Jump to content

Overestimated US might/Underestimated Russian

MADtank

By MADtank
in Military Current Events

 Share

Recommended Posts

MADtank Crunchie

MADtank

Posted
Posted (edited)

Is the US really that great in weapons design and achievements? or are they really only good but overestimated?

 

The USA today is the only real superpower. Russia has a bad economy which makes them unable to fund their military and weapons designers. This are only two of the reasons why most people underestimate Russia. People tend to dismiss Russian weapons as good but less impressive than US' own.

 

Let's compare them by category

 

INFANTRY/SPECAIL FORCES

 

The US marines are one of the best trained regular troops in the world. Russia is not known for its standard troops but well respected for it's special force especially the Spetsnaz Alpha team which some consider more elite than the US navy seals or Green Berets. Time magazine called them "perfect killers"

 

AFVs:

 

The US has the Abrams tank and Russia has the Black Eagle which isn't yet on their arsenal because of lack of funds. The Black eagle has a radically new design (very low profile, small turret, improved crew safety) which could revolutionize tanks if it enters service. The US Abrams' image has been overly enhanced because of what? fighting obsolete Russian t-72s? It is no doubt one of the best tanks today and that's proven but they are not really that great.

 

The Russian BMPs are the best infantry vehicles.

 

MISSLES/ANTI-MISSLES:

 

One of the deadliest weapons unparalleled by any nation is the US smart bomb. Russia has pretty good precision-guided munitions but nothing close to the smart bomb.

The Russian S-300V is the unrivaled ADM system. The US patriot missle can't even destroy a scud effectively.

 

NAVAL WEAPONS:

 

The US had a formidable navy during WWII to counter the German u-boats and battleships. The navy developed into today's best. But look at Russia. They never had a strong navy before the cold war. Their Baltic fleet was annihilated during the Russo-japanese war and during WWII they didn't have a navy comparable to Germany, the US or Britain and yet after a few years they had the largest navy. Then they made the Akula. The US may have the Ohio, trident, seawolf and sturgeon but none of them can locate an Akula navigating at tactical speeds. The Russians also have the quietest sub - the kilo class. The US aircraft carriers seem to be venerated across the globe but the Akula is sometimes called the "aircraft carrier killer".

 

HELICOPTERS

 

The US Commanche, Cobra and Apache are well known. The Kamov KA-52 Hokum and the MIL Mi-28 Havoc are not but they are parallel to their US counterparts. The Ka-52 is even sometimes considered to be the deadliest.

 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

 

Russia produced the most powerful hydrogen bomb in history. They also made the space bomb. The US has counters to this threat but so does Russia.

 

AIRCRAFTS

 

You probably heard of the stealth capabilities of the US but never on Russia's radio-absorbent material or plasma stealth. You probably know something about the F-15, F-16 and F-18 but only a little about the MiG-29, Su-27 or the Su-37. So you'd probably conclude that the US is way ahead in air superiority. Who could blame you? You've watch Hollywood movies about american fighters shooting down MiGs and every military shows or documentaries you see are about US-made fighters.

 

In reality Russia rivals the US. On some aspects it even surpasses the US. India is known to prefer Russian fighters to US ones. F-15s weren't as impressive as the Su-27. The MiG-29 is famous for its manueverabilty and so its a popular choice for many Asian countries hoping the strengthen their airforce.

 

In history Russia has produced some great aircrafts. The IL-2 sturmovik in WWII is one. they also made the MiG-25 the best at its time. The US also produced the F-4 phantom and the Tomcat which you probably heard of.

 

And also Russia made the best ejection seat.

 

INFORMATION WARFARE

 

Cyberspace is a battlefield where the US can easily defeat anyone. I don't think Russia's good at these. But then again info warfare isn't imporant at this time.

 

SPACE

 

Who won the space race? Ok maybe the US. But here I'm talkng about military satellites and space stations.

 

The US launched the Skylabs. They were made for scientific research not military purposes. Russia launched 7 salyut space stations and mir which you probably know. But here's something you probably didn't know - the Almaz military space stations. They were meant for reconnaissance of the earth focusing on Russia and it's immediate surroundings.

 

Russia also launched sevral killer satellites able to fire shrapnels at other space vehicles. Also remember the space bomb.

 

 

REASONS WHY MOST PEOPLE OVERESTIMATE THE USA

1. They are the only real superpower today

 

2. America's powerful influence.

Hollywood movies like Behind Enemy Lines, Black Hawk Down, Green Berets and others that showcase US capalities. And all sorts of media that seem inject peoples' minds with chemicals that tell them that America's the best.

 

3. Their victory in WWII, korean war, the Gulf wars

 

REASONS WHY MOST PEOPLE UNDERESTIMATE RUSSIA

 

1. Their poor economy

 

2. Their incompetence in Chechnya

Russia withdrew from Chechnya during the first war and suddenly Russia's strong-armed-force image faded. But a few realize that Russia wasn't in a good condition to fight the war and besides Chechnya's terrain is a perfect place for hit-and-run guerilla fighters.

 

3. The Afghan War

Afghanistan is another battlefield in favor of locals. The Soviet union withrew in the end just like the Americans in Vietnam. The difference is the Afghan civil war lasted for 8 years and in my opinion that's pretty good considering the guerilla enemies and the vast land. And also it was in maintaining their control where they failed but conquering afghanistan's capital took them only 45 minutes thanks to the Spetsnaz.

3. The Gulf War

Russia supplied weapons to Iraq. Iraq followed Russia's armed force structure. When the US came they destroyed Iraq's tank divisions which consisted of mostly Russian-made t-72s. MiG-29s under Iraqi pilots didn't do good also.

 

 

 

 

 

Think about these: What if Russia gets used to the democratic form of government and then manages a good economy? They'll have enough money for their army, navy, airfoce, space programs and military researches. The Black Eagle as their main battle tanks, The Hokum and Havoc produced in large quantities, the Akulas become operational, maybe a continuation of the killer satellite projects.

 

So do you still think the US is great considering that it has the largest budget for military while Russia's Armed forces are almost dead and still The USA finds it hard to be way ahead?

Edited by MADtank
Kensuke Crew

Kensuke

Posted
Posted

I agree. This thread is dumb and serves as flame bait. I humbly ask the almighty MODERATOR stike it before it gets any worse.

 

- John

MADtank Crunchie

MADtank

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
I agree. This thread is dumb and serves as flame bait. I humbly ask the almighty MODERATOR stike it before it gets any worse.

 

- John

315440[/snapback]

 

 

Seems like you've got no other statements to say..... :)

 

What do you mean strike it. Oh so this forums are US fanatics, right?

Edited by MADtank
Brasidas Crew

Brasidas

Posted
Posted (edited)
Seems like you've got no other statements to say.....  :)

 

What do you mean strike it. Oh so this forums are US fanatics, right?

315441[/snapback]

 

Actually, most people understand the shortcomings of the US, as well as it's strengths. The thing is, like most fanboys, you concentrated on combat arms and toys, while ignoring anything on logistics, saying little on training, and nothing regarding respective C3I capabilities/doctrine. It's somewhat of a dead give away as to what level you're capable of understanding and it's far below the forum norm.

Edited by Brasidas
Marek Tucan Crew

Marek Tucan

Posted
Posted

I expect people with more knowledge than me jumping on this, but then I shall also try... ;)

 

 

 

INFANTRY/SPECAIL FORCES

 

The US marines are one of the best trained regular troops in the world. Russia is not known for its standard troops but well respected for it's special force especially the Spetsnaz Alpha team which some consider more elite than the US navy seals or Green Berets. Time magazine called them "perfect killers"

Oh yes, they've performed excellent f@ckup in that theatre, didn't they? Perfect killer doesn't a perfect spec ops soldier make, although it is an important part.

 

 

AFVs:

 

The US has the Abrams tank and Russia has the Black Eagle which isn't yet on their arsenal because of lack of funds. The Black eagle has a radically new design (very low profile, small turret, improved crew safety) which could revolutionize tanks if it enters service. The US Abrams' image has been overly enhanced because of what? fighting obsolete Russian t-72s? It is no doubt one of the best tanks today and that's proven but they are not really that great.

 

The Russian BMPs are the best infantry vehicles.

It is logical Abrams and other tanks are continually upgraded to keep the edge. How would Black Eagle be a revolution? It is just a revolution in Russia as it divides the crew and the ammunition. Something Abrams family has for quite a long time already.

 

BMP's the best? Based on what? Widest variety of weapons doesn't make the best vehicle, it could be even bad for the design (too complex, too expensive...)... such design jokes as fuel cells in the rear doors or need to crawl from the troop compartment over a hot engine aside...

 

MISSLES/ANTI-MISSLES:

 

One of the deadliest weapons unparalleled by any nation is the US smart bomb. Russia has pretty good precision-guided munitions but nothing close to the smart bomb.

The Russian S-300V is the unrivaled ADM system. The US patriot missle can't even destroy a scud effectively.

 

You mean that the PAC-1, designed to fight aircrafts, didn't destroy Scuds effectively. Well, it may be surprising, but the US have accepted variants of Patriot designed to attack (and hit) ballistical missiles as well.

 

NAVAL WEAPONS:

 

The US had a formidable navy during WWII to counter the German u-boats and battleships. The navy developed into today's best. But look at Russia. They never had a strong navy before the cold war. Their Baltic fleet was annihilated during the Russo-japanese war and during WWII they didn't have a navy comparable to Germany, the US or Britain and yet after a few years they had the largest navy. Then they made the Akula. The US may have the Ohio, trident, seawolf and sturgeon but none of them can locate an Akula navigating at tactical speeds. The Russians also have the quietest sub - the kilo class. The US aircraft carriers seem to be venerated across the globe but the Akula is sometimes called the "aircraft carrier killer".

 

Seems you're mixing apples and oranges here. Sturgeon was much sooner design than Akula and by the time Akula entered service there were already improved Los Angeles class subs. Ohio+Trident combination wasn't meant to go hunting subs in case you've missed it. But even the mighty Akula wasn't able to track Ohios with mch success. OTOH Los Angeles subs were able to reliably track Soviet SSBN's. Btw some support to the claim the US subs cannot locate Akula on tactical speed? As for Kilo being the quietest, again, sources ? (except its designers)? What about Upholder class or German SSK's? Oh and btw the "CVN killer" was Oscar, not Akula.

 

HELICOPTERS

 

The US Commanche, Cobra and Apache are well known. The Kamov KA-52 Hokum and the MIL Mi-28 Havoc are not but they are parallel to their US counterparts. The Ka-52 is even sometimes considered to be the deadliest.

Again, sources? Besides, how many Mi-28's and Ka-52's out there in service? How many are ordered by some other country? But look at these crappy Cobras and Apaches :oP

 

 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

 

Russia produced the most powerful hydrogen bomb in history. They also made the space bomb. The US has counters to this threat but so does Russia.

Germans were planning to make the largest tank in history. What would be its value?

 

AIRCRAFTS

 

You probably heard of the stealth capabilities of the US but never on Russia's radio-absorbent material or plasma stealth. You probably know something about the F-15, F-16 and F-18 but only a little about the MiG-29, Su-27 or the Su-37. So you'd probably conclude that the US is way ahead in air superiority. Who could blame you? You've watch Hollywood movies about american fighters shooting down MiGs and every military shows or documentaries you see are about US-made fighters.

Care to back up your claims? Btw no, I don't watch much Hollywood movies.

 

In reality Russia rivals the US. On some aspects it even surpasses the US. India is known to prefer Russian fighters to US ones. F-15s weren't as impressive as the Su-27. The MiG-29 is famous for its manueverabilty and so its a popular choice for many Asian countries hoping the strengthen their airforce.

It's a popular choice mostly because its price and because Russia isn't so careful in deciding who to sell stuff.

 

In history Russia has produced some great aircrafts. The IL-2 sturmovik in WWII is one. they also made the MiG-25 the best at its time. The US also produced the F-4 phantom and the Tomcat which you probably heard of.

Care to back that up? Yes, Sturmovik was a great ground attack aircraft. But so was P-38 Lightning. But Lightning can also act as fighter. By the way why is it so that one of most favourite aircraft of Soviet Pilots was the Airacobra? Where did you get that Su-25 was the best? I, for one, would put the Hog over Su-25 in ground attack capabilities, and Hog was four years sooner.

 

And also Russia made the best ejection seat.

Might be, but then I'd like to see some evidence and not just claim.

 

INFORMATION WARFARE

 

Cyberspace is a battlefield where the US can easily defeat anyone. I don't think Russia's good at these. But then again info warfare isn't imporant at this time.

 

...While most expert opinions I've been reading claim the info warfare is becoming more and more important...

 

SPACE

 

Who won the space race? Ok maybe the US. But here I'm talkng about military satellites and space stations.

 

The US launched the Skylabs. They were made for scientific research not military purposes. Russia launched 7 salyut space stations and mir which you probably know. But here's something you probably didn't know - the Almaz military space stations. They were meant for reconnaissance of the earth focusing on Russia and it's immediate surroundings.

The Almaz military stations were covered under the Salyut programme. Besides why would you need a manned recon station when you have unmanned satellites doing the same work much cheaper?

 

Russia also launched sevral killer satellites able to fire shrapnels at other space vehicles. Also remember the space bomb.

 

You think such projects didn't exist in the USA?

 

REASONS WHY MOST PEOPLE OVERESTIMATE THE USA

1. They are the only real superpower today

 

 

2. America's powerful influence.

Hollywood movies like Behind Enemy Lines, Black Hawk Down, Green Berets and others that showcase US capalities. And all sorts of media that seem inject peoples' minds with chemicals that tell them that America's the best.

As I've said, I don't watch movies too often.

 

3. Their victory in WWII, korean war, the Gulf wars

So generally people think they're the best cause they've proven to be the best? Then I won't call it overestimation.

 

REASONS WHY MOST PEOPLE UNDERESTIMATE RUSSIA

 

1. Their poor economy

 

2. Their incompetence in Chechnya

Russia withdrew from Chechnya during the first war and suddenly Russia's strong-armed-force image faded. But a few realize that Russia wasn't in a good condition to fight the war and besides Chechnya's terrain is a perfect place for hit-and-run guerilla fighters.

 

3. The Afghan War

Afghanistan is another battlefield in favor of locals. The Soviet union withrew in the end just like the Americans in Vietnam. The difference is the Afghan civil war lasted for 8 years and in my opinion that's pretty good considering the guerilla enemies and the vast land. And also it was in maintaining their control where they failed but conquering afghanistan's capital took them only 45 minutes thanks to the Spetsnaz.

When you start war by a complete surprise attack (moreover against someone who thinks he's your ally), you can except you'll gain much in a short time. I won't take this as a proof of vast superiority of the Spetznaz.

 

 

3. The Gulf War

Russia supplied weapons to Iraq. Iraq followed Russia's armed force structure. When the US came they destroyed Iraq's tank divisions which consisted of mostly Russian-made t-72s. MiG-29s under Iraqi pilots didn't do good also.

So MiG-29 is superior but didn't manage to do a thing?

 

Think about these: What if Russia gets used to the democratic form of government and then manages a good economy? They'll have enough money for their army, navy, airfoce, space programs and military researches. The Black Eagle as their main battle tanks, The Hokum and Havoc produced in large quantities, the Akulas become operational, maybe a continuation of the killer satellite projects.

that's a bit big IF IMHO.

 

So do you still think the US is great considering that it has the largest budget for military while Russia's Armed forces are almost dead and still The USA finds it hard to be way ahead?

315427[/snapback]

 

Again, some evidence it is hard to hold ahead of Russia? Not only USA are managing it IMHO.

Mk 1 Crew

Mk 1

Posted
Posted

Are you back again? Can't you find any other sandboxes to mess in?

 

-Mark 1

MADtank Crunchie

MADtank

Posted
  • Author
Posted
You mean that the PAC-1, designed to fight aircrafts, didn't destroy Scuds effectively. Well, it may be surprising, but the US have accepted variants of Patriot designed to attack (and hit) ballistical missiles as well.
http://www.enemyforces.com/missiles/s300v.htm

 

You think such projects didn't exist in the USA?

 

Yeah maybe but not as successful as the Russians.

... Oh I forgot to mention the Buran similar to the space shuttle but with military capabilities.

 

Seems you're mixing apples and oranges here. Sturgeon was much sooner design than Akula and by the time Akula entered service there were already improved Los Angeles class subs. Ohio+Trident combination wasn't meant to go hunting subs in case you've missed it. But even the mighty Akula wasn't able to track Ohios with mch success. OTOH Los Angeles subs were able to reliably track Soviet SSBN's. Btw some support to the claim the US subs cannot locate Akula on tactical speed? As for Kilo being the quietest, again, sources ? (except its designers)? What about Upholder class or German SSK's? Oh and btw the "CVN killer" was Oscar, not Akula.
kilo class

 

As for the Akula I've read a book by Tom Clancy saying "no US sub could readily locate an Akula at tactical speed".

 

Oh yes, they've performed excellent f@ckup in that theatre, didn't they? Perfect killer doesn't a perfect spec ops soldier make, although it is an important part

 

Their were a lot of hostages in the theatre. The Spetsnaz just pumped in sarin gas to incapacitate everyone in the theatre then moved in to finish the terrorists. Many hostages died because of the gas which was not expected.

 

 

BMP's the best? Based on what
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...ground/m2a0.htm

 

Might be, but then I'd like to see some evidence and not just claim

 

The ejection seat's designation is K-36DM. I've watched it an NGC documentary. It locks the pilot in place then projects him to a safe altitude and releases a parachute. And all that happens in less than 3 seconds.

 

Germans were planning to make the largest tank in history. What would be its value
The USA and the SU didn't really made nuclear missles for good reasons. They made them to show the world that they can make powerful weapons. And besides, Russia's knowledge on h-bombs are not just for big ones. I've watched in CNN a report on very small H-bombs with very deadly effects.

 

So MiG-29 is superior but didn't manage to do a thing?

 

They were piloted by Iraqis. I've read on the net about US fighters chasing MiG-29s but couldn't shoot them down. I can't remeber the source but I'll try to find it.

 

It's a popular choice mostly because its price and because Russia isn't so careful in deciding who to sell stuff
MiGs- more manuevarable, smaller, more agile and cheaper.

 

Where did you get that Su-25 was the best?

 

 

http://www.geocities.com/siafdu/foxbat.html

Marek Tucan Crew

Marek Tucan

Posted
Posted
http://www.enemyforces.com/missiles/s300v.htm

Yeah maybe but not as successful as the Russians.

 

PAC-3 was already successfully combat-tested. Unless the S-300 is combat tested in similar circumstances, all claims of its superiority are just that - claims.

 

... Oh I forgot to mention the Buran similar to the space shuttle but with military capabilities.

Space Shuttle had military capabilities as well - depends just what will you load into the cargo bay. And neither the soviets nor Americans have had a developped shuttle-based weapons system unless you count the laser cannons in "Moonraker" :P

 

kilo class

 

As for the Akula I've read a book by Tom Clancy saying "no US sub could readily locate an Akula at tactical speed".

 

It writes there "One of the quietest" (I mean in the article, not just in the headline). This means as far as I can understand English that there are other equally silent sub designs.

As far as Clancy goes, he's a fiction writer and his informations are not-so-reliable. For example what's his view of "tactical speed"? 5 knots or 20?

 

Their were a lot of hostages in the theatre. The Spetsnaz just pumped in sarin gas to incapacitate everyone in the theatre then moved in to finish the terrorists. Many hostages died because of the gas which was not expected.

So this means the Alfa group is so super duper it didn't take into account what would their action do to the hostages? And isn't rescue of hostages principal task of such mission? Doesn't seem to be such great result.

 

 

1. "was considered to be one of the best IFV's" is not so hard in period no other country operates them. If you're with an assault rifle in a CQB battle with guys with submachineguns you can be proud you have the best assault rifle in place :P

2. Their performance in 1973 wasn't all that stunning, rather contrary. Atleast as judged by opinions of Israelis who were fighting them.

 

The ejection seat's designation is K-36DM. I've watched it an NGC documentary. It locks the pilot in place then projects him to a safe altitude and releases a parachute. And all that happens in less than 3 seconds.

ACES II from 1970's releases parachute in one second (Mode 1 - 0-0 or slow speeds/low altitudes) ;)

 

The USA and the SU didn't really made nuclear missles for good reasons. They made them to show the world that they can make powerful weapons. And besides, Russia's knowledge on h-bombs are not just for big ones. I've watched in CNN a report on very small H-bombs with very deadly effects.

Any H-bomb has very deadly effect and US are producing small thermonuclear warheads for cruise missiles etc. as well, where's the technology gap? Besides your point was the Russians have built the largest one - but largest doesn't neccessarily mean better or more advanced. For example electroniccircuits of MiG-25 were larger than those of F-15 :lol:

 

They were piloted by Iraqis. I've read on the net about US fighters chasing MiG-29s but couldn't shoot them down. I can't remeber the source but I'll try to find it.

And was that caused by MiG's superior performance or by rules of engagement?

 

MiGs- more manuevarable, smaller, more agile and cheaper.

 

Depends with what it is compared. Our pilots, even those with experience with MiG-29, are praising the Gripen more.

 

 

Are you aware this isn't Su-25 Frogfoot but MiG-25 Foxbat? Besides, all that panic about its strenght lasted just until Belenko's MiG was available for examination and before it was found the panic was based on several wrong assumptions incl. that Mach 3.2 speed.

MADtank Crunchie

MADtank

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
PAC-3 was already successfully combat-tested. Unless the S-300 is combat tested in similar circumstances, all claims of its superiority are just that - claims.
It was actually proven in an experiment.

http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/...ges/29-1858.asp

 

So this means the Alfa group is so super duper it didn't take into account what would their action do to the hostages? And isn't rescue of hostages principal task of such mission? Doesn't seem to be such great result

 

The Spetsnaz are known for their brutality. They once infiltrated the Soviet embassy in Beirut after terrorists captured the building. The captured all of the terrorists and beheaded one then sent his decapitated head to the terrorists leader. They don't really care much about hostages. Their main priority is often killing the enemy.

 

ACES II from 1970's releases parachute in one second (Mode 1 - 0-0 or slow speeds/low altitudes)
Never heard of it but if its US made its probably the type of ejection seat where the aircraft's cockpit must be destroyed for it to eject. This type takes too much time.

And the US airforce reportedly wants a piece of the k-36d. Again thats from the NGC docu.

 

Space Shuttle had military capabilities as well - depends just what will you load into the cargo bay. And neither the soviets nor Americans have had a developped shuttle-based weapons system unless you count the laser cannons in "Moonraker

 

Yeah maybe but the Buran was more advanced in many ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran

 

And aslo in another NGC docu, the Buran is said to have the ability to fire missles at altitudes where it is vulnerable but can immediately rise higher to heights radar or missles can't reach.

 

Are you aware this isn't Su-25 Frogfoot but MiG-25 Foxbat? Besides, all that panic about its strenght lasted just until Belenko's MiG was available for examination and before it was found the panic was based on several wrong assumptions incl. that Mach 3.2 speed.
Its your mistake. I said the "MiG-25 was the best for a period of time" and you replied "where did you get that Su-25 is the best" :)

 

And was that caused by MiG's superior performance or by rules of engagement?

 

hmm. As far as I know the US fighters' objectives were to destroy the few MIG-29s Iraq has and they havn't - not even one.

Edited by MADtank
toysoldier Crew

toysoldier

Posted
Posted (edited)
Seems like you've got no other statements to say.....  :)

 

What do you mean strike it. Oh so this forums are US fanatics, right?

315441[/snapback]

 

two words: plasma stealth.

pretty much gives away the low qualifications of the tirade.

even i know that.

 

The Spetsnaz are known for their brutality. They once infiltrated the Soviet embassy in Beirut after terrorists captured the building. The captured all of the terrorists and beheaded one then sent his decapitated head to the terrorists leader. They don't really care much about hostages. Their main priority is often killing the enemy.

315511[/snapback]

 

i bet you try to be Spetnatz in RPGs, right? i do too. ;)

Edited by toysoldier
Old Tanker Crew

Old Tanker

Posted
Posted

One conclusion I'm drawing from recent postings is that Spetsnas is nearly a generic term .

 

What Tony Evans posted contains major factors to be considered. Length of service , experience and logistics capabilities have to be considered.

 

The difference between a Russian with 1 years average length of service and a American with 8 is advantage American .

Just as such an example would be in competitive sports.

George Newbill Crew

George Newbill

Posted
Posted

Rather than go item by item let me say this.

 

Infantry, the best anywhere on earth is the US Army Rangers.

 

Tanks, goes to the Soviets, not always better machines, but biger numbers and stratagy & tatics to make best use of them. While western tanks were often marginally better one for one where the smoke cleared the Red Army would be in France.

 

Navy: USN.

 

Air: USAF.

 

Marines: USMC.

 

Missiles: Don't know, very glad that I don't.

 

The Russians are underfunded and that one problem undercuts what was a superpower.

superfractal Crew

superfractal

Posted
Posted
Rather than go item by item let me say this.

 

Infantry, the best anywhere on earth is the US Army Rangers.

EDIT

(Your not counting the royal marine commandoes right? Because everybody knows there the best! :P  :P  :P  :P )

315523[/snapback]

 

seriously though this is a good flame thread. lets keep it going i need to be entertained.

Marek Tucan Crew

Marek Tucan

Posted
Posted
It was actually proven in an experiment.

http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/...ges/29-1858.asp

Things tested during experiments often fail in the field.

 

The Spetsnaz are known for their brutality. They once infiltrated the Soviet embassy in Beirut after terrorists captured the building. The captured all of the terrorists and beheaded one then sent his decapitated head to the terrorists leader. They don't really care much about hostages. Their main priority is often killing the enemy.

Goal of counter-terrorrist units is usually rescue of hostages. If this goal fails, the unit fails.

 

Never heard of it but if its US made its probably the type of ejection seat where the aircraft's cockpit must be destroyed for it to eject. This type takes too much time.

And the US airforce reportedly wants a piece of the k-36d. Again thats from the NGC docu.

so one second from initiation is too long but three is OK? :rolleyes:

 

Yeah maybe but the Buran was more advanced in many ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran

 

And aslo in another NGC docu, the Buran is said to have the ability to fire missles at altitudes where it is vulnerable but can immediately rise higher to heights radar or missles can't reach.

 

What missiles? Besides, aneuvers on orbit are rather difficult concerning fuel etc.

 

Its your mistake. I said the "MiG-25 was the best for a period of time" and you replied "where did you get that Su-25 is the best"  :) 

You're right, sorry, got mislead by the Stormovik and really have read "Su-25".

But then arguments against "super duper" MiG-25 were already presented as well.

hmm. As far as I know the US fighters' objectives were to destroy the few MIG-29s Iraq has and they havn't - not even one.

315511[/snapback]

 

This seems to contradist that claim.

 

Iraqui losses

Guest Charles

Guest Charles

Posted
Posted
Rather than go item by item let me say this.

 

Infantry, the best anywhere on earth is the US Army Rangers.

 

Debatable and subjective. IMHO the US Army Rangers are amongst the Best in the World.

 

Tanks, goes to the Soviets, not always better machines, but biger numbers and stratagy & tatics to make best use of them.  While western tanks were often marginally better one for one where the smoke cleared the Red Army would be in France.

Cannot argue with that.

 

Navy: USN.

Having trained with USN, moot point. Back in the Cold War years I would say USN for similar reasons that Sov Tanks would prevail (short of Nukes) in ETO.

 

 

Air: USAF.

No argument there

 

Marines: USMC.

USMC at it's height was as big if not bigger than British Army :blink: . The divergence of quality would be similar (both forces relying on volunteers).

 

Missiles: Don't know, very glad that I don't.

Missile tech was always going to be NATO. Our electronics industry generations ahead of the then Soviet Union, period.

 

The Russians are underfunded and that one problem undercuts what was a superpower.

315523[/snapback]

 

Just a few points there George ;) otherwise a reasonable summation.

 

Charles

Scott Cunningham Crew

Scott Cunningham

Posted
Posted

The US Military was seriously underestimated in the cold war, the Russian overestimated. Since the US has engaged in combat it has become apparent that there really is no modern ground force capable of standing against a US mechanized corps once it goes into action (insurgency is another thing).

 

While comparing weapons statistics is enjoyable, it is the leadership, training, tactics, and C2 structures that really make the difference. Look at how the US trains. Major force on force training areas like NTC and CMTC allow the US military to achieve levels of proficiency in peacetime that before were only possible after a period of combat. Russia has nothing of the sort.

 

Its like a standup football team with all the newest equipment going against a professional team with old beat up equipment. By just looking at the differences of the helmets and pads and uniforms you might get an indication, but everyone knows how the game is really going to turn out.

TonyE Crew

TonyE

Posted
Posted

Aargh!, i feeled that there thread will soon need a LIC`ish rant..........

 

 

L.

Per Andersson Crunchie

Per Andersson

Posted
Posted
The Spetsnaz are known for their brutality. They once infiltrated the Soviet embassy in Beirut after terrorists captured the building. The captured all of the terrorists and beheaded one then sent his decapitated head to the terrorists leader. They don't really care much about hostages. Their main priority is often killing the enemy.

 

When exactly was the Soviet embassy in Beirut taken over by terrorists?

 

The only incident I'm aware of was when some Soviet diplomats were kidnapped during the Lebanese Civil War, but were later released.

MADtank Crunchie

MADtank

Posted
  • Author
Posted
two words: plasma stealth.

pretty much gives away the low qualifications of the tirade.

even i know that.

Yeah you know that cause you have a penchant for military things but I didn't say no one knows. Ask someone whose not into warfare and he'd probably know something about US stealth capabilities maybe not the names of the stealth aircrafts but he'd probably never heard of plasma stealth.

 

i bet you try to be Spetnatz in RPGs, right? i do too

 

Yeah I do but I don't neccesseraly get facts from video games.

 

so one second from initiation is too long but three is OK
Give me a link on that ejection seat your talking about. You said it takes 1 sec for the parachutes but how long for the whole ejection process?

 

 

The US Military was seriously underestimated in the cold war, the Russian overestimated. Since the US has engaged in combat it has become apparent that there really is no modern ground force capable of standing against a US mechanized corps once it goes into action (insurgency is another thing).

 

While comparing weapons statistics is enjoyable, it is the leadership, training, tactics, and C2 structures that really make the difference. Look at how the US trains. Major force on force training areas like NTC and CMTC allow the US military to achieve levels of proficiency in peacetime that before were only possible after a period of combat. Russia has nothing of the sort.

 

Its like a standup football team with all the newest equipment going against a professional team with old beat up equipment. By just looking at the differences of the helmets and pads and uniforms you might get an indication, but everyone knows how the game is really going to turn out.

 

Consider the fact that the US has the largest budget for the military and Russia's economy is not even OK. The US spends 420.7 billion dollars (and growing) while Russia spends only 61.9 billion dollars ( not sure if its growing, maybe diminishing). :o :o :o :o

 

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Ar...de/Spending.asp

 

My point is with enough money Russia could provide good training for their armies and give them a reason to fight and do better for Russia. Russian troops lack motivation. Many Russian soldiers don't care for pride, honor and glory anymore. They need money. Russian scientist are going abroad and lack interest in working for the government. If Russia has a military budget close to the US, I can't imagine what they could do.....

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...