Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Military Strength of Russia (and compared to other nations)

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 11:48 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,


Revolution, Civil War, etc.




posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
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.


I remember reading about this a long time ago but then finding something that disputed it.... I guess one can argue that the Japanese did not in fact manage to kill anyone ( they basically killed themselves by playing with the bomb) but i am not going to bother you with the philosophical implications i am considering.


Thanks for correcting me!

Stellar



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetsetter



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,


Revolution, Civil War, etc.


wtf is wrong with you, we just spend pages and pages of writting to tell you that those wars don't count!!! civil wars are not america against the world, it was south vs. north, and the revolution doesn't count because it was freakin 230 years ago! and it was a revolution not a total war, not america invading britain, it was the US in creation...

i guess if we go by you guys then i can say that most countries of the world are great hero's of wars and know how to fight wars, etc....



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I really do not understand what you are trying to say.

First you said you think American troops have inferior skill because you read it on articles from other countries solders.


I read articles from many soldiers who have been on joint missions with the US soldiers, those soldiers were from countries like Germany, 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



The fact is troops from one nation will think troops from other nations are inferior. Its natural , as I stated earlier US troops think the same things about other nations troops that they have worked with for many reasons including language culture and command differences along national pride.


and i would say the Russians are better trained and probably more durable


And how are they better trained? I have already stated that basic training counts for little when it comes to a skilled soldier / commander and you said that you agreed so how exactly are they better trained?? Care to point out why you think this or is just because of remarks from biased solders from other nations?


troops are not the best trained, and i would say the Russians are better trained and probably more durable


How are they more durable?? are you hinting that Russians are somehow racially superior to US troops???


wtf is wrong with you, we just spend pages and pages of writing to tell you that those wars don't count!!! civil wars are not America against the world, it was south vs. north, and the revolution doesn't count because it was freakin 230 years ago! and it was a revolution not a total war, not america invading britain, it was the US in creation...


WTF is wrong with you???? This is topic is about the Russian military comparisons not trying to prove your US troop bashing statements. The US did not create the revolutionary war...



You say that you think Russia weapons are superior?? How about details and why you feel this way.

You think Russian troops are trained better?? How about some details on their "superior" basic training and how that makes them better.

You think Russian system of command is better?? Then how about some comparisons between their systems of command to that of others and why you feel that makes them better.

This is supposed to be about the Russian Military comparison to other militaries .. How about some FACTUAL information on the Russian military compared to FACTUAL information of other militaries rather than US bashing using hearsay you read on the INTERNET?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heckman
I really do not understand what you are trying to say.

First you said you think American troops have inferior skill because you read it on articles from other countries solders.


I read articles from many soldiers who have been on joint missions with the US soldiers, those soldiers were from countries like Germany, 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



The fact is troops from one nation will think troops from other nations are inferior. Its natural , as I stated earlier US troops think the same things about other nations troops that they have worked with for many reasons including language culture and command differences along national pride.


and i would say the Russians are better trained and probably more durable


And how are they better trained? I have already stated that basic training counts for little when it comes to a skilled soldier / commander and you said that you agreed so how exactly are they better trained?? Care to point out why you think this or is just because of remarks from biased solders from other nations?


troops are not the best trained, and i would say the Russians are better trained and probably more durable


How are they more durable?? are you hinting that Russians are somehow racially superior to US troops???


wtf is wrong with you, we just spend pages and pages of writing to tell you that those wars don't count!!! civil wars are not America against the world, it was south vs. north, and the revolution doesn't count because it was freakin 230 years ago! and it was a revolution not a total war, not america invading britain, it was the US in creation...


WTF is wrong with you???? This is topic is about the Russian military comparisons not trying to prove your US troop bashing statements. The US did not create the revolutionary war...



You say that you think Russia weapons are superior?? How about details and why you feel this way.

You think Russian troops are trained better?? How about some details on their "superior" basic training and how that makes them better.

You think Russian system of command is better?? Then how about some comparisons between their systems of command to that of others and why you feel that makes them better.

This is supposed to be about the Russian Military comparison to other militaries .. How about some FACTUAL information on the Russian military compared to FACTUAL information of other militaries rather than US bashing using hearsay you read on the INTERNET?


look i'm not saying the US military is the worst military in the world, and i'm not saying that the russians are the best, all i'm saying is that many people on this forum keep saying that the russian military is crap, which is not wrong, and no i'm not saying russians are "racially superior" and i say maybe more durable because they might be trained in harsher conditions which makes them not used to comfort, which makes troops more rugged. and i meant the US revolutionary war was the US in creation, meaning that it created the US, and doesn't count as a war of the scale of a ruso-american all out war. and i'm not saying hte abrams takn is nothing compared toa T-90, or that the weapons of the USSR are better, i'm saying that they are not worse than those of the US, and that they're not bad and not functional, etc. as many have said.

basically all i'm saying is that the russian military isn't the crap compared to the US miltary which is ignorance that many people seem to believe...



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   


basically all i'm saying is that the russian military isn't the crap compared to the US miltary which is ignorance that many people seem to believe...


Ok with that I can agree.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   
at last one point we agree on....



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Russia isn't a threat to anyone anymore America put down the Red menace.

Russian equipment Is rusty falling to pieces and wasnt as good as American equipment to start with I don't think any country on earth is concerned with Russia these days and a good thing too.

Iran Your Next



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Russian equipment Is rusty falling to pieces and wasnt as good as American equipment to start with I don't think any country on earth is concerned with Russia these days and a good thing too.



How about some proof for your statements?? Or do you just think this because you heard someone else say it? As of now your statements appear to only be senseless Russia bashing.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Judging Russia's Military capabilities since most of it's top line weapons have never seen actual combat as the U.K. and U.S. have for the most part.
Russian t-90's, top line aircraft and navy have not been tested and proven in combat, no offence to Chechnya. All we have to go on is Russia's old weapon systems being used by smaller countries with inferior tactics, where they continually prove they are no match for current modern military hardware,tactics and strategy.

Russia IMO does have a pretty formidable military. Maintenance and actual combat experience of their military hardware are the main questions regarding them.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
The biggest mistake a nation can make is to underestimate the strength of its strategic enemy (as Russia is to US). Everyone who is saying Russia is decaying militarily is doing just that. If you think Iran has a stronger milirtary than Russia, then you are absolutely ignorant about military.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
seriously, saying Iran your next, and meaning that Iran is stronger than russia is simply ignorant talking. russian equipment was much focused as i have said many times before on numbers, effectiveness, ruggedness, and ease of building, and of course low costs, that's what lets the russians have 30k tanks, while the US has only 8k. and most countries whoa re right now using the old russian weapons, like Iraqi T-72's, are as i have said many times before, very formidable except for all the treachury and corruption that's in those governments. i am from jordan, and i know about those treacheries in the governments and this corruption in the governments of the region. for instance in the wars with israel in the 60's and 70's, many egyptian troops were led into combat with empty clips, especially when jamal abdel naser was in the seat of government, he was a good leader, yet the people around him were very corrupt. now just to say that the governments in that region are not the worst in the world, or that those countries are all crap, which they are not!, i will show you that in the 70's when president sadat was in egypt, no treachuries were there and no corrupt officials, and in fact egypt won the war and took all of sinai back, and other countries got some there share.

my point is that russian weapons were tested while in the hands of unworthy leadership and unskilled tacticians and strategists, and corrupt officials most of all, and that is why they lost, not that American weapons are fully superior. i mean the odds are around 4 tanks in the russian military to 1 in the american military,a dn that is very impressive.

man i mean even if i was the strategist in teh 2nd gulf war for iraq i would've inflcited more damage on teh coalition forces and made probably delayed the fall of baghdad for maybe 4-5 months, at least made the war have meaning, and not have a one month war of loss loss loss and more loss.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by INc2006
... i will show you that in the 70's when president sadat was in egypt, no treachuries were there and no corrupt officials, and in fact egypt won the war and took all of sinai back, and other countries got some there share.


Greetings,

Gonna get a little off topic here.

What war are you taliking about? 1973? en.wikipedia.org...


I think Sadat's kicking out 20,000 Soviet military advisors in 1972 did not help his attack in the least and in fact, probably doomed it to failure.

If you call getting your sneak attack stopped and and having Israeli troops 40 miles from Cairo plus having an entire Army(3rd Egyptian) cut off then yes, I guess they won.

At least the war did lead to the Camp David Accords, so in that way, I guess it was worthwhile. To say they "took back" the Sinai implies that they won it back by military force, that is not the case.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   

man i mean even if i was the strategist in the 2nd gulf war for Iraq i would've inflcited more damage on teh coalition forces and made probably delayed the fall of baghdad for maybe 4-5 months, at least made the war have meaning, and not have a one month war of loss loss loss and more loss


No offense intended but I seriously doubt that!!!

The USAF utterly devastated the Iraqi militaries ability to communicate / coordinate. This meant that most of the time they were taken by total surprise by ground forces.

The USAF also totally devastated their supply systems. You talk about empty clips, no fuel . Well thats one thing that happens when supply lines get cut ( bridges and roads bombed , trucks and supply depots blown up exc exc....) How do you command troops with your genius strategies if you cant talk to them?? How do you know whats coming at you if you don't have Intel ?? How do your troops move around when they run out of fuel???



I personally do not question the quality of Russian fighting equipment. Or the moral of it troops. However I do not think that the form of command that was in place during the cold war would have been very effective in a major conventional conflict against NATO however that has changed ALLOT since then.

People talk about this and about that... What it all comes back to is that Russia ,and the US have possession of the ultimate in warfare technology. The ability to utterly wipe a nation off the face of the earth in a matter of hours. The real deciding factor on a global military scale. After all the Bull%$#@ is cleared out of the way the fact is that RUSSIA still has a massive amount of Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles equipped with THERMO NUCLEAR WARHEADS.. No mater what you think of Russian tanks or Russian guns or Russian planes.. When it comes to those giant life ending rockets , Russia is still a world superpower.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by INc2006
... i will show you that in the 70's when president sadat was in egypt, no treachuries were there and no corrupt officials, and in fact egypt won the war and took all of sinai back, and other countries got some there share.


Greetings,

Gonna get a little off topic here.

What war are you taliking about? 1973? en.wikipedia.org...


I think Sadat's kicking out 20,000 Soviet military advisors in 1972 did not help his attack in the least and in fact, probably doomed it to failure.

If you call getting your sneak attack stopped and and having Israeli troops 40 miles from Cairo plus having an entire Army(3rd Egyptian) cut off then yes, I guess they won.

At least the war did lead to the Camp David Accords, so in that way, I guess it was worthwhile. To say they "took back" the Sinai implies that they won it back by military force, that is not the case.


look, my dad always told me, and my grandparent told me this too, and everyone in my family talked about it, and my friends families, everytime you talked about wars with israeli-arab wars they would say oh they sent the troops with empty clips and took the money that they were supposed to buy ammo with for themesevles, etc etc.

now in the yom-kippur war the egyptians did pretty well while the syrians were annihalated, the egyptians took down that wall of mud the israelies had on the suez canal, you see the goal of that war for egypt was just the crossing of the suez canal, many generals after crossing the suez canal wanted to push for tell aviv, but sadat knowing the limitations of the egyptian military, and knowing that the US was right there gicing material and political support to israel, stopped that attack and started the negotiations. and as you know the Israelis cut off an egyptian army after the cease fire was put into effect which means it was illegal and unexpected, and i think it has a trace of cowardness and it was unneeded. and yes they won by military force the suez canal, sorry for the wrong vocab. up there.

nevertheless, and yes it led to the camp david accords which were actually much better and much more useful to egypt than a war won with israel. after camp david accords, the US had to give Egypt the same ammount of money every year as it gave Israel, and there were many other things that i don't remember. of course a great prize of this war and a great loss for the israelis was a side of the suez canal. before a ship couldn't go into the suez canal, because it risked being shot at by either side, but now egypt has it and gets income from it everytime a ship passes through, so i guess Egypt was the beneficiary in this war, not really israel. except that israel was now more peaceful with countries like jordan and egypt.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by INc2006
and as you know the Israelis cut off an egyptian army after the cease fire was put into effect which means it was illegal and unexpected, and i think it has a trace of cowardness and it was unneeded.


The cutting off of the 3rd Egyptian Army was karma payback for the unexpected sneak attack launched by Egypt. Don't go crying about "that's unfair, unneeded and cowardly and illegal" when you launch a sneak attack on one of your opponenent's most Holy Days. If you go and start a war, those things happen.

I do understand that Sadat probably had to do what he did in order for him to have enough "face" to pursue peace with Israel.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by INc2006
and as you know the Israelis cut off an egyptian army after the cease fire was put into effect which means it was illegal and unexpected, and i think it has a trace of cowardness and it was unneeded.


The cutting off of the 3rd Egyptian Army was karma payback for the unexpected sneak attack launched by Egypt. Don't go crying about "that's unfair, unneeded and cowardly and illegal" when you launch a sneak attack on one of your opponenent's most Holy Days. If you go and start a war, those things happen.

I do understand that Sadat probably had to do what he did in order for him to have enough "face" to pursue peace with Israel.



i ain't crying, btw so wat if they launched an attack on yom kippur, it is a holy holiday, but that was strategic, Israeli troop were on leave the country was in standstill. now you shouldm't go crying telling me oh they attacked israel on the most holy day in israel. President sadat literally needed to reform egypt, but reforms without beating israel would've resulted in probably a coup, so he went beat israel to cancel out what happened in the 6 days war. and actually even in 1973 the equipment the egyptians used which were russian actually worked great yet the thing that led to a set back, was this attack that some general did which it was known it would be a total failure. but nevertheless i blieve the most prized thing of that war was the camp david accords. and also, you see after the 6 days war, Israelis felt rather superior and that those countries around could not touch her, and it was good for both sides that with this war they dound that strategy and tactics can very well beat tehre advanced equipment for the US.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shamanator
Russia isn't a threat to anyone anymore America put down the Red menace.


When did they do that?


Russian equipment Is rusty falling to pieces


How much and of how much relative significance are those weapon systems? What about the woodpecker grid and Russian weather engineering over North America?


and wasnt as good as American equipment to start with


"Good' is not a word one can use as equipment reflects doctrine and the local industrial base and economics far more than it does what your up against.


I don't think any country on earth is concerned with Russia these days and a good thing too.

Iran Your Next


When your as strong as Russia is you can well afford to play the weakling; we can see how much playing the strongman is helping America these days. The more power one has the darker the shade you can rule the world from.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

How much and of how much relative significance are those weapon systems? What about the woodpecker grid and Russian weather engineering over North America?


You can't go saying those things and not elaborate? I know nothing of those things, can you shed some more light on them?

Thanks



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarXHow much and of how much relative significance are those weapon systems? What about the woodpecker grid and Russian weather engineering over North America?


Lol Scaler Em weapons lol those don't exist!!!!





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join