NationStates Jolt Archive

The question is simple.Which military is better, which military is more capable of winning a total war?

The question is simple.Which military is better, which military is more capable of winning a total war?Easy answer: Neither, as both have nukes.

Nuclear weaponry: the ultimate equalizer. Radiation sickness is an equal opportunity killer.

As others have said nukes make war impossible to win, however if we ignore the nukes then I'd probably put my money on the U.S.A, better airforce and navy by a mile.

The Russians have a high quantity, medium quality military, while the US has a low quantity, high quality one. Both are good options for just about every military application on a global aspect, so both are probably equal on competitive terms. That's my take on it.

For a conventional war, the big question would also be where.

id say if nukes were used we would both be losers, but get rid of the nukes and the US's technology far surpasses Russian. Have you seen some of these russian weapons!? They have almost exact duplicates but less effective. Look up the Russian Blackjack, its almost exactly the same as the B-1(cooler name though)

For a conventional war, the big question would also be where.

Anywhere with I guess. Whose navy, air force and ground forces would win?

The Russians have a high quantity, medium quality military, while the US has a low quantity, high quality one. Both are good options for just about every military application on a global aspect, so both are probably equal on competitive terms. That's my take on it.

It should be noted that the United States has a larger active force than the Russians but the Russians have a larger reserve force, leaving the Russians with about 60,000 more troops than the US. According to the Wiki, anyway.

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

How do i leave the World Assembly???

Air Force; US. American pilots are trained better an taught to thing for themselves.. they don't need AWACS to tell them what to do. Also, our missles and bombs are FAR superior to Russian ones.

Ground Forces: The American Army and Marine Corps are so much better trained than the Russians, and they are all-volunteer, as opposed to conscripts. The American National Guard is better than all but the Russian Spetnaz, their special forces. Also, a premium is placed on marksmanship in the American Military as opposed to massed infantry fire directed by NCO's.

Navy. No contenst.

Clearly Russia, becuase they have the mild social backing of china providing them with the greatest land army the world has ever seen. Seccondly Russia has a number of friends amonst the social democratics of south america (and teh undemocratic ones to) e.g venezwalia, cuba, bolivia, chilie a little bit whilst the US has virtually no friends in asia (especially the middle east) and owes chine 10 trilliion dollars in ious, plus a very large proportion of the american stock exchange is suppourted by chinese money. War between Russia and America=china withdraw suppourt=american collapse. The real answer though is only the world would loose, the global economy would go into meltdown, nukes would tear the plantet apart and frankly ed all be shited.

Thank you and goodnight

you forget my friend a little thing called systema a martial art which puts russian combat troops heavily stronger than americans besides as already clarified it wouldnt be a war of land force, plus you forget most of americas 60k bonus is spent in iraq and afghanistan and in case youve gforgotten afghanistan neighbours russia

Nukes: We all die.

No Nukes: USA wins, unless you count getting rid of Alaska as a loss.

you forget my friend a little thing called systema a martial art which puts russian combat troops heavily stronger than americans besides as already clarified it wouldnt be a war of land force, plus you forget most of americas 60k bonus is spent in iraq and afghanistan and in case youve gforgotten afghanistan neighbours russia

60k bonus?

As much of a Russophile as I am, I have to admit...the conventional military of Russia is in a sorry state. Soldiers are underpaid, badly equipped, and poorly motivated. Their equipment is outdated. There are units still using T-55's (modernized, but still).
It is true that the Russians have some VERY advanced hardware and cool toys to play with, but the problem is...they can't afford them. Last I checked, the Russian military didn't even have a hundred T-90's, and they have about ten of their new generation fighters.
I imagine Putin is working on fixing this, but it will take quite some time.

So...as it is now? The USA would win easily, if we're talking a simple one-on-one smash-up without nukes.
And, naturally, Poland would lose :P

noone wins in a total war all major countries would be destroyed the only people that would survive is some islands in the south pacific and some people in africa and south america,and new zealand and luckily austarlia.

poland would not lose they are a strong ally with the U.S.

Neither side could occupy the other, so stalemate.

I would like to comment ont he issue of who is better us or the ruskies well yes we do have far suppier air power and yes our weapons are by far so much more advanced and our navy is in all seven seas and we have over 2000 bases all over the world not to mention russia doesnt exactly have a lot of open accessable sea ports oh and the comment of them recieving support from china well that my friend is ludicrous one china hate the russians more than they hate us i mean think about it weve been giving the chineese economic and technical info for years now and they are the most favored trade partner with the us and even if china were to mass there already 4,000,000+man army they logistically could not prep them for an allout war hell our subs would hit there troop caariers etc before they even left dock so there is no way they could possibly reach our shores and second russia and china believe it or not are still at odds over the little border dispute from way back in the 1950s oh and one other thing before i go both have two differnt styles of communist ideologies too

I would like to comment ont he issue of who is better us or the ruskies well yes we do have far suppier air power and yes our weapons are by far so much more advanced and our navy is in all seven seas and we have over 2000 bases all over the world not to mention russia doesnt exactly have a lot of open accessable sea ports oh and the comment of them recieving support from china well that my friend is ludicrous one china hate the russians more than they hate us i mean think about it weve been giving the chineese economic and technical info for years now and they are the most favored trade partner with the us and even if china were to mass there already 4,000,000+man army they logistically could not prep them for an allout war hell our subs would hit there troop caariers etc before they even left dock so there is no way they could possibly reach our shores and second russia and china believe it or not are still at odds over the little border dispute from way back in the 1950s oh and one other thing before i go both have two differnt styles of communist ideologies too

Can you please re-do that whole sentence. I can't really read it. Sorry, just asking.

By the way if u have questions reguarding my comment well that is what u learn while defending your nations after 16 years of faithful service books dont tell the whole story ....sorry u book nerds

Why cant u read it

By the way if u have questions reguarding my comment well that is what u learn while defending your nations after 16 years of faithful service books dont tell the whole story ....sorry u book nerds

Now what is this even supposed to mean?

Now what is this even supposed to mean?

Nerds r dum lol!111!11!eleven!

Nerds r dum lol!111!11!eleven!

*monocle*

By the way if u have questions reguarding my comment well that is what u learn while defending your nations after 16 years of faithful service books dont tell the whole story ....sorry u book nerds

Nonsense. You write like a twelve year old with a poor grasp of language, not like a rugged veteran.

I think we forget General Winter has consistently saved Russia from any potential invasion actualy succeeding.

I think we forget General Winter has consistently saved Russia from any potential invasion actualy succeeding.

General Winter is a gloryhog. Generals Poor Preparation and Underestimation are typically the ones who give the Russians the win in the end. And good ol' General Spring. You can wear a jacket to keep the cold out, but knee-deep mud is a problem for anybody.

*monocle*

*Have some conciliatory tea and crumpets.*

Nukes render war between us useless. We will never fight, as both sides have nukes, and if nuclear war starts, everyone, and i mean EVERY LAST PERSON on EARTH dies of mass radiation

General Winter is a gloryhog. Generals Poor Preparation and Underestimation are typically the ones who give the Russians the win in the end. And good ol' General Spring. You can wear a jacket to keep the cold out, but knee-deep mud is a problem for anybody.

I think in the proposed conflict General Massive Supply Lines may also have an important role to play

I think in the proposed conflict General Massive Supply Lines may also have an important role to play

Massive Supply Lines is only a captain under General Underestimation. :p

Massive Supply Lines is only a captain under General Underestimation. :p

Of course theres allways General Incompetence, a maverik General who can strike either side without warning for devastating effect.

Nukes render war between us useless. We will never fight, as both sides have nukes, and if nuclear war starts, everyone, and i mean EVERY LAST PERSON on EARTH dies of mass radiation

Oh no! Not MASS RADIATION!
What are we going to do?!

Of course theres allways General Incompetence, a maverik General who can strike either side without warning for devastating effect.

Don't forget his sidekick, Colonel Execute All the Officers. He was a favorite under Stalin.

Oh no! Not MASS RADIATION!
What are we going to do?!

Die horribly, either from the radiation itself, or from the extreme effect it and the other elements of fallout have on the climate.

Seriously, we go nuclear, and civilization is over. There is no coming back, because even if the human race survived to long after the point where the radiation would diminish to safe levels and the climate would recover--unlikely given the damage we've already done to it--the resources required to rediscover technology and build up our civilization as it stands no longer exist in the quantities required.

We're already almost at the point where we NEED to get out and start mining some asteroids for metals and such already. We nuke ourselves, and we're never going to get to the point to where we can do that again, which means we will ultimately go extinct because we will be unable to avoid any of the typical extinction event problems.

We're at a crossroads between sure annihilation and survival guaranteed on a level no species--we're aware of--has ever managed before. We cannot afford to nuke ourselves, because--again, as far as we're aware--we're the only sapient race in existence. We're far too precious to destroy so casually.

Don't forget his sidekick, Colonel Execute All the Officers. He was a favorite under Stalin.

Is he a relative of Ignore all Advice?

tl;dr

*casts Mass Radiation*

The Russian army has no effective recon tools at its disposal. They don't have drones, for example. And apparently their communication equipment is so useless that in Georgia they switched to using their private mobile phones.

The Russian military would have trouble against the Germans by themselves, against the Americans they'd have no chance whatsoever.

This is conventional, by the way. Hence why they're spending more on their nuclear forces - it's the only thing they can afford that remotely balances out the sorry state of their military.

Is he a relative of Ignore all Advice?

There's also General Charge Across a Frozen Lake in Heavy Armor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Peipus). He's a good one.

Soldiers are underpaid, badly equipped, and poorly motivated.And they get shipped off to Siberia if they rap about it on YouTube. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/oct/01/russia)

Its interesting out there, the only winning move in a nuclear war, is not to play

Why cant u read it

I can't read it becuase it's one run-on sentence.

Neither nation has the ability to project into the other, so are we just assuming that we plop the entire military capabilities of both nations onto a gigantic open field and see what happens?

and in case youve gforgotten afghanistan neighbours russia

This would be false.

http://www.axisglobe.com/Image/2006/01/03/Andijan/19-1.jpg

The rasputitsa doesn't pose any threat when we can wipe them out from above. Unlike in 41', they're not going to be able to relocate to Siberia...

*casts Mass Radiation*

My one weakness! :(

Neither nation has the ability to project into the other, so are we just assuming that we plop the entire military capabilities of both nations onto a gigantic open field and see what happens?



This would be false.

http://www.axisglobe.com/Image/2006/01/03/Andijan/19-1.jpg

What the hell is up with Uzbekistan's border with Kazahkstan? With everyone else, the borders are the normal ridiculously squiggly lines, but with Kazahkstan it's an Iraqi straight line thing all of a sudden.

Anywhere with I guess. Whose navy, air force and ground forces would win?

Well, see that's the problem. Who would win depends partly on where the fight would be. In their own country, the Russians would win. Russia, however, lacks the means to invade the US.

Cold war scenarios always predicted that if there was a conventional war (unlikely given the nuclear capabilities of both sides) that it would be fought in Germany.

What the hell is up with Uzbekistan's border with Kazahkstan? With everyone else, the borders are the normal ridiculously squiggly lines, but with Kazahkstan it's an Iraqi straight line thing all of a sudden.

Probably it's in the middle of some plains.

What the hell is up with Uzbekistan's border with Kazahkstan? With everyone else, the borders are the normal ridiculously squiggly lines, but with Kazahkstan it's an Iraqi straight line thing all of a sudden.
It was lunch time, they wanted to get going. And since it's just steppe there, nobody cares.

How long did it take Russia to conquer Afghanistan? They didn't.
How long did it take the United States? 2 days!
Case closed!

How long did it take Russia to conquer Afghanistan? They didn't.
How long did it take the United States? 2 days!
Case closed!
Ahem...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7653116.stm
Afghan victory hopes played down

The UK's commander in Helmand has said Britain should not expect a "decisive military victory" in Afghanistan.

Brig Mark Carleton-Smith told the Sunday Times the aim of the mission was to ensure the Afghan army was able to manage the country on its own.

He said this could involve discussing security with the Taleban.

When international troops eventually leave Afghanistan, there may still be a "low but steady" level of rural insurgency, he conceded.

He said it was unrealistic to expect that multinational forces would be able to wipe out armed bands of insurgents in the country.

Conquering is much, much different from occupying. Just look at Iraq.

How long did it take Russia to conquer Afghanistan? They didn't.
How long did it take the United States? 2 days!
Case closed!
You may want to look up who did the fighting in those two days. Chances are, it wasn't the US.

The Soviet Army occupied most of Afghanistan's cities in a few days and installed a puppet regime--a complex, centralised Communist dictatorship--to replace the previous Soviet client government. Throughout the 1980s Soviet soldiers and Soviet-backed Afghan troops were excercising power in much of the country.

If I recall correctly, it was weeks before the US-backed Northern Alliance took Kabul from the Taliban following the first US air strikes. And it was Northern Alliance land forces that conquered Kabul, not the Americans (except a few Special Forces). Then the UN put pro-US Karzai in power--as part of a chaotic, weak government made up of warlords and drug-dealers, with little power outside Kabul. NATO was put in charge of most of the nationbuilding/"peacekeeping", and the US concentrated on airstrikes against Al Qaeda/Taleban.

I think there are far less NATO troops/"peacekeepers" in Afghanistan than the Russians had, and much of the country has no or little occupation forces or pro-US Afghan troops, and are still really run by local warlords. Though the Russians couldn't control much of the rural areas either really.

There will be no war. Russia's main buy of oil and natural gas is the west. Neither side would risk war and devastate their economies. And I haven't even mentioned all the other goods we trade with Russia. Even if there was a war, I'd bet both sides would be too scared to launch a nuke.

How long did it take Russia to conquer Afghanistan? They didn't.
How long did it take the United States? 2 days!
Case closed!

Are you really that stupid?

How long did it take Russia to conquer Afghanistan? They didn't.
How long did it take the United States? 2 days!
Case closed!

Honestly? The two wars took place 15 years apart, and Afghanistan was well armed by the United States in the first one. Not an apt comparison.

Umm, it depends. If Russia invades the US, they'd lose. If US invades Russia, they'd lose. So who's attacking? On neutral ground it'd be interesting.

However let's all remember the Good Old 2008 South Ossetia War, where US trained Georgians got their asses handed to them on a silver platter, and are so embarassed that they won't even reveal the true extent of their military casualties. As for the "I'm not ready argument" oh come on, you were the ones who attacked. Now one can make a case and say "Georgians aren't US Marines!" and I'd say "touche" so I guess we'll never know.

Russia does have several strenghts: A state of the art AA Defense System. High quality planes. Experienced field commanders, who know how to fight, just take a look at the brilliant performance of Batallion Vostok against their Georgian counterparts. Russia's military problem is that they need modernization. The T-90's haven't been a smash, and use of T-55s is sad. However the way their infantry fights, is scary, and I wouldn't discount the SpetzNatz too much either, they know how to fight. The problem is that Russia has some of the best units in the World and some really crappy ones too.

But there will be no war due to nukes. BTW about that missile shield I have questions for both sides;

Russia: Are ten nukes-shooters a threat to you?
US: Why do you think that Iran would hit Poland before hitting Israel? Do you just like to waste $$$ or what?

Just my 2 dollars, as 2 cents are worthless nowadays.

Nukes: We all die.

No Nukes: USA wins, unless you count getting rid of Alaska as a loss.

If they take Palin, we win.

I think we forget General Winter has consistently saved Russia from any potential invasion actualy succeeding.

Imperial German General Staff would probably disagree.
If invading forces are not led by General von Underestimation and General de Arrogance, then succeeding is completely realistic.

Could the US invade Russia. Not really. The US might gain Vladivostok and a swath of Siberia but that would be about it. not come anywhere near the Russian West. And would become a stalemate at best after that (provided the US can cut transportation routes east) to a route at best (the entire Russian reserve force arrives in Siberia.)

Could Russia invade the US? no not a large enough navy and lack of carriers to get enough troops to the front.

A fight over a third country would be more interesting. If the place doesn't border Russia they really do not have the ability to get there. However an area boarder Russia aka Georgia would be an interesting fight. And would push both side to their limits.

Russia's military problem is that they need modernization. The T-90's haven't been a smash, and use of T-55s is sad.

Russia: Are ten nukes-shooters a threat to you?
US: Why do you think that Iran would hit Poland before hitting Israel? Do you just like to waste $$$ or what?

Just my 2 dollars, as 2 cents are worthless nowadays.


We don't use those T-55's anymore, They're rusting in storage facilities. >.>

We mostly have T-72BM1's and T-80U's, alongside the 600 odd T-90's in the far eastern districts. And if you're referencing the report about the Indian T-90's, those are the ones they built themselves, and replaced the thermal sight with a French made one[probably because they had them already for their domestic T-72's], which used more power then the original one.

IIRC an Israeli commando who was helping train the Georgians said that their "elite" forces weren't even ready for simple patrol duty.


Since the US put that missile system in Poland, we're probably gonna put something in Venezuela or Cuba. I guarantee the next American president will BAAWWW about it.

Are T-62's still in active use?

Are T-62's still in active use?

Rear supply guys have them, with a ton of modernization stuff on them such as K5 and new sights/ammo. They're being phased out and replaced with T-72/80 as the T-90 replaces those.

Olmedreca;14073086']Imperial German General Staff would probably disagree.
If invading forces are not led by General von Underestimation and General de Arrogance, then succeeding is completely realistic.

If you'll look back a couple pages, you'll see that I made a post almost exactly identical to this ;)

Personally, I think we should name the attack plan for Russia Operation Barbarossa to really piss them off...

In the early days of the war Russia will have the advantage, but as the war becomes longer the US will have the advantage.

As much of a Russophile as I am, I have to admit...the conventional military of Russia is in a sorry state. Soldiers are underpaid, badly equipped, and poorly motivated. Their equipment is outdated. There are units still using T-55's (modernized, but still).
It is true that the Russians have some VERY advanced hardware and cool toys to play with, but the problem is...they can't afford them. Last I checked, the Russian military didn't even have a hundred T-90's, and they have about ten of their new generation fighters.
I imagine Putin is working on fixing this, but it will take quite some time.

So...as it is now? The USA would win easily, if we're talking a simple one-on-one smash-up without nukes.
And, naturally, Poland would lose :P

Get with the times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90#Operators

If they take Palin, we win.

*calls up Putin* :wink:

Get with the times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90#Operators

Get with teh wiki!

Right beside it, it says:[citation needed]

*calls up Putin* :wink: Thank you

Though Putin would be a formidable opponent, we need to have Chuck Norris fight if we were to defeat Putin, I mean the man fought a tiger, he needs his own forum here on Jolt

Thank you

Though Putin would be a formidable opponent, we need to have Chuck Norris fight if we were to defeat Putin, I mean the man fought a tiger, he needs his own forum here on Jolt

• A fork that Putin ate from can slay a vampire with one stab.
• A chair that Putin sat on gets promoted to the rank of Major General.
• When Putin was little, he broke a cup. The spilled water turned into oceans and the splinters became continents.
• Putin can scratch his own heel without bending over.
• Shirts worn by Putin are sent to a secret military facility and converted to the strongest layer of armor for the Russian tanks.
• Socks worn by Putin are routinely dropped on Chechen rebels.
• Putin’s used tissues become the property of the Department of Cartography and their content is classified.
• Putin knows every Russian citizen’s name, address, and phone number. If you say a dirty word, Putin will call you in the evening to reprimand.

• When Putin’s name is typed, the first letter capitalizes itself.
• By squinting his eye Putin can read and write multimedia DVDs.
• Putin’s stare has downed 15 American satellites spying over the Kremlin.
• Putin’s stare penetrates a ten foot lead wall and brings a kettle to a boil within 10 seconds from three miles away. For public safety he must wear special contact lenses at all times.
• Chechen rebels blow themselves up when they hear Putin’s true name.
• Saying Putin’s name repeatedly contributes to the common good in the universe.
• Putin inhales carbon dioxide and exhales oxygen, ensuring the continuation of life on the planet.
• Putin’s love for humankind heats up the planet by 2.35 degrees annually - a phenomenon also known as the Global Warming.
• Putin appeared in Thomas Edison’s dream and revealed how to live in harmony with the Universe. But all Edison could remember in the morning was how to make the light bulb.
• Everything Putin touches turns into a national project.
• If a sunbeam shines beautifully through the clouds, Putin is nearby.
• If you shake hands with Putin you will be taken to heaven alive.
• If you hate Putin you may die early through your own fault.

But there will be no war due to nukes. BTW about that missile shield I have questions for both sides;

Russia: Are ten nukes-shooters a threat to you?
US: Why do you think that Iran would hit Poland before hitting Israel? Do you just like to waste $$$ or what?

I can answer this question.

They're there not to protect Poland alone(though they could and do) or Israel so much as they are to protect all of Europe from an Iranian missile attack.

Personally I'm not sure it was truly worth it for them either, seeing as how Iran would be committing suicide if it tried to launch missiles(and seeing as how Iran's leaders aren't crazy--the real leaders, I mean--they wouldn't do that) but Poland got some substantial goodies in the process, so ultimately it was a good decision.

• A fork that Putin ate from can slay a vampire with one stab.
• A chair that Putin sat on gets promoted to the rank of Major General.
• When Putin was little, he broke a cup. The spilled water turned into oceans and the splinters became continents.
• Putin can scratch his own heel without bending over.
• Shirts worn by Putin are sent to a secret military facility and converted to the strongest layer of armor for the Russian tanks.
• Socks worn by Putin are routinely dropped on Chechen rebels.
• Putin’s used tissues become the property of the Department of Cartography and their content is classified.
• Putin knows every Russian citizen’s name, address, and phone number. If you say a dirty word, Putin will call you in the evening to reprimand.

• When Putin’s name is typed, the first letter capitalizes itself.
• By squinting his eye Putin can read and write multimedia DVDs.
• Putin’s stare has downed 15 American satellites spying over the Kremlin.
• Putin’s stare penetrates a ten foot lead wall and brings a kettle to a boil within 10 seconds from three miles away. For public safety he must wear special contact lenses at all times.
• Chechen rebels blow themselves up when they hear Putin’s true name.
• Saying Putin’s name repeatedly contributes to the common good in the universe.
• Putin inhales carbon dioxide and exhales oxygen, ensuring the continuation of life on the planet.
• Putin’s love for humankind heats up the planet by 2.35 degrees annually - a phenomenon also known as the Global Warming.
• Putin appeared in Thomas Edison’s dream and revealed how to live in harmony with the Universe. But all Edison could remember in the morning was how to make the light bulb.
• Everything Putin touches turns into a national project.
• If a sunbeam shines beautifully through the clouds, Putin is nearby.
• If you shake hands with Putin you will be taken to heaven alive.
• If you hate Putin you may die early through your own fault.


Best post here.

Neither side would win, neither side could be invaded.

We don't use those T-55's anymore, They're rusting in storage facilities. >.>

We mostly have T-72BM1's and T-80U's, alongside the 600 odd T-90's in the far eastern districts. And if you're referencing the report about the Indian T-90's, those are the ones they built themselves, and replaced the thermal sight with a French made one[probably because they had them already for their domestic T-72's], which used more power then the original one.

IIRC an Israeli commando who was helping train the Georgians said that their "elite" forces weren't even ready for simple patrol duty.


Since the US put that missile system in Poland, we're probably gonna put something in Venezuela or Cuba. I guarantee the next American president will BAAWWW about it.
I don't see why you would, seeing as how those interceptors have nothing to do with Russia, and there's not really anyone in the Americas who would go around shooting missiles at Cuba or Venezuela.

Get with the times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90#Operators

Yeah, but Russia has over 22,000 tanks in service and 6,500 active. That means only a small share have been replaced with T-90's to date. They're going to need to spend a lot more money to fully modernize their armed forces, and I don't think their economy will be able to handle it.

It would be a draw....nukes....But with out nukes, I still say A draw. Russian equipment, is on par with US equipment, though in much lower numbers. Russia is currently spending a large some of money on upgrading their navy, and Airforce. The US Has the most powerful navy and air force in the world, And the army isamong the best. However, The American people for the most part, dispise war, and the media does not help. A war between Russia and the US would produce many casualties, and As seen from the public reaction from the Iraq War, Would not go over well for the US. Russia cannot invade The US, and An invasion of Russia by the US would be suicide, Geurrilla war, Spatsnaz strike teams, Large conventional army, etc. It would become a stalemate. There is no way, That the US would fight Russia with out Years of Diplomatic squabbling in the UN. Russia is afraid of The US and the US is afraid of Russia.

A conflict between the USA and Russia would never happen. If one were to happen then the world would go to hell, USA v Russia=UK, France, possibly Germany would side with the USA. China would possibly join with Russia, as well as Cuba, and maybe North Korea. A lot of the smaller countries would follow the bigger ones based on their ideals, it would be a global conflict beyond that any war previously seen, and would most likely end in a stalemate.

Russian equipment, is on par with US equipment, though in much lower numbers.
The numbers sort of matter. And as I was pointing out previously, in terms of tactics, organisation, recon and communication, it's quite hopeless compared to the US. That much was demonstrated in Georgia.

Russia is currently spending a large some of money on upgrading their navy, and Airforce.
The US is spending much, much more.

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12262231
http://media.economist.com/images/20080920/CEU893.gif

I suspect the United States could defeat any one country that attempted to fight it in a conventional military engagement.

It would require a significant number of combined nations to bring it down. Something like, say, the European Union, Russia, and China working together.

That of course would never happen, but it's what it would take.

The numbers sort of matter. And as I was pointing out previously, in terms of tactics, organisation, recon and communication, it's quite hopeless compared to the US. That much was demonstrated in Georgia.


The US is spending much, much more.

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12262231
http://media.economist.com/images/20080920/CEU893.gif



You know that's in US dollars, right?


Georgia got their ass kicked, and cell phones allowed individual soldiers to relay information. I've done that many times while I was in Grozny in 2000.


Did I mention Georgia got their ass kicked? Chechen rebels were more combat worthy.

EDIT: That huge increase is from your Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, not necessarily related to upgrading and the like.

You know that's in US dollars, right?
As long as both are denoted in the same currency, that's irrelevant. If you want, I can convert the figures into rubles...17.08 trillion for the US, 2.4 trillion for Russia.

Now, you could argue that the purchasing power of a dollar is greater in Russia than in the US, of course, in which case the graph would overstate the Russian budget relative to the US one.

Georgia got their ass kicked, and cell phones allowed individual soldiers to relay information. I've done that many times while I was in Grozny in 2000.
Yeah, but you're not supposed to. You're supposed to be hooked up to an integrated command system where you're in communication with anyone who matters very quickly, including when you need to request air support, when the drones notice anything and so on.

Russia doesn't have that. Many other countries don't either, and I'd argue that many countries don't need it - but the fact of the matter is that the Russian military is, in that regard, still firmly rooted in the 20th century.

Did I mention Georgia got their ass kicked? Chechen rebels were more combat worthy.
That's because Chechen rebels don't come out and try to fight conventional wars against enemies that outnumber them 2:1 or more on the battlefield. Rather than reflecting particularly well on the Russians, the whole business down there just shows us that the Georgians were even poorer.

EDIT: That huge increase is from your Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, not necessarily related to upgrading and the like.
Keep in mind that those campaigns aren't financed as part of the standard budget items though, but through seperate packages that need to be passed by Congress every so often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Procurement $104.2 Bil. +5.3%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $79.6 Bil. +4.1%

That's still almost double the entire Russian military budget - after Putin's announcement of the increase, which isn't even in the graph.

Look, I'm not saying anything bad about Russia. I'm just saying that after the collapse of the USSR, years of financial crisis and bad governance, even some extra cash earned more recently thanks to primary exports isn't suddenly going to make the gap disappear. Indeed, the current Russian government is made up of businessmen rather than generals. Putin's extra spending was put mainly where it is most cost-effective from a national defense point of view, namely the nuclear arsenal. I don't think they entertain any fantasies of being able to match NATO conventionally anymore. And that's a good thing for both sides, because most military spending is ultimately wastage.

You know that's in US dollars, right?

You know that's irrelevant, right? Especially since the dollar is currently valued at 26.2471 rubles.

Georgia got their ass kicked, and cell phones allowed individual soldiers to relay information. I've done that many times while I was in Grozny in 2000.


Did I mention Georgia got their ass kicked? Chechen rebels were more combat worthy.
Whoop-de-do. You defeated the military of a tiny country who's elite force is barely capable of going on patrol.

That's like cheering because you beat Rise of Nations on the easiest difficulty level against one opponent.

Logistics are also a huge factor, in which case, US rules supreme.

When will people get it into their heads that no great power can defeat another great power any more? Short of one side getting some sort of super technology ala Red Alert 2, it ain't gonna happen.

One thing people seem to be ignoring is what happens after military defeat. I'm going to tell you right now: neither country could occupy the other. Russia is far too massive and the United States would be such a partisan nightmare that it would make the most effective partisans in history look like complete and total idiots. There was a comment made to this effect by...someone, I don't remember who, who said "Behind every blade of grass, there is a rifle."

Well, not quite that many firearms, but trust me, you don't want to try to hold down the United States.

And as I said, Russia is too huge, and if there's anyone good at partinsanry too, it's the Russians.

That's another good reason to not try to fight each other.

I'd like to look at it this way.
America has a large public in small space for the amount of people we have. Also we have Many allies through out the world that could affect Russia if it really came down to all out war. Some of these countries are: London, Australia, and India. Another thing I look at is the fact that The U.S. has enough Nuclear Weapons to destroy the entire surface of the earth 12 times... We also have... or as of recently, had a very strong economy. That is capable of out spending Russia in an all out war... as we saw in the cold war.

But Russia has a Large population over a huge area, making it harder for every one to die from a few nukes. They also have Allies that couldn't effect America very much but could destroy some of our allies, one of these countries is China. Yes, Russia has Nuclear Weapons also, but I don't think they'd be stupid enough to use them. Russia has a good economy now also, but not as good as the U.S.'s.

It is difficult to say who would win, but in all out war I think America Has a slight advantage.

I'd like to look at it this way.
America has a large public in small space for the amount of people we have.

lol, not really. compared to Russia, maybe.


and London isn't a country.

[/threadwank]

But Russia has a Large population over a huge area, making it harder for every one to die from a few nukes.

It may have a large population and a huge area, but the population is definitely not spread evenly over that huge area. The Russian population is very much concentrated in the western, European section of Russia, with very few population centers once you get beyond the Urals.

Oh come on, is this really even a question.

America which spends more then half the entire world put together. America that spends more then Japan, China, Russia, India, Britian and France put together.

You guys are making this into a way bigger issue then it is. Russia would lose, even if America could never occupy a country that big, Russia would still get bombed to the ground.
Oh yes, and I'll state this right now from experience. There is no way China would involve itself in a Russo-American war unless America threatens China too. The Chinese government's divine mandate is based on economic strength. They won't risk losing there biggest customer so they can help Russia which only supplies about ummm 7% of there trade.

Honestly I don't even see how this is a match. Russia's military is horrendous although its been modernizing in recent years. Frankly, Russia did not so much beat Georgia, as Georgia beat itself. Russian commanders were confused and could not handle the Georgian invasion in a disciplined manner, hell many times, units would move too far into Georgian territory before the main army got there. The only reason people are so impressed is because Georgia was so crappy there military literally pissed in its pants and collapsed the moment Russia invaded.

America is frankly unmatched at this point, the only way to beat them would be if your nation is a third-world nation very talented in run-strike tactics. For Industrialized nations, fighting America will always mean losing because you'll watch your roads, hospitals and public infrastructure collapse.
In short, the only way to fight America is if you are so dirt poor you have nothing to lose and thus, do not have to worry about carpet bomb damage. Which unfortunately Russia is neither dirt poor nor has the luxury of ignoring carpet bomb damage.

Russia's military is based on land forces, you take out the roads and it'll be hell for them to fight back. In short you guys are making this into way too big of an issue. Even if Russia couldn't be conquered, there would be no question over who would be the winner. The USA could post its navy and bombard Russia's coast and use far and I mean FAR superior air force to bomb Russia. Russia's land forces would be relatively useless in the end since without a good navy they couldn't be transported to attack the USA, and frankly the United States wouldn't even need to occupy Russia to beat them. They just need to cling to the coast and bomb Russia to the stone-age.

Depends on whether or not tactical nukes are utilized. I'm fairly certain that whichever side starts losing or gets invaded is going to at least threaten the use of tactical or even strategic nuclear forces.

Umm, it depends. If Russia invades the US, they'd lose. If US invades Russia, they'd lose. So who's attacking? On neutral ground it'd be interesting.

However let's all remember the Good Old 2008 South Ossetia War, where US trained Georgians got their asses handed to them on a silver platter, and are so embarassed that they won't even reveal the true extent of their military casualties. As for the "I'm not ready argument" oh come on, you were the ones who attacked. Now one can make a case and say "Georgians aren't US Marines!" and I'd say "touche" so I guess we'll never know.


Don't forget that the Russian military is two orders of magnitude larger than the Georgian :P

Oh come on, is this really even a question.

America which spends more then half the entire world put together. America that spends more then Japan, China, Russia, India, Britain and France put together.


And how much money is actually theirs? Last I checked they have an epic amount of foreign debt. And it's funny that you mention Japan, since they are more or less a pacifist nation.



Russia's military is based on land forces, you take out the roads and it'll be hell for them to fight back.

You probably don't know this, but the roads here are really shitty in most places, thus any truck the military uses is suited for extreme off-road travel.



The USA could post its navy and bombard Russia's coast and use far and I mean FAR superior air force to bomb Russia.
[

Because the navy can strike far inland, amirite? We have AA systems that are some of the best in the world, so that would limit air campaigns. Don't bother bringing up stealth, because in one of the Yugoslav wars, some Serbs shot down a stealth bomber using the EXPORT versions of equipment we sold them.


Russia's land forces would be relatively useless in the end since without a good navy they couldn't be transported to attack the USA, and frankly the United States wouldn't even need to occupy Russia to beat them. They just need to cling to the coast and bomb Russia to the stone-age.


If you cling to the coast, you put your ships within range of ground systems. Besides, the further an invading force pushes in, their logistics line gets longer and more vulnerable. Ask the Germans about that one.

And how much money is actually theirs? Last I checked they have an epic amount of foreign debt. And it's funny that you mention Japan, since they are more or less a pacifist nation.

While you do score a minor point with the debt, don't forget that Japan is only pacifistic because their Constitution and an agreement with the U.S. prevents them from having much of a military.

You believe me, Japan would have a superb military otherwise. They've never been bad at that. (Only East Asian nation to succeed where everyone else--even China--failed to take on the West.)



You probably don't know this, but the roads here are really shitty in most places, thus any truck the military uses is suited for extreme off-road travel.

Rasputisa. (Or is it tista? I can never remember...) It'll kill yah.



Because the navy can strike far inland, amirite? We have AA systems that are some of the best in the world, so that would limit air campaigns. Don't bother bringing up stealth, because in one of the Yugoslav wars, some Serbs shot down a stealth bomber using the EXPORT versions of equipment we sold them.

Stealth is still very good, and actually, yes, the U.S. Navy CAN strike inland.

But you forget they don't have to. They've got airbases right next door in Europe to use.


If you cling to the coast, you put your ships within range of ground systems. Besides, the further an invading force pushes in, their logistics line gets longer and more vulnerable. Ask the Germans about that one.

Indeed, hence why Russia is essentially unoccupiable.

And it's funny that you mention Japan, since they are more or less a pacifist nation.
It's also quite rich, so it spends more than half of what Russia spends, for example. And in some areas they are genuinely world-class, particularly the Navy's anti-air and anti-missile abilities. All part of the deal when you're so close to North Korea, I suppose.

Don't bother bringing up stealth, because in one of the Yugoslav wars, some Serbs shot down a stealth bomber using the EXPORT versions of equipment we sold them.
Though that was primarily because of the more low-tech use of people with binoculars watching the jets take off and take the same flight path every single mission. Take a slightly more advanced stealth jet, and no prior warning, and the chances of anti-air defences are drastically reduced.

You believe me, Japan would have a superb military otherwise. They've never been bad at that. (Only East Asian nation to succeed where everyone else--even China--failed to take on the West.)

Moreover, the idea that Japan doesn't have a military because of the treaty is itself misleading. Japan does, in fact, maintain an active military, called the Japan Self-Defense Forces. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces) While it is true that the SDF is not allowed to be deployed abroad, it is an actively maintained army, navy, and air force, has a 2005 budget of $44.3 billion USD, and currently ranks as the 20th largest standing army in the world in terms of active troops. So, the idea that Japan doesn't have a military is incorrect.

Moreover, the idea that Japan doesn't have a military because of the treaty is itself misleading. Japan does, in fact, maintain an active military, called the Japan Self-Defense Forces. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces) While it is true that the SDF is not allowed to be deployed abroad, it is an actively maintained army, navy, and air force, has a 2005 budget of $44.3 billion USD, and currently ranks as the 20th largest standing army in the world in terms of active troops. So, the idea that Japan doesn't have a military is incorrect.

Indeed. Japan can still fight quite well if and when it has to.

Could the US invade Russia. Not really. The US might gain Vladivostok and a swath of Siberia but that would be about it. not come anywhere near the Russian West. And would become a stalemate at best after that (provided the US can cut transportation routes east) to a route at best (the entire Russian reserve force arrives in Siberia.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Map_Trans-Siberian_railway.png

The Trans-Siberian Railway remains the only logistical link of sufficient size for military puropses between European Russia and Siberia. It could be easily disabled in the event of a conflict...

...in fact, it is such a strategic weakness that if nukes were suddenly off the table, China would probably be invading Siberia by this time tomorrow.

Indeed, hence why Russia is essentially unoccupiable.

Russia's quite occupiable once you control the western portion of the country and the various major cities scattered in the rest. Of course, it would still require a massive number of troops unless you're smart and either confine the population in cities and designated areas or put them in camps. The latter is a more desirable option, at least from a strictly anti-partisan viewpoint.

Of course, either option is a pretty massive violation of human rights, but chances are if we go to war those laws will just be meaningless words on paper for both sides.

"We'll conquer Russia at no time. They are Barbarians and we have the most expensive army to do it with." - Adolf Hitler 1941. Let's not underestimate Russia yet again.

Russians had around 15,000 vs. Georgian 40,000. With South Ossetians, Abkhazians and Volunteers it was about 1 to 1 ratio. The Russians didn't win the war due to numbers. Military experience, superior leadership, knowledge of terrain, were all factors. Numbers were not so much.

Anywhere with I guess. Whose navy, air force and ground forces would win?

Navy: US would dominate, multiple carrier fleets versus Russias "1" Carrier. Game over, Russia Sub fleet countered by US Destroyer fleet.

Airforce: Close, very close, Both have great pilots, both are the leaders in expert Aircraft. Russia has several planes that could destroy the F-16\F-18s. But they don't have enough advanced fighters (SU-35s etc) to go toe to toe with F-22s and advanced F-15s.

Army: Russia has lower quality but if they more or less "Zerg rush" even an M1 can't take 4 T-72s at once. Some of their newer tanks are about equal to ours as well.

Their artillery is still quite good, and their Airborne elite force could provide a big pain in the rear if they some how manage to get them behind our lines.

Russians had around 15,000 vs. Georgian 40,000. With South Ossetians, Abkhazians and Volunteers it was about 1 to 1 ratio. The Russians didn't win the war due to numbers. Military experience, superior leadership, knowledge of terrain, were all factors. Numbers were not so much.

Realistically, though, they could have brought down crushing numbers if need be to resolve the situation. The potential to bring additional forces to field is just as important as the number deployed; that was one of the things that doomed the German invasion as much as any other factor.

Russians had around 15,000 vs. Georgian 40,000.
Actually, the entire Georgian military is only 32,000 strong. And in the battlezone, there were only 18,000 or so.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4583383.ece
For an invading force from what used to be a military superpower, Russia's 58th Army did not look like a modern fighting unit. Victory came as a result of overwhelming numerical superiority and a textbook Soviet-style strategy based on detailed planning that leaves little room for flexibility. It was shock and awe by force of numbers, rather than by precision-guided weapons.

By the way if u have questions reguarding my comment well that is what u learn while defending your nations after 16 years of faithful service books dont tell the whole story ....sorry u book nerds

methinks grizzled veteran here has taken one too many shots to the head?

Russia's quite occupiable once you control the western portion of the country
To do that, you have to be a very big power based entirely in Europe (not in US - it's impossible to support millions through such a long logistics line). EU has only just enough power to deter an attack; it would have to be a lot stronger to manage an offensive and an occupation. WWII Europe was more militarized.


and the various major cities scattered in the rest.
And that one is easier said than done. The distances are too great, the terrain too unfavorable, the local defenses too in-depth, the urbanization and city size too low. It's outright impossible, unless China or India are also members of the occupation force.

Actually, the entire Georgian military is only 32,000 strong. And in the battlezone, there were only 18,000 or so.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4583383.ece


Ok, even according to your source, Georgia has 18,000, Russia 15,000 how's that crushing numbers? And by the way that article is the most laughed at article cited on the war. First off in contradicts itself:

"The Russians have learnt lessons from American campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan and from their own experiences in the Balkans, but the Georgia operation was old-style fighting with Cold War-era equipment."

So the Russians learned, but did not learn. Isn't that amazing? As for Cold War Equiptment, Abrams Tank is Cold War equiptment, still the most popular tank to use amongst the US. Epic Fail #1.

"They lost four aircraft, shot down by Russian-built Georgian anti-aircraft weapons. "

Heard a good parody on this one. Well first off Georgia lost 5 aircraft too. Secondly, losing 4 aircraft is nothing to bitch about. The US lost 12 aircraft in the first few weeks against Afghanistan, due to CIA supplied Stingers. But here's the parody: "Putin came to his office saddened. "We've lost 4 aircraft out of several thousands that we have" said Putin. "We must surrender to Georgia, we cannot take such losses" he glumly concluded".

" Losing their overall commander... General Anatoli Khrulyov " - EPIC FAIL. Their overall commander was Col. Gen. Nogovitsyn. And the 58th Army wasn't the only one that fought. Not to mention that the guy got wounded and shipped off to a hospital, he wasn't lost. Just EPIC FAIL.

"Georgia's T72 tanks and Su25 jet fighters were upgraded with night-vision equipment" - ok can someone please explain to me why Su-25 would need night vision when they're equipped to operate at night and day already? So they can see Russian missiles coming at them better? Anyone else find this laughable?

"Ageing armoured personnel carriers lacked proper bolt-on armour to protect against anti-tank weapons " - umm there are weapons that can penetrate nearly everything. Also AFVs cannot be protected against quality anti-tank weapons. EPIC FAIL.

"No airborne unmanned surveillance platforms to spot Georgian anti-air defence systems" - actually those are being developed....

"No precision-guided missiles/bombs " - now that one's a flat out lie.

"No night-vision or satellite-linked navigation equipment" - being developed....

"No protection for Tu22 bomber destroyed during reconnaissance" - yes the Russians foolishly lost a bomber, while the Georgians several divisions. Clearly a loss for Russia.

What the hell is up with Uzbekistan's border with Kazahkstan? With everyone else, the borders are the normal ridiculously squiggly lines, but with Kazahkstan it's an Iraqi straight line thing all of a sudden.

Because that lovely Mr. Stalin (as Lenin's Commissar for Nationalities) decided that Karakalpakstan (the bit of Uzbekistan at the upper left, by the Aral Sea) should be in Uzbekistan rather than Kazakhstan. The population of Karakalpakstan is essentially divided evenly between Karakalpaks and Uzbeks; however, the Karakalpak language is much closer to Kazakh than to Uzbek, and there's some feeling that 'Karakalpaks' were intentionally created by the Soviets (much like 'Moldovans' were conceptualised separately from Romanians) so as to ethnically divide Kazakhs between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

In other words, the border is as artificial as the ethnic group it reifies, and was drawn up by the ruling imperial authorities rather than the locals.

Much like a lot of Middle Eastern borders, so the comparison with Iraq is a good one.

And by the way that article is the most laughed at article cited on the war.
Clearly, the Times is a horrible boulevard paper. Perhaps Pravda Online would be a better bet for objective information.

"The Russians have learnt lessons from American campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan and from their own experiences in the Balkans, but the Georgia operation was old-style fighting with Cold War-era equipment."

So the Russians learned, but did not learn. Isn't that amazing?
Maybe the author is trying to credit the Russians with a brain here, noting that they had in fact learned, but simply not applied such lessons?

The Russians did use old-school, tank rush type tactics. They had to because their air support wasn't able to deliver the same sort of impact the USAF could deliver in Iraq or Afghanistan, because they didn't have the accuracy, speed and ability to neutralise anti-air defences.

As for Cold War Equiptment, Abrams Tank is Cold War equiptment, still the most popular tank to use amongst the US. Epic Fail #1.
It has of course been changed significantly since those days. But that's not the point - the Russians used the equipment they actually have in use in significant numbers, and that stuff is old. That's a fact.

"They lost four aircraft, shot down by Russian-built Georgian anti-aircraft weapons. "

Heard a good parody on this one. Well first off Georgia lost 5 aircraft too. Secondly, losing 4 aircraft is nothing to bitch about.
It is if your claim is to be a superpower, taking on a tiny country whose airforce flies...9 combat jets alltogether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Air_Force#Equipment).

The US lost 12 aircraft in the first few weeks against Afghanistan, due to CIA supplied Stingers.
No, they didn't. The US didn't use helicopters or other slow, low-altitude aircraft that would have been at risk, because they were worried about the Stingers. They primarily used cruise missiles and B-52s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coalition_aircraft_losses_in_Afghanistan#2001

But here's the parody: "Putin came to his office saddened. "We've lost 4 aircraft out of several thousands that we have" said Putin. "We must surrender to Georgia, we cannot take such losses" he glumly concluded".
Not really relevant.

" Losing their overall commander... General Anatoli Khrulyov " - EPIC FAIL. Their overall commander was Col. Gen. Nogovitsyn. And the 58th Army wasn't the only one that fought.
Actually, Nogovitsyn was the spokesman, not the commander. He was the one explaining on TV what was going on, he wasn't actually in charge.

At any rate, it's not really important. What is important is that an important and high-ranking officer was injured and taken out of combat because the Russians had no idea where the enemy was.

Not to mention that the guy got wounded and shipped off to a hospital, he wasn't lost. Just EPIC FAIL.
For the intents and purposes of the military at wartime, he was lost. Hence the article was 100% correct in the wording it used.

"Georgia's T72 tanks and Su25 jet fighters were upgraded with night-vision equipment" - ok can someone please explain to me why Su-25 would need night vision when they're equipped to operate at night and day already? So they can see Russian missiles coming at them better? Anyone else find this laughable?
Probably not. The Su-25 is a ground support aircraft, and seeing what's going on on the ground is kinda important for that. The original plane didn't have a HUD or any other modern electronic gimmicks, and is still the most common type in use in the Russian airforce.

They did make a more advanced version, the Su-25T, which had upgraded avionics and so on, but still needed an extra nightvision kit to be mounted on the outside of the plane for missions at night.

The Georgians meanwhile use the Su-25KM, which has a full upgrade made by the Israelis, including state-of-the-art avionics, nightvision and so on. That difference is what the article is referring to, though whether it would have made a huge difference given the number and environment I don't know.

"Ageing armoured personnel carriers lacked proper bolt-on armour to protect against anti-tank weapons " - umm there are weapons that can penetrate nearly everything. Also AFVs cannot be protected against quality anti-tank weapons. EPIC FAIL.
You do realise that American APCs and AFVs are pretty much invulnerable against RPG fire, with the exception of lucky shots at certain weak points, right? They have all sorts of fancy kits now they developed quick-snap when they realised that Iraqis know how to use those. Unsurprisingly, the Russians did not, since they didn't have the money or the impetus to do so.

"No airborne unmanned surveillance platforms to spot Georgian anti-air defence systems" - actually those are being developed....
But they weren't there.

"No precision-guided missiles/bombs " - now that one's a flat out lie.
This one is hard to call either way. If you have evidence that they did use them, feel free to post it. Suffice to say that it would have been an exception from the norm.

"No night-vision or satellite-linked navigation equipment" - being developed....
And the US is developing laser cannons to shoot down missiles. That doesn't mean those things exist for real just yet.

"No protection for Tu22 bomber destroyed during reconnaissance" - yes the Russians foolishly lost a bomber, while the Georgians several divisions. Clearly a loss for Russia.
The reason that plane was destroyed was because it had to be sent out to a recon mission, due to the fact that the Russians had no idea where the enemy was and had no satellites, drones or other means of finding out at their disposal. That's a failure on their part which illustrates the shortcomings of the Russian military at this point.

What the Georgians lost or not is utterly irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant how many Iraqi insurgents or Taliban get killed for each NATO or US soldier. Georgia is not supposed to be an adversary for a superpower.

This is no different to the Israeli attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon. On paper, they should have gone in there and totally kicked ass. In the end, what really stuck in people's heads is that it revealed the weaknesses of the IDF, just as all military campaigns do for all militaries. And the ones revealed for the Russians are such that I have to conclude that, if it weren't for numbers and nukes, the Russian military wouldn't even warrant consideration by NATO.

And I was able to put this entire post together not being an expert on any of this stuff, with just my trusty friend google at my side. You could have done everyone a favour and checked your claims beforehand, and saved both of us some time.

7
You do realise that American APCs and AFVs are pretty much invulnerable against RPG fire, with the exception of lucky shots at certain weak points, right?

This is only true with the aging and widely produced RPG-7, which has long since ceased to be an anti-tank weapon given advances in combat armor.

The more modern RPG-29, with it's tandem HEAT warhead, is significantly more likely to kill an AFV, even with reactive armor, given that it has been noted to penetrate (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html) the armor of modern MBTs.

This is only true with the aging and widely produced RPG-7, which has long since ceased to be an anti-tank weapon given advances in combat armor.
Granted, though as far as I can see, Georgia only has those. Ultimately I think the article is referring to the fact that the Russians haven't made the same upgrades in terms of bolt-on armour that NATO forces have made due to being exposed to RPG fire in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's understandable, though perhaps not fully, given that RPGs would surely have been used a lot in Chechnya as well.

russia are pros at the military. the usa would show up, trudge through the snow and die of hypothermia

Granted, though as far as I can see, Georgia only has those. Ultimately I think the article is referring to the fact that the Russians haven't made the same upgrades in terms of bolt-on armour that NATO forces have made due to being exposed to RPG fire in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's understandable, though perhaps not fully, given that RPGs would surely have been used a lot in Chechnya as well.

I've seen images from the front during the Georgian/Russian conflict, and posted the link around here somewhere in one of the older threads. Gore aside, quite a few of the vehicles I saw had at least some sort of basic bolt on slat armor, although that could have been makeshift armor from scavenged parts.

I've seen images from the front during the Georgian/Russian conflict, and posted the link around here somewhere in one of the older threads. Gore aside, quite a few of the vehicles I saw had at least some sort of basic bolt on slat armor, although that could have been makeshift armor from scavenged parts.
Hmmm...oh, well, who knows.

Also found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-2#Protection_issues
The basic hull armour on the BMP-2 can be easily penetrated by any shaped-charge missile, from the 66 mm LAW on up. Due to this limitation, Russian troops in combat zones customarily ride outside the BMP, sitting on top. This limits the chance that a single RPG round could kill or wound everyone inside the vehicle, but has obvious downside on the likelihood of passenger survivability in a war-zone. One important modification carried out as the result of operational experience in Afghanistan was the fitting of a second layer of stand-off armour, usually a high resistant ballistic rubber-like material, to act as spaced armour around the top of the hull sides and around the turret.
If that's correct, then Russian troops sitting on the things are just following standard procedure.