Military Strength of Russia (and compared to other nations)

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
skill and moral are very important, i guess you should say that to the US generals in Iraq and Afghanistan, i read articles from many soldiers who have been on joint missions with the US soldiers, those soldiers were from countries like gtermany, britain, france, and some others, and they all said that most US soldiers they worked with were "all kit and no skill" so the US troops are not the best trained, and i would say the russians are better trained and probably more durable..




posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I would disagree.

A US Soldier is trained better than any other in EXACTLY what the US military understands is important.

Large scale joint-operations.

A soldier in a unit may be no better or worse than a soldier of another nation; but a US soldier is used to working with tens of thousands of men in huge fields of battle with helicopter and air support and Naval support etc.

Germany for example may have a crack troop, but they have no expertise in such operations and get a little bonus from going to the US NTC or Germany's Airforce training grounds (I think that's in Arizona).

Russia has a similar capacity but never exersized it, they believed in the "overwhelm" approach to war and didn't realize until the first gulf-war that steel on target is not as important as mobility. (which is an aspect of skill more than tech)



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
what you seem to are ignoring is the fact that in the gulf war, the generals were corrupt, hell troops sometimes went to battle with no ammo, and they didn't know it, the generals took the money for buying ammo to themselves, the tanks were not maintained, the troops were not in high moral nor where they able to fight nor did they want to fight, the tanks as i said sometimes didn't have ammo. the gulf war is not a prove of anykind that the "overwhelm" approach or that the weapons the russinas designed for the cold war were inneffective, imagine 30k tanks going up against 8k, even if the 8k were advanced, it'd still be one of the toughest battles ever, and the 30k would still probably win even if with heavy losses.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Russian military doctrine is more important as the two wars in Iraq proved the Soviet military doctrine to be a load of crap.


How so?


Immediately after the Gulf War before the fall of the Soviet Union, Soviet policy makers and Generals were re-working the Soviet Military Doctrine to meet the concerns of growing US Military supremacy in doctrine (not in technology).


I have heard of that but how much of it was really related to doctrine? As i understand they were far more worried with what they perceived to be the relative ease with which the , admittedly, out dated Russians IADS were taken apart?


The war in Chechnya first proved the Russian doctrine to be ineffective, in 2000 Putin sent the army back in with a new doctrine, but still archaic comparitively.


Korea, Vietnam, Iraq.... Super powers like the USA/USSR 'lose' wars ( well keep them going really) for reasons other than doctrine or technolgy as was evident in how sparingly Russia used it's strategic bombing capacity during the campaign in Chechnya. Had Russia wanted to they could have absolutely crushed the resistance ( funded by the west) but the toll on the country would have been immeasurable worse. Russia needs foreign enemies as much as the USA does and there are few presidents who do not consider being at war beneficial to their rule.


If Russia will learn from these wars the technology they have will not matter as much...skill on the battlefield is always more important than tools.


Hey i agree that doctine/strategy is very important now and i believe that it will get more and more so as robots/robotics takes over from man.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Well, talking about Russian military strength, I cannot understand when someone says they "excelled" in subs. Actually russian submarines were probably the weakest part of russian military machine, not counting their surface fleet. They were always lagging at least 10 years behind. That their recent stuff is equal - equal to what? Los Angeles Improved? Why not compare it to Seawolf of Virginia? Or their Typhoon - great concept really - huge sub, cataraman hull, very inovative, the only problem was it was loud as hell so at the end it was supposed to be used from their coastal waters. And despite its enourmous size it still carried LESS SLBMs than Ohio. Oscar class subs "hunting carriers"? Maybe, but they would never come close enough to them, because they would be all tracked by US attack subs.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   
dude the US had it's weak points and the USSR had it's weakpoints, the US navy wasn't invincible, the US army or marine or watever wasn't invincible, neither was the USSR army, navy, airforce or watever invincible. the US had the advantage of technology, the USSR had the advantage of cheapness and numbers. for instance a war in europe would 've severly bankrupted or rather brought the US government to near bankruptcy, why, because of the greatly astronomical high cost of tanks, ships, aircraft, and all else that the US has to pay, while that would not happen to the USSR, why because the USSR has an ability to use forced labor, and cheap labor and government running of everything allows the government to keep pumping out tanks troops aircraft ships and everything else for maybe 20 years even more, when russia is mobilized i don't believe it can be defeated with millions over millions over millions of casualties, and with a real good luck!

plus the USSR had much more resources than the US, it's true the US has a lotta resurces, but russia still has more oil, a lotta iron a lotta minerals, litterally russia is a country made to fight wars. the USSR had many Oil producing countries on it's side, unlike the US which did not, it had many rich allies yet not a lotta resource rich countries, for instance most of Eastern and central europe doesn't have a lotta resources, and that's were America's best friends were. Canada is an exception, but still it would not rival the USSR. plus the USSR was more favorable with Iran and Iraq and Syria, and Lybia, and a lot of africa, and those countries had a lot and i mean a lotta oil and other resources such as diamonds, gold, silver, etc.

for instance, Germany in World War II had the most advanced army in the world, yet it did not have resource rich countries on it's side, one of the main problems the Axis powers had constantly through the war was oil, in fact one of the main reasons the axis lost out in N Africa and in normandy and in Russia because they were short on fuel, they had to choose what front they would concentrate there resources on and that it is well known is deadly in a multiple front war, becuase while Rommel was asking for Tiger tanks and normal tanks in N Africa, the generals in russia were asking for coats and boots and more tanks and more fuel, and afterwards in Normandy where Rommel was asking for more tanks on the beach fronts to thwart the allied invasion back to the sea before the landed, other generals were asking for more tanks and troops on the bakcward lines to defend against any allied incursion, and generals in Italy and Russia were still asking for resources, but Germany did not have any resources enough to cover all this, you see Hitler made the grave mistake of splitting his armies in russia into 3 instaed of one going to moscow or just two going to the caucasus, or instaed of going into russia he should've gone to Iraq and Syria and Saudi Arabia, that way he would be dominant in the oil market instaed of the brits and the allies.

another situation why the US could not win an invasion or a war with the USSR would be the fact that the Russians are proud and and the russian government is rather stuborn and would not just say "hi, welcome americans! come on right into Moscow" look at Napoleon, he went all the way to Moscow, hell they burned moscow down on him. so in another words it is very tough to beat the USSR, no is the US easy to beat even if the russians reached all the way over there. so even without Nukes, Mutually assured distructions would've been there.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Well, talking about Russian military strength, I cannot understand when someone says they "excelled" in subs.


You do not have to 'excel' at subs when you intend to use them the same way you would use tanks. They had plenty of them and they were imo perfectly well suited to the Russian doctrine of keeping the dagger within striking distance. Very silent submarines are absolutely great when your fighting another sub of lesser quality but it becomes far less relevant when your up against 2,3 or 4 just daring you to risk exposing yourself to counter fire from more threats than you are likely to destroy before your own destruction.


Actually russian submarines were probably the weakest part of russian military machine, not counting their surface fleet.


For what it was designed to do ( and with the handicaps) i do not consider it weak even if that seemed to have been the opinion of the USN as they ignored the Russian submarine threat for the most part by not bothering to train their anti submarine forces to anything close to Canadian or British standards.


They were always lagging at least 10 years behind.


Most German infantry used the Kar 98l for the duration of the second world war; a rifle design 40 years out of date. Doctrine CAN deal with the limitations imposed by the manufacturing base. Soviet doctrine did not require super silent submarines and the it's rather debatable how the American advantage in that area would have helped keep their convoys floating.


That their recent stuff is equal - equal to what? Los Angeles Improved? Why not compare it to Seawolf of Virginia?


Not sure but why don't you check? I do not consider submarine silencing such a critical thing and i just happen to believe that there is no great difference in practice between what Russia or America could produce in the 80's.


r their Typhoon - great concept really - huge sub, cataraman hull, very inovative, the only problem was it was loud as hell so at the end it was supposed to be used from their coastal waters.


Actually it was very silent at the type of speed it was going to be moving at. The fact that more than two thirds of Russian SLBM's could hit US targets from their moorings mostly indicates that speed was not of the essence as patrol areas were close by and in relatively well protected waters. The USSR never really needed it's sea based BM subs as it had hundreds of re loadable land based ICBM's that relocate with great ease.


And despite its enourmous size it still carried LESS SLBMs than Ohio.


"High internal volume also allows Typhoon class submarines to provide good conditions for their crews, including sport facilities, sauna, swimming pool and a smoking room."



That apart it's missiles had 10% more range and carried more and higher yield MIRV's. If it came to a knife fight ( torpedoes) it was more than able to defend itself as well as probably being able to sustain torpedo hits - or should i say close misses- where American submarines would not survive. Don't forget the fact that i could fire anti ship cruise missiles which the Ohio could not!


Oscar class subs "hunting carriers"? Maybe, but they would never come close enough to them, because they would be all tracked by US attack subs.


Subsequent training against similar subs have proved again and again that subs sinks carriers and that's at torpedo ranges.... The Brits believed they had U boats beat in the first and the second world war and both times the showed just how unprepared they were.

24 Oscar SS-N-19 Shipwrecks( NATO got that much right) + RORSAT + 500 -600 km range +ARM/SARH = - carrier and then probably CBG.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
I would disagree.
A US Soldier is trained better than any other in EXACTLY what the US military understands is important.


Based on what?


Large scale joint-operations.


I should remind you of the second world war it seems?


A soldier in a unit may be no better or worse than a soldier of another nation; but a US soldier is used to working with tens of thousands of men in huge fields of battle with helicopter and air support and Naval support etc.


The USA has never lost a army group, a division or have a front collapse in a few weeks; it knows nothing about war ( where you actually stand to lose the home you came from ) and pretending that it does is STRANGE.


Russia has a similar capacity but never exersized it, they believed in the "overwhelm" approach to war and didn't realize until the first gulf-war that steel on target is not as important as mobility. (which is an aspect of skill more than tech)


The Russians had a few wars on home soil and i think they have a good idea of what should and should not be done by now. Fighting Germans is not easy but what does not kill a nation makes it stronger.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
StellarX, plainly, you're stupid.

From the facts, you ignore that the US has more than ten times the training space that Germany has. That is the NTC alone.

Another fact, the US knows more than most nations of Europe what it is truly like to lose your home....France would always be france, even when invaded by the Germans, Germany like-wise...Russia...Britain etc.

Only the United States went through a war where the rift was so terrible that should the war have been lost there would be no US, no continuation of its culture...nothing.

There would have been two new entities to say the least, each of which would have departed too far from the beginning which could be considered an Anglo-Colonial beginning.

The US fought the first war where 70,000 dying in a day was a common thing...

You can't sit there and say the US never knew what war was...it made war what it is...and it dominates the field.

The US is the only nation capable of deploying around the world in a couple of days.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   
stratf, first of all, the American revoultion is almost 225 years ago, that war is long past and doesn't matter anymore,, tactics have changed, the battlefields have changed, the weapons have changed, even the people ahve changed. many countries went through revolutions, how do you think most of the countries you see on the map came about, out of the blue, no honeybun they came from bloddy revolutions!



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   
and btw, in wars at that time losing 100's of thousands of troops in a day was common thing.....



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   
also germany in WWII was stronger than any nation in the world, it was the superpower, yet still it couldn't beat russia, and it's not about training space, it's about how much troops and resources you can put on the field, and in the begining of the war on russia in WWII, Germany had a lot more, but it still never won the war on russia. and i fyou look on the worlds oil rich countries, Russia has more oil than russia, even canada can't beat russia at resources, and imagine the USSR's resources, which would triple and quadruple the resources of present day russia!



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
StellarX, plainly, you're stupid.


Maybe i am but compared to you i have a hard time thinking of myself as anything but quite brilliant. It may obviously have something to do with the low standard your setting...


From the facts, you ignore that the US has more than ten times the training space that Germany has. That is the NTC alone.


Do your best to explain how this is relevant as by this logic the Russians clearly have the best army in the world by a factor of two.


Another fact, the US knows more than most nations of Europe what it is truly like to lose your home...


How many American civilians died on the US mainland in the Second world war? Non?


France would always be france, even when invaded by the Germans, Germany like-wise...Russia...Britain etc.


Tell it to the French who had large parts of their country completely levelled TWICE this century.


Only the United States went through a war where the rift was so terrible that should the war have been lost there would be no US, no continuation of its culture...nothing.


LOL? How many cultures and societies were utterly destroyed during the last few hundred years in Europe? The US civil war was a walk in the park compared to the brutality Europeans so regularly visits on each other. I assumed you were talking about the US civil war ( whichever side won would not have mattered much) but if you were talking about independence the argument is even less substantive.


There would have been two new entities to say the least, each of which would have departed too far from the beginning which could be considered an Anglo-Colonial beginning.


What does that even mean?


The US fought the first war where 70,000 dying in a day was a common thing...


The US never suffered 70 000 casualties in a day in all it's history and the closest they came as far as i know was at Antietam which was not exactly a recent event. Fighting and winning a war where the other sides are largely exhausted by their suffering ( the first world war, the second world war, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf war) does not count when your doing so little so late.


You can't sit there and say the US never knew what war was...it made war what it is...and it dominates the field.


I have, i can and i will continue to say what is clearly the truth. The US certainly had nothing to do with making war what it is today and i can but wonder where you got the idea from.


The US is the only nation capable of deploying around the world in a couple of days.


I can deploy myself to anywhere in the world as well and I'm not exactly bragging about it. The US can in a true world wide conflict deploy just enough fast enough to get whatever it sends well and truly killed. The Russians can still with less transport deploy massively more ground based firepower than the USA is even attempting.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   

also germany in WWII was stronger than any nation in the world, it was the superpower, yet still it couldn't beat russia, and it's not about training space, it's about how much troops and resources you can put on the field, and in the begining of the war on russia in WWII, Germany had a lot more, but it still never won the war on russia. and i fyou look on the worlds oil rich countries, Russia has more oil than russia, even canada can't beat russia at resources, and imagine the USSR's resources, which would triple and quadruple the resources of present day russia!


YEA thats right they couldnt "beat russia"... Its not like the British empire , the French empire , the Dutch Empire , or the United States and the rest of the allies fought the Germans or provided any aid to the Russians or anything!!


en.wikipedia.org...:WWII.png



for instance, Germany in World War II had the most advanced army in the world, yet it did not have resource rich countries on it's side, one of the main problems the Axis powers had constantly through the war was oil, in fact one of the main reasons the axis lost out in N Africa and in normandy and in Russia because they were short on fuel, they had to choose what front they would concentrate there resources on and that it is well known is deadly in a multiple front war, becuase while Rommel was asking for Tiger tanks and normal tanks in N Africa, the generals in russia were asking for coats and boots and more tanks and more fuel, and afterwards in Normandy where Rommel was asking for more tanks on the beach fronts to thwart the allied invasion back to the sea before the landed, other generals were asking for more tanks and troops on the bakcward lines to defend against any allied incursion, and generals in Italy and Russia were still asking for resources, but Germany did not have any resources enough to cover all this, you see Hitler made the grave mistake of splitting his armies in russia into 3 instaed of one going to moscow or just two going to the caucasus, or instaed of going into russia he should've gone to Iraq and Syria and Saudi Arabia, that way he would be dominant in the oil market instaed of the brits and the allies.


Wow I think you have been playing one to many WW2 video games as the Germans.


read articles from many soldiers who have been on joint missions with the US soldiers, those soldiers were from countries like gtermany, britain, france, and some others, and they all said that most US soldiers they worked with were "all kit and no skill" so the US troops are not the best trained


You know every one of my freinds that have fought in Iraq and Afghanistahn and they all say simular things about european and other allied troops.

US troops win because they are "trained" in their units. No mater what people want to dream up basic training does not build good solders. Soldiers can be trained "basics" such as how to use their gear but cannot be trained real world fighting skill. Real world experience and a command chain based around experienced officers are what makes good solders and good military doctrine. Only experienced people can know what really works and what really does not. In a time of war with a chain of command that rewards success you automatically breed a group of elite officers and those officers use their doctrines learned from experiance... What works and what doesn't !!! Not some BULL%$#@ "professional" training. Flexibility,Teamwork, Experience are things that makes a skilled soldier. This notion of "best" basic training has nothing to do with it.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
How many American civilians died on the US mainland in the Second world war? Non?


Stellar I'm surprised you didn't think of this, it doesn't diminish your point but I'd just like to clarify. Six civilians were killed in the US during WWII.


Japanese propaganda broadcasts announced great fires and an American public in panic, declaring casualties as high as 10,000, but the six people killed in Oregon were the only casualties inflicted by the Japanese on the American mainland in World War II.

Link



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   
it's true, the allies did fight germany, but hey when the hell did normandy or overlord beging, 1944, the germans invaded the USSR in 1942, and the north african theater doesn't count because Stalin himself nor the russians regarded it as help or of any help to them,a dn the germans weren't diverting many resources to it. nevertheless, it is true the all the allies fought the germans, but the russians were the ones that were trully taking most of the toll of the war, the russians lost maybe 22million while the british lost maybe only 3-4 million and those were not only british, they were aussies, fromt he far east, from southeast asia, from canada, etc. as for the americans, yeah they provided aid, but still russian factories and russian troops were the ones fighting the war in russia, and btw the americans only lost about 400k troops only and no civilians, and not one piece of infrastructure was damaged by the war in america, instead america gained superpower status, and it's economy rejuvenated, while most of the world's economy crumbled and there infrastructure was damaged. as for the french, they were beated from the begining anyway, the Dutch empire only supported the allies and it really wasn't the dutch empire it was more the followers far abroad in the dutch empire that just felt like they wanted to help, and i'm only following wat you said cuz i don't think the dutch empire did anything after the netherlands fell. plus where do you tink Stalingrad occured, france, or where do you think lenningrad occured, or the battle of moscow, or the batlle of kursk, or the battle of kharkov, or the 2nd battle for kiev, all those occured on russia soil and the russians still beat the germans, in the batlle of leningrad, the city before the war had 500k people in it, by the end of the war it had only 6k people in it and it was basically wiped of the face of the earth, as for Stalingrad, same kind of misery and distruction, or Moscow, Stalin could hear the shells of artillery and tanks being shot while he was sitting in his office in the kremlin. the turning points of the war were the battles on russian soil, most notably stalingrad. not in france, not in north africa, not anywhere else.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heckman

You know every one of my freinds that have fought in Iraq and Afghanistahn and they all say simular things about european and other allied troops.

US troops win because they are "trained" in their units. No mater what people want to dream up basic training does not build good solders. Soldiers can be trained "basics" such as how to use their gear but cannot be trained real world fighting skill. Real world experience and a command chain based around experienced officers are what makes good solders and good military doctrine. Only experienced people can know what really works and what really does not. In a time of war with a chain of command that rewards success you automatically breed a group of elite officers and those officers use their doctrines learned from experiance... What works and what doesn't !!! Not some BULL%$#@ "professional" training. Flexibility,Teamwork, Experience are things that makes a skilled soldier. This notion of "best" basic training has nothing to do with it.


i agree with you that basic training cannot teach everything, and of course experience is wat decides who's a better soldier, nevertheless, i'm just not gonna agree with anybody on saying American troops are the most experienced, most well trained, and best in the world, cuz i simply don't believe that.... thank you...



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Arguments that somehow American Resolve is weak because we haven't fought on our own "mainland" in this century is back wards.

Wars fought overseas or far away from the homeland that cause high casualties are the ones that are hardest to maintain resolve and support for.

That massive Russian resolve that so valiantly expelled the Germans went bye bye with the war in Afghanistan didn't it?



[edit on 31-8-2006 by Heckman]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
no it didn't, letme tell you why because the war in afghanistan and the war in russia in WWII do not cancel each other why, becuase they were fought with the same type of military capability. what i mean is the civil war was fought with muskets and cavalry, the revolutionary war was fought with the same thing except much older, so they can be talked about in the same league, but they don't mean anything because they're too old and not considered actually wars, because the US wasn't invaded, it revolted against the brits, and then 80 years later fought each other and killed around 600k of there own people, but they don't count as wars on the same league or lvl as the german invasion of russia, or the battle of britain, or WWII or WWI as a whole, because the inventions of tanks and aircraft and more modern shotguns and rifles and muchineguns made those wars of the 1800's obsolet and don't count except for a zero on the left.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   
btw i'm not saying that just because America never fought a war on it's "homeland" then america can't fight a war or that the american resolve is weak, what i'm saying is that American war machine was never tested when it was extremely low on resources, it was always well kept, well armed, all the works, of course in WWII and WWI and in Vietnam there were difference, but still they were always better kept than the other side, that is good, until you do face a situation where you do have to face a situation like this, and then your tactics and strategies won't work, and won't fit, and would lead to either loss or high casualties. neverthless, in WWII and I, the America war machine had good logistics, because the logistics lines were only from Britain to the north of francem adn that's short, and after they made landfall in Normandy, supplies and logistics were dropped off there and stockpiles were created, and in the end when they broke through, supplies were already in France and the trip was only across france, and the same thing in the invasion of Italy and sicily. and plus logistics in those wars were really good because of cooperation with Britain and france. same thing with vietnam, korea, and now iraq and afghanistan, cooperation of the country your in makes logistics far easier. for instance in Vietnam, south vietnam did allow the US to put troops in it's lands and also supplies stockpiles. so the US never really had to drive supplies across the ocean. so it's true overseas wars are hard, but only when you don't have a plaace to make stockpiles, and btw normandy took two years to plan, why do you think it took too long, i'll tell ya first the US troops had to get experiene by fighting in sicily, italy and north africa, and second, they had to bring supplies and build up the army, and third they had to coordinate and strategize and plan.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join