will be largely dependent on what is left over and perhaps who.

Hard to say, while America can pee the furthest, Russia is better at writing its name in pee.

USA cannot defeat Russia on Russian territory. Russia cannot defeat USA on the US soil. If it was possible that the world wouldn't be destroyed which is not. But if they were fighting lets say in Africa, I think USA would win because of the aviation.

MAD is the only thing that kept these two out of the full blown war during the Cold War. We will see a lot of proxy wars and media wars between those too, but never a full blown war on their territory (Russia or USA). We can say that even financial war is out of question since the world is interconnected. And if Greece can cause hundreds of billions of dollars to be wiped out, imagine what Russia could do. (we already saw what USA can do )

Maybe what everyone is forgetting.....

The US has many many enemies. From the Taliban to North Korea. While the US is fighting the Soviets (who have largely stayed out of the Islamic wars of late compared to other countries) the US will be weakened infrastructurally at home and abroad, weakened Militarily through casualties and asset loss.

When do you people think a good time to attack the US would be? When they are doing sod all sitting at home just waiting for the next war???? OR when the US is looking elsewhere fully engaged in a war they could lose on foreign soil?

The trouble with being a superpower is that in order to get to that stage and try and police the world you create powerful enemies on the way. enemies looking for a good time to strike.

No better time than when they are preoccupied....after all...19 Islamic basement dwellers killed 3000+ on American soil with ease!! Then the US went to war in Afghanistan and just like Vietnam got outdone due to terrain, logistics and willpower of those with knowledge of their own lands.

And for one person who said China would side with the EU and US....I would rethink that. With the US out of the way or engaged, China would use that to their advantage.

The US can not beat Russia over there. Impossible. Putin and his cronies are far more masterful than the US pres and his useless generals. The US only believes in size and power, no tactics, no proper planning EVER.

Russia will have a plan for this and one that calls for tactics not yet seen by the US military in practice or real life!!

I was surprised - Russia's military is still ranked #2, that is impressive.

The trouble with being a superpower is that in order to get to that stage and try and police the world you create powerful enemies on the way. enemies looking for a good time to strike.

Yes, I would say so - I have noticed this even on Game of War: Fire Age for IOS.

I'd say that the U.S. would probably win if it was only a war between the U.S. and Russia. Though it would not be a landslide victory. It would come rather close.

I'd say the probability would be about 56-61% to Russia's 44-39%

The reason for this, is that the U.S. has the air, naval, and ground superiority.

It would seem easier for the U.S. to get their troops around. If we were to go through the Atlantic, it would be easier since the U.K. and other NATO countries are around, ensuring a safer trip. And the Northern Pacific would seem pretty easy to get around in also. It would be a bit hard for Russia to get to the U.S. mainland due to us having two states that are somewhat close that can keep an eye on them. As well as Canada basically being our shield. The only realistic move Russia would have would be to try and attack Hawaii or Alaska. And from there they'd be forced to do a naval/air attack. Unless they would try and invade Canada and travel south. Going through the Atlantic wouldn't work out too well due to NATO forces being around in the area. So America would seem to have a strategic advantage in that respect.

a reply to: Honcho

I find a few things interesting:

Russia's barrels of oil produced / used per day: 11 million / 2.2 million
U.S. barrels of oil produced / used per day: 8.5 million / 19 million

Also this:

U.S. Tank Strength: 8325
Russia Tank Strength: 15,500

The same pattern of Russia having ground superiority continues for many different categories. The other thing I wanted to mention was that the U.S. would be at a disadvantage because we are already fighting wars on many fronts, I think that would come into play if we were fighting a war with Russia around the area of Ukraine since Russia would have an easy time reinforcing its ground troops there.

a reply to: Honcho

I think you are forgetting submarines and the fact that Washington D.C. is within a mere 100miles of the US Maritime Border ... whereas Moscow is well over 100miles of the Russian Maritime Border.

Just using conventional missiles ... Russia can strike the USA public seat of power far more easily than the USA can strike at the Russian public seat of power!

But it wouldn't stay a conventional war for very long at all because M.A.D. doctrine has existed as FACT for decades.

Fact is 1hr after the 1st conventional shot is fired the nukes would rain down upon the entire world!

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere
It's not about how big your Army is ,it's about how you fight the war .

Look at Afghanistan for example , Russia could not defeat them ,and the U.S is still trying to...

Need i say more ?

Need you say more? lol... What kind of war do you think is being fought in Afghanistan exactly? I think you have no clue what you're talking about... The US are "trying" to defeat them? Russian "could not" defeat them? lol... Wow... Where did you learn your history from? Rambo III?

Please do share... what do you think Afghanistan is about? You think its a war? Really? ahahah... wow..

a reply to: darkbake

As a side note, there is another metric to consider. Since the fight against oil is actually starting to get somewhere and very slowly making it less desirable...the future seems to be natural gas. Our own President, among others, has said as much. So.. Who has the natural gas reserves on Earth?

(Source

Oooops.... Kinda struck out on that one for strategic resources. We're better than most, by far, but close enough really isn't good enough in everything, and any war (even economic) could hurt the West real bad as it hurts others depending on supply from the top of that list.

* The current list has Turkmenistan in #4 with a 10tr bump, so I'm wondering if they found a new reserve or something? Some in the media are talking like Russia is a mere player on the natural gas market though..and they aren't a player. They just about own the whole court. Particularly when you also consider their alliance with Iran. Those folks Moscow builds nuke plants for and are within sight of down the Caspian Sea.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Honcho

I find a few things interesting:

Russia's barrels of oil produced / used per day: 11 million / 2.2 million
U.S. barrels of oil produced / used per day: 8.5 million / 19 million

Also this:

U.S. Tank Strength: 8325
Russia Tank Strength: 15,500

The same pattern of Russia having ground superiority continues for many different categories. The other thing I wanted to mention was that the U.S. would be at a disadvantage because we are already fighting wars on many fronts, I think that would come into play if we were fighting a war with Russia around the area of Ukraine since Russia would have an easy time reinforcing its ground troops there.

Russia does have the advantage when it comes to total ground vehicles. But there would be the challenge of getting them from there to here. That's usually done by sea, which would be a little hard for them to pull off. Not to mention the U.S. boosts that we have not lost a single Abrams tank in battle. At least one hasn't been destroyed due to enemy combatants. Though, I'm sure Russian tanks would be a pretty good match against our tanks. Our heavy air force power would be a concern though, since aircraft are a tanks worst nightmare.

And the whole war on terrorism would indeed be a bit of a concern. It would strain our manpower. But, at the same time, The U.S. has many different bases all over the place. Which helps up keep track of what's going on. Plus there's a bit of unpredictability that comes with it.

Transporting vehicles and troops would pose harder for Russia since that's done either by sea or land. And the U.S. has the upper hand in those categories. So the U.S. seems to have transportation in their favor. And that would probably equal out their ground vehicle superiority.

originally posted by: darkbake
I was surprised - Russia's military is still ranked #2, that is impressive.

Yes, but only ranked by that website based on ? criteria. It is only a list of things which have been subjectively applied, so the large number of Russian corvettes seems to sweep in any vessel larger than a rowing boat.

Three observations applicable to this - and all - military "mine is bigger" comparisons.

1. Military doctrine is hugely significant. The fact the US (and NATO) has been actively developing their doctrine in practice over the last couple of decades is an important edge.
2. Tested equipment. No disrespect to Russian equipment, but it has failed to deliver so far when faced against US and Western equipment. You may have 100 tanks, but if they are just targets then they are pointless. Not saying for a minute that Russian equipment is not good, just saying it has not fared well so far.
3. Calibre of the bog-standard soldier. The US and NATO don't do conscription, so all front line troops are professionals and want to be there. Russia has a conscript-based military with high levels of bullying and abuse producing general low moral and operational standards. This would be a significant handicap if the gloves were off.

Regards

originally posted by: CaticusMaximus

originally posted by: SubTruth

What the people of the world should do is kick out the Oligarchies running both countries so we can raise our children in a world filled with peace........ not war and death.

So then what... so another set of psychopaths can fool you all and take control insidiously?

Nothing will change until the human nature changes. Ironically, change human nature, and you no longer have a human. You have something else.

Probably a much better something else.

Regardless, you can throw out the so-called PTB all you want century after century, in civilization after civilization... I guarantee you they will always come back, again and again, a little different than before, but just as evil, until the human collective decides truly it wants something better, and brings about that something better by transforming itself, individual by individual, slowly changing the collective external that does nothing other than perfectly reflect the mass of the individuals internal.

To change the world, change yourself.

I liked this post. To me it's blatantly obvious, I just wish religious people open their eyes and see this too.
Who knows, it could prevent some wars

originally posted by: CaticusMaximus

originally posted by: SubTruth

What the people of the world should do is kick out the Oligarchies running both countries so we can raise our children in a world filled with peace........ not war and death.

So then what... so another set of psychopaths can fool you all and take control insidiously?

Nothing will change until the human nature changes. Ironically, change human nature, and you no longer have a human. You have something else.

Probably a much better something else.

Regardless, you can throw out the so-called PTB all you want century after century, in civilization after civilization... I guarantee you they will always come back, again and again, a little different than before, but just as evil, until the human collective decides truly it wants something better, and brings about that something better by transforming itself, individual by individual, slowly changing the collective external that does nothing other than perfectly reflect the mass of the individuals internal.

To change the world, change yourself.

Yeah I think it is happening slowly, the internet is helping with that I feel. People are seeing through the lies! Even really indoctrinated old schoolers are seeing bits and pieces pop up on line. I think unfortunately we're generations away, so we'll never see it. But doesn't stop me trying to help lay the foundations or at least plant some seeds.