Most Firepower: US Navy comes second....

Originally posted by jetsetter
You can't base firepower of the US Navy on antiship missile alone. The US Navy has always favored aircraft in place of antiship missiles for some time.

Well aircraft use those very same missiles so what is the point here? The USSR simply deployed it's naval forces en-mass during crisis times and sailed into 'hostage' positions where they would be able to launch all their anti ship missiles before American strike aircraft could prevent them. The problem with the aircraft carrier is that it creates a system vulnerable to a single point failure; not a problem with the Russian Navy.

It has been the opposite for the Russians because the Russians can't get large amounts of aircraft up in the air in the middle of the ocean.

They operated hundreds of intercontinental bombers that were very well suited to holding the Atlantic ocean or continental America hostage. Their 200 + Backfires bombers had no peer in the West and stopping them before they destroyed the first half dozen convoys dispatched to 'save' western Europe would have been a feat in itself.

I also believe you forgot several weapons that are used by the US Navy to sink ships. You need to count in JDAM, SLAM, JASSM, JSOW, etc. JDAMs have already been used to hit moving target ships.

If you investigate these weapons more carefully you will quickly note that even if the more dangerous one's were in service they would not be operated on a large enough scale by enough plane types to shift the balance. Long range Sam's are something the USSR specializes in and they have no peers ( i am aware of )in the world.

Stellar

The US philosophy has been quality over quantity, where the Russians has always been quantity over quality. They've always built cheaper with higher numbers, since WWII.

How do you know? I've personally seen both Soviet and Russian navy ships, where do you guys get your info from?

Can somebody please tell me when this myth actually started? Was it a movie or something?

The overwhelming majority tend to just assume that Soviets main philosophy was quantity over quality, and It just boggles my mind to why since practically no one actually seen any first hand.

And this happens again and again. Gee, they built a LOT of stuff, duh, LOOK at the GLOBE and actually ABSORB the sheer SIZE of the territory they NEED to defend. When that is taken into account, there is simply no place for chrome and eye pleasing color coordinated paint finish, just plain old rust proof, that's all there is to it.

We never much cared about defense since we live on a friendly continent, so traditionally we build offensive weapons rather then defensive.

More opinionated assumption, or in other words sheer nonsense;

And the second problem is that numbers on Russian missiles stocks are either old or unreliable.

How do you know? Where do you get that info from?

but many of the modern system Russia deployed were maintenance nightmares. The Kirov class Battlecruisers, the all types of Victor Class submarines, and the MiG-31s are 3 great examples of high class vehicles with shoddy performance records, even to this day.

darksided, fill me in on that one. MiG-31 shoddy performance record? Are you kidding me? What comes even close to its performance in its 30 years of service?

It was also interesting to see the sophistication rating for Krypton being lower then Harpoon. Why would US NAVY actually buy Russian made Kryptons then?

Considering that most of the Russian Fleet is sitting and rusting in port........

Data please, planeman for one took his time and did a great job, have the decency to do the same instead of throwing your opinions around.

Good work planeman.

I would certainly question the fighting ability of any of the Russian arms. Their fleet does seem to find almost permanent anchorage in port, but then again they just cannot afford the military they were left with when the Soviet Union disintergrated.

Have you people been ASLEEP for the last DECADE? Where do you get this nonsense from? You must still think that it always snows in Russia, that everybody wares those funny hats with ears and drinks Vodka straight out of the bottle, have pet bares on chains all over the place and do that leg kicking dance, play accordions all day long and that all Russian women are fat ugly babushkas with hairy armpits and that they all still ride horses.

Good God people, travel or read something, because it's just as bad when Japanese think we all ware cowboy hats and shoot revolvers all over the place.

planeman, I for one don't care who come on top in your chars, I simply appreciate their database qualities. I already copied all picts, again good job.

I do have a question on UGM/RGM-109B Tomahawk TASM though, even though they have been officially retired, what about the ones left in service?

Hi there Stellar, nice to see you doing your thing

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
How is Russia placed first on the Carrier list if it has 1 carrier and the US has 12?

I mean, 12 Carrier Battle Groups, that's like what? I don't know exactly how many aircraft each carrier has, so I can't do the math, but still that's 12 times what Russia has.

But all the other charts are very nice, US does have alot of missiles and focuses on aerial power over ships.

I agree on this assertion, Quality over Quantity.

Shattered OUT...

Source
) - Russia will only start building modern aircraft carriers for the Russian navy in 2010 at the earliest, according to Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov, the Chief Commander of Russia's Navy.

"The designing, laying down, and building of aircraft carriers for Russia's Navy are only possible after 2010. The armaments program that will remain in force till 2010 does not envisage the construction of new aircraft carriers for economical considerations," he said.

The reason, at present they don't is due to the fall of the U.S.S.R. They've pushed back their ship building till 2010, when I do believe they plan to make them on mass again. It's likely, they'll push most of their oil money into it and attempt to rebuild their carrier groups to force a reason for the U.S.A.

Originally posted by iskander
Can somebody please tell me when this myth actually started? Was it a movie or something?

The overwhelming majority tend to just assume that Soviets main philosophy was quantity over quality, and It just boggles my mind to why since practically no one actually seen any first hand.

To a point, Zaphod is right, at the height of the Cold War, around 1985, the U.S. Navy was indeed overmatched in terms of absolute firepower (even minus the nukes).

As far as the myth goes, I guess the Cold Warriors and propagandists perpetuated it. For one, it pisses me off at how the above myth has been allowed to persist. Anybody in the know will tell you that is just about the furthest thing from the truth. I'm not saying there is not a bit of truth to it, the Soviet Union did obviously have gargantuan numbers, but to simply say it has "always been quantity over quality" is just plain wrong. Individually, Soviet systems were inferior to the U.S. systems, but this technological gap was a matter of just a few years or in a few certain components. If anything, its not as if the Soviets didn't have the capability, they simply chose not to employ it in order to cut costs and allow for larger numbers, but to assert the "always" and say that the Soviets willingly sacrificed technical superiority is just false. Again, the disparity was small, possibly smaller when you consider the fact that certain Soviet/Russian systems are far superior to certain U.S./Western systems.

U.S. philosophy is not necessarily quality over quantity either. The decision not to emphasize quantity is a matter of cost. If the U.S. could cheaply build 1,000 F-22s, believe me, it would. That could never happen, of course, but hypothetically, it shows that numbers are not necessarily deemphasized.

So again, Zaphod is 100% correct, he's just about 80% wrong with the reasoning.

That said, the Russian Navy still packs a huge kick, but it is a barely a shadow of its former self.

[edit on 16-7-2006 by sweatmonicaIdo]

Russia may have done quanity over quality in the days of the T-72 and AK-47, but doesn't seem like they do that anymore. Just look>>>> An-94, Ka-52, Su-37, Black Eagle, Smerch, Tanguska, and SV-98, just to name a few.

I wasn't surprised by the results of the charts, either.

I'm curious planeman, where did you get all the information from? I've been searching for information like this with no luck.

Plus, what was your equation to determine the points?

Originally posted by MasterRegal
I'm curious planeman, where did you get all the information from? I've been searching for information like this with no luck.

Here is the main reference for weapons from different countries
www.globalsecurity.org...

American anti-ship missiles
www.globalsecurity.org...

Russian anti-ship missiles
www.globalsecurity.org...

Planeman, you got my Way Above Top Secret vote.

You did alot research and are still doing research as people are asking you different questions about your first results and are willing to change your ratings of each country if you find new info.

Great Job!

Originally posted by MasterRegal
I'm curious planeman, where did you get all the information from? I've been searching for information like this with no luck.

Plus, what was your equation to determine the points?

I've listed them before and don't have time but if you skim through the posts and my other threads you should find the answers. But re Globalsecurity - can be useful but I find it is often out of date, wrong or generally not enough detail. I used wikipedia at lot - better resource than I expected. I used Tel Aviv university's docs a lot too. And where practical the official homepages of the navy's in question. Plus scramble. And Haze's navy listings. So loads of sources.

Janes is usually a good source, if you have subscription, then there are usually military or private websites which primarily focus on a specific country. They can be pretty reliable but you should always try to cross reference with other more professional sources.


[edit on 23-7-2006 by WestPoint23]

The Naval Institute, I have found to be a far superior source than Jane's Information Group. Not only is it cheaper, but their information is far more in-depth and covers things doctrine and training, things that really end up talking about what the weaponry and the statistics are really all about. They also combine information that Jane's would drop into separate volumes into a single source.

As planeman said, Wikipedia is a superb source. I just love the diversity of information.

And a sidenote, be very skeptical of what official military website and defense contractors say. They will be very abstract and speak only of what the systems are supposed to do, but if you want to do stuff that planeman does, you really have to dig deep, ask around, and basically commit yourself to the truth and not be afraid of "hearing it like it is" from veterans and experts who have committed their lives to this stuff.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
As planeman said, Wikipedia is a superb source. I just love the diversity of information.

Wikipedia can be good for getting a general idea for a given country but I wouldn’t take specific details from it, they are sometimes wrong because as you know the site can be freely edited by anyone.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

To a point, Zaphod is right, at the height of the Cold War, around 1985, the U.S. Navy was indeed overmatched in terms of absolute firepower (even minus the nukes).

As far as the myth goes, I guess the Cold Warriors and propagandists perpetuated it. For one, it pisses me off at how the above myth has been allowed to persist. Anybody in the know will tell you that is just about the furthest thing from the truth. I'm not saying there is not a bit of truth to it, the Soviet Union did obviously have gargantuan numbers, but to simply say it has "always been quantity over quality" is just plain wrong. Individually, Soviet systems were inferior to the U.S. systems, but this technological gap was a matter of just a few years or in a few certain components. If anything, its not as if the Soviets didn't have the capability, they simply chose not to employ it in order to cut costs and allow for larger numbers, but to assert the "always" and say that the Soviets willingly sacrificed technical superiority is just false. Again, the disparity was small, possibly smaller when you consider the fact that certain Soviet/Russian systems are far superior to certain U.S./Western systems.

U.S. philosophy is not necessarily quality over quantity either. The decision not to emphasize quantity is a matter of cost. If the U.S. could cheaply build 1,000 F-22s, believe me, it would. That could never happen, of course, but hypothetically, it shows that numbers are not necessarily deemphasized.

in WW-II the Germans emphaised quality over quantity and lost the war due to that mistaken assumption. Hitler learned too late in the war what his experts had been telling him all along , that by relaxing preformance criteria by just 10% you could more than triple the production for the same industrial base. What prevailed for the germans initaly was training and doctrine which was much better than their advesary.

Sovs learned that what saved them was there ability to produce more hardware and soldiers than the enemy could kill. They can also get away with this because they had a hugh population base to conscript from. So for them 'relaxing criteria by 10% to triple production', became a religion. T-34 may not have been the best tank in the war but it was good enough to fight and could be produced in a fraction of the time it took to build a Panther or Tiger tank. This became the basis of their post war doctrine. Even in to the 1980s all soviet literature prefaced any modern discussion with references to the 'great patriotic war'...that and they still had a hugh population base to conscript from. That is why the emphsis quantity over quality. But they were often able to bridge the gap even technologically.

Back in the 70s and 80s every one assumed that since soviet tanks were lighter they had less protection.This was based on the assumption that 'they do it the way we do it'. While this ended up having some truth to it [exposed ammo leading to easy detonation in post penetration events], they always strived to make some part of the frontal armor on par with their enemies tanks armor, while all round protection still met an expected enemy threat level. It was an institutional design target to making the frontal armor able to resist their own best KE penetrator.

In many respects they continued to achieve results by cutting corners where they could. So tank internal volume remained the same even though the gun size rose and ammo took up more volume as did the larger engines , in the same vehicle volume. AFV dimensions were determined by railway gauge size metigated by having a large enough population to pick and choose tankers based on physical size.

Into the 1980s an increasing part of the frontal profile of the tanks was keep at lower armor level so the primary central part could keep thick enough to resist enemy projectiles. But the tanks were still quite good , good enough to fight with in the hands of the right troops. If you refaught the 1991 Gulf War, giving the Iraqis American armaments and the Allies, Soviet armaments , the coallition would still have won due to better doctrine morale and training, they just would have suffered more casulties in the process.

[edit on 23-7-2006 by psteel]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Wikipedia can be good for getting a general idea for a given country but I wouldn’t take specific details from it, they are sometimes wrong because as you know the site can be freely edited by anyone.

I've always thought that the above criticism of Wikipedia has always been so overblown. Just because something can be freely edited doesn't mean it will always end up being a bunch of non-facts. I have seen thousands of articles on Wikipedia and there have been very few cases where completely false information has been distributed. In fact, the community is and has been very responsible in the writing of the articles. They do a good job of making it clear what is fact and what is merely speculation and theory.

As well, all information, whether from Wikipedia or Jane's or Fox news should always be taken with a certain amount of skepticism.

Wikipedia is actually very good at specific details and their analysis is also invaluable, whether one agrees with it or not.

Not for specific military systems, I’ve noticed several times where specific performance figures about missiles, fighters, tanks etc... were wrong. Like I said for an overall picture its a good source but I wouldn’t go to Wikipedia If I wanted to find out specific missile stats for example.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Not for specific military systems, I’ve noticed several times where specific performance figures about missiles, fighters, tanks etc... were wrong. Like I said for an overall picture its a good source but I wouldn’t go to Wikipedia If I wanted to find out specific missile stats for example.

They don't post very specific stats, you gotta look at books and turn to planeman for those. But if you want analysis, Wikipedia provides tons of it.

For example, the A-10 has been heralded as the best ground attack fighter in service (and rightfully so). But in the Wiki article they spoke of some major criticisms, things I have never heard of, and I follow military matters very closely and nearly to the hour. These are things you never hear of from the military, the mainstream media, and even from the more authoritative sources (like Jane's and The Naval Institute) and Wiki is a great source for a large array of information, theories, etc.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

They don't post very specific stats, you gotta look at books and turn to planeman for those. But if you want analysis, Wikipedia provides tons of it.

For example, the A-10 has been heralded as the best ground attack fighter in service (and rightfully so). But in the Wiki article they spoke of some major criticisms, things I have never heard of, and I follow military matters very closely and nearly to the hour. These are things you never hear of from the military, the mainstream media, and even from the more authoritative sources (like Jane's and The Naval Institute) and Wiki is a great source for a large array of information, theories, etc.

Yea but those criticisms i've seen are perfectly refuteable and sometimes even senseless.the A 10 criticism where when it didn't have all the gear it needed but it's well equipped now so and the fact that the A 10 has done so well proves it's a great aircraft despite the criticism. I just use wikipedia for general information and wehn im looking for an unbiased view(hopefully). Not as a concrete source for proof or truth more of a roadmap to find the truth. I use reliable sources for that.It's pretty useful at times though and straight to the point and easy to understand.
I'm interested in that naval institute site may i have a link please?
As for a link better than JAne's i prefer aviationnow
[edit on 23-7-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 23-7-2006 by urmomma158]

Originally posted by urmomma158
Yea but those criticisms i've seen are perfectly refuteable and sometimes even senseless.the A 10 criticism where when it didn't have all the gear it needed but it's well equipped now so and the fact that the A 10 has done so well proves it's a great aircraft despite the criticism. I just use wikipedia for general information and wehn im looking for an unbiased view(hopefully). Not as a concrete source for proof or truth more of a roadmap to find the truth. I use reliable sources for that.It's pretty useful at times though and straight to the point and easy to understand.
I'm interested in that naval institute site may i have a link please?
As for a link better than JAne's i prefer aviationnow
[edit on 23-7-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 23-7-2006 by urmomma158]

Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say "senseless." The kinds of threats they were up against in the '80s, they could not afford cut any corners. And its a good thing they made the changes as early on as they did.

Anyway, here's The Naval Institute U.S. Naval Institute

I can't believe USNI is not that popular. They're the No. 1 source of naval information. I own The Naval Institute Guide to the Soviet Navy and it is a GEM.

Hello,

congratulations on this study, its quite interesting.

I am looking for quite detailed info about different armies, do you think u could help me out with a few links?

I need to know stuff like the size of different armies, the proportion per activity(eg, amount of observers, or amount of pioneers). I have found a few sites but its never really precise.

Your help would be greatly appreciated.

thx,
jj

That info is going to be really hard to get hold of. one reason I counted anti-ship missiles rather than any other measure of potency was that it was a feasible research project.