It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is China strong enough to fight Russia?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Kenshin,

BMPs, BTRs etc are APCs, not MBTs. The last thing on that list that is a tank is the PT76 amphibian.


Remember he said armored vehicles.

20,000,000 Reserves?!Thats 20 million people you know.China does not have that much people in the army,even though their biggest advantage is the size of their army.




posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Sorry, not reading carefully enough. Should stop trying to multi-task!



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 01:30 AM
link   
um .... I never said they were MBT's


[edit on 6-11-2004 by Kenshin]



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 01:47 AM
link   
No, you said armoured vehicles, adding information. I read the list but not the qualification and responded to the original post.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I'm having a hard time believing that Russia has that many reserve soldiers and over 40,000 MBTs. In conventional battle a tank would steamroll most infantry without proper anti-armor support. According to the World Almanac 2004 Russia has a population of 143,246,000 people. This means that a pretty sizable part of their population is in the military reserves.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Is China strong enough to fight Russia? Are you serious?

Is Israel strong enough to fight China?

This isn't the Middle Ages anymore. We lack true warrious and true battles in this Modern World. It doesn't take strength to order a Nuclear attack, it takes a coward to do it.

Today, any country can fight any country because of technology.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   
No country would use nukes in modern warfare unless it was a last ditched effort to save themselves from total annialation. Look at the US, we get plenty of flack for developing them, and we didn't even use one. The country that would use nukes in a modern war theatre would be condemed by more or less all other nations, leading to a world that, assuming they win, would be very isolated condemed, and restricted by all other nations; as such, the threat of nuclear weapons exchanges falls drasticly.

Secondly the geography and structure of Russia is such that most of their larger cities (moscow, St. Petersburg, and Stalengrad) are in the west, meaning either nation would have to cross the frozen tundra known as Russia to get anywhere. This creates a logistic nighmare because many of the MBTs and logistical transports run on Diesel fule, which 'gels' at -9 C, meaning it will be very dificult to move a large force deep enough into Russia to attack any main city.

Because of this, the main weapons will be med. range ICBM's (which there are not many of because of random treadies) and planes. Because we have already stated Russia has more technology, their superior aerobtic ability will lead them to victory

Trough these deductions, If there was a war between China and Russia, Russia would win.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Thats an excellent point. Russia would have an advantage in that example since it has air bases in Siberia, this means Russia would be able to fly in all of the stuff they need. The problem is that there are quite a few nuclear weapons stationed east of the Ural Mountains, this means if China could capture it they would also capture lots of nukes and aircraft. Also Siberia it's self is full of natural resources. So if there was a war between the to China might just take Siberia and then call it a day (not that Russia would allow that).



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1031
Look at the US, we get plenty of flack for developing them, and we didn't even use one.


The US used two of them, the only time any have ever been used in a war.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Yes, but the modern scheme of warfare I am refering to was the end of WWII, that is where the Air Force powers came into realization, where Heavy artilery and Tanks came into effectiveness, and obviously where nukes were invented and used, SINCE THIS POINT (that is to say during korea, Vietnam, Iraq (1&2), and any of the smaller scrimishes (as in somolia, cuba, niquiraga( forgive the spelling)) We have NEVER used ANY type of Nuclear weapon, stratigic, or large, in Any fighting scenario.

At the time Before and During WWII no one knew what a nuke was, and hence could not condem us when we used it, but after WWII it can be seen in times (such as McAurther in korea) that Nuclear weapons were not used because of the social repercussions against us, or any nation that used them.

Sorry I wasn't clear on stating when modern warfare began, so I guess my new statement would be

SINCE the world has come to the realization of the destructive power of the nuclear weapon, it has collectively decided to condem any nation for it's use of nuclear weapons, HENCE leading to a time, where many nations have them, but the social repercussions of their use vastly loutweigh their usefulness.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Oh my bad you are correct though we did get close a few times. Even during the Korean War we had 9 of them flown over for MacArthur's contingency plan.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Yes but the note was Nukes were never used, We have been close, and For many years we had the 'fail -safe' bomber squads flying nukes, But we never used them, too many social consequences. Back to topic, a war between Russia and China would not involve nukes for the above reasons.



Also Siberia it's self is full of natural resources


Oh, and Siberia is a land full of resources, true, but not much food, and
'How does a massive chineese army travel? on it's belly'
no army can survive w/o food, and having such a long logistics line through a freezing Russia would be impossible for the chineese, as well as very vulnerable to attack. (that was one of the reasons Vietnam was lost, they had a hidden protected, always changing logistics line) The Russian military also has massive amounts of oil through its soviet connections arround the black sea, such as the Georgia regon. China would starve itself for resources, especialy food and oil, and would eventualy die out.

Without the possibility of a nuclear exchange, the chineese would starve themselves to death by lack of resources, and would hence be defeated by the russians.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Ah I forgot all about General Winter that has beat armies even Russia could not. The cold can often kill more people then the weapons used by the people you are fighting.

That would a plus in Russia's favor



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 07:55 PM
link   
wow. CHina has no frigates? That is the biggest BS I have ever heard but yeah I think RUssia would win but one thing I need to ask, I thought the total GDP of russia is like 188 billion USD, they spend 60 billion on the military?



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by COWlan
wow. CHina has no frigates? That is the biggest BS I have ever heard but yeah I think RUssia would win but one thing I need to ask, I thought the total GDP of russia is like 188 billion USD, they spend 60 billion on the military?


Sorry typo on the frigates, China actually has 42 frigates but no Cruisers, I accidently put down the number for frigates under cruisers, my bad. As for the 60 billion dollar defense budget, I know thats true. I just checked Russias GDP, it's USD 1.4 trillion, for referance purposes the US's GDP is 10.4 trillion, while China's is 5.7 USD. Per capita China has 4,400 USD. The US is $37,600 per capita, while Russia's is 9,300.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1031
We have NEVER used ANY type of Nuclear weapon, stratigic, or large, in Any fighting scenario.


Strategic nukes are the big ones. Tactical (or battlefield) nukes are the small ones. Strategy - your overall design for victory. Tactics - how you fight each battle to get there.

Not sure about that figure for Russia's population. That would make it about half of the US, is that correct?

Is Russia's military still organised along the A,B,C system. A divisions are regular, ready-to-go frontline troops through to C divisions, little more than inactive reserves?

Do the People's Auxilliary Forces (or whatever they're called) still train and conduct defensive exercises with the PLA?

Don't forget, in 1942 the Germans' deisel froze, the Soviets' did not.

On which note, in 1940 General Winter lent his tactical advantages to the Finns, not the Russians. The Russians learnt their lessons, the Germans, who should have been watching a lot more closely, did not. It snows in China too, presumably they have some cold-weather specialists.

As for supply lines, I believe Russia has a single railway line out that way, goes to Vladivostok, from memory.

[edit on 7-11-2004 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 02:37 AM
link   
The Chinese Attack on the Russian garrison on the disputed island of Demansky in 1969 led to a massive Russian Counter-Attack, in which the Chinese suffered large numbers of casualties. China also learned a severe lesson in just how far its army had fallen behind that of the Superpowers since the Korean War of 1950-53. By 1971, the Russians had 44 divisions, 500,000 men, and over 1,800 main battle tanks close to China's vulnerable northen frontier. Therefore, it is not surprising that China deploys twelve Category A & B armies in defense of its main population centers, its industrial heartland, and massive road and rail infrastructure.

I recon the Situation is still remotely hot, and could still be the spark of a major war. Forces are still deployed at this point, but not in the massive numbers of 1971. Personally I don't think China stands against Russia, Russia has EXSTENSIVE EXPERIENCE with fighting in the snow. There airforce is more than capable of destroying anything the Chinese can put in the air. There strategic triad is massively more powerful than that of its Chinese counterpart.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 02:58 AM
link   
hmmm, yes they have very few rail ways accross syberia, but I was not implying a war in syberia, but rather in order for China to be victorious they would have to cross a frozen wasteland with a very long logistics line powered by vehicles that at night the deisel would freeze.

The Chineeses' best advantage, it has been said, is their massive numbers in the main military forces, but people are limited, and to take an army that large accross Siberia would be suicide, and they lack the amphibious means to deploy them by ship to the other few parts of Russia that boarder a water way.

The air force bases in Siberia seem to be suplied just fine right now, so it will work fine for russia.

Nepolian when he attacked russia found it was impossible to survive with no food, given that was partly b/c the Russian's scorched earth policy, But that still doesn't replace the fact, nothing grows in Siberia.

Because of these factors, the experienced (that is with the extreme cold) Russian Forces will be able to just pull back and wait while the limited logistics line slows the chineese army and the Russian Air core, cold weather, and lack of food destroys the chineese.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 05:18 AM
link   

I'm having a hard time believing that Russia has that many reserve soldiers and over 40,000 MBTs. In conventional battle a tank would steamroll most infantry without proper anti-armor support. According to the World Almanac 2004 Russia has a population of 143,246,000 people. This means that a pretty sizable part of their population is in the military reserves.


Well theres military draft for all 18 years old, of course expentionals if bribe or some other reasons, probably education.
In Finland its written on constitution that every man after 18 years have to serve in army (thanks to Soviet invasion on WWII) or other option is to be in civil service that last longer, for Russia Army last longer than Finland, but i think system is basically similar.
Every 18-47 years old men are reserve if war occur, so calculate from population and number of men between that age you find a lot reserves and i think Russia its 2 years or more service time so they all got some real basic experience so cant call total amateur army.
US has mercanery army that is all about economy and doesnt provide even a 1% of citizens military experience.
Why would country that doesnt go offense even need maintain big army while it has all men ready to step on arms to defend their homes.

I dont think Diesel is problem, we use different diesel in north for cars, why couldnt country buy it for army purposes as well.

Siberia is full of resources and only waiting to be mined, Russians just doesnt have modern enough equipment to do the job and its cost / economic benefit doesnt currently serve well, while theres many other spots where same resources can be get more easily, also dont forget north russian tundras got large oil reserves also, Russia isnt even close depend on outside Oil.

[edit on 7-11-2004 by Observer83]

[edit on 7-11-2004 by Observer83]



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 05:33 AM
link   
there is the same policy in Switzerland, and used to be in Prussia



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join