Militarily, is Russia all that strong? I thought their hardware was all outdated and shit since their economy isn't very good.
Could they take on the US? What about China?
Russia is peaceful. No need to attack someone.
>I thought their hardware was all outdated and shit since their economy isn't very good
they make some pretty good shit but because they haven't got enough money they can't field all the new stuff immediately
INDEED! To save Germany we should destroy it!
Kebab dislikes wat in where they live so destroying Germany is primary objetive. Kebab will move to France where they will feel like home.
If we're talking all-out nuclear warfare with total disregard for the laws of war, then yes they could. They'd get fucked too, though. And so would we, presumably.
I've always wondered how beautiful would Earth look from the ISS as ICBMs flied across the skies and whole cities in every continent are engulfed in massive fireballs. That's assuming the ruskies don't nuke the ISS as well.
Constant involvement in the Middle East is wearing us out, you can't possibly think we could solidly defeat Russia in a conflict.
No, and that's not even counting NATO. We have the force projection to keep our troops on their soil, they don't have the same ability. Not saying the US would have a guaranteed win, but a Russian victory is almost out of the question.
Probably not, I don't know if they have the ability to keep their troops supplied.
>Are they that strong
Yes, and they're modernizing their army. I'm not sure how well it's going with all the sanctions, but they're definitely making the effort. Russia is obviously a regional power, but their ability to deploy their military in any of the nations not bordering them is terrible at the moment.
Russia is till a world power, however they are not the Soviets. Kind of sad honestly
Just looks like a little toy to me.
I doubt either the US could invade Russia successfully or Russia into the US.
Russia has its climate/geography, the US has its seas and navy.
China is a bit tricky.
They've got manpower but everything about their army is retarded.
Outdated shit that's been copied off Murrica/Soviets, retarded army structure, retards in all aspects except civil/national economy.
Manpower doesn't matter much nowadays... I can't foresee China doing shit here, but I can't fully imagine Russia to take over China.
China relies on Russian oil to some extent, I'm not up to date on its navy, but I can imagine Russia could effectively cutting them off at sea or elsewhere.
Stalemate in all cases with or without nukes.
>Posts a coastal defense system that's not even fully deployed yet
What about the Baltic Sea you fucking moron. I doubt you could transport the hundreds of systems you would need to prevent us from establishing a beachhead in the short amount of time you would have known about the invasion.
Brazil could take Moscow in one month.
Point is, the US could, with difficulty, establish a beachhead that it could maintain. It has the capability to. It's almost certain that we would fail to destroy your army entirely, but that's not what I was saying.
Yeah, sure you could, hans.
Does "Eternal glory to heroes who fell in battle with the German fascist invaders for the freedom and independence of the Soviet Union" Ring a bell?
Pro tip, it sits in the middle of Berlin.
>literally george soros owned
try harder, samefag
>his country doesn't spend half of the budget on military
That's because we have 4 million people, the same amount as Liberia, Palestine, Oman, Croatia, Turkmenistan, Eritria. The only thing we could purchase would be outdated weapons from the US, they would never get used apart from in peace keeping missions, and we would ruin the economy.
This is a good memorial.
It is remembrance of the one good thing Russia has done in last centuries - beaten back nazi shits.
It's just a shame it turned out to be (almost) just as bad afterwards.
The german cucks in this thread need to shut the fuck up
>you can buy Main Campf on red square
oh cuck russian
>he has to create fan fiction to display """""his""""" flag on the Kremlin.
There's more than one, lad.
russia would have a hard time taking on the three local powers of middle-east(turkey, israel, iran) without nukes desu, they live on propoganda
Land wise yes, but military projection is iffy
naval capacity for the russians i feel lean towards missiles, so with lesser aircraft carriers, russians can't project air superiority on the sea so well
ive heard some concerns over their newer gen of fighter aircraft
taking on china would be a bloodbath since both have large armies, nato might be less of a issue but the initial stages would be very bloody for both sides
US? quite stupid, they could fight the US off Russia, but invading NA would be very bad for them
Russian army has different doctrine to western ones anyway
They need better infrastructure and organization, which goes hand in hand with the countries economy.
US is fine at taking out standing armies, See: Desert Storm. But for some reason the military just sucks at having a cohesive plan to handle insurgents and geurilla's. You'd think they'd have this shit figured out by now. It's easy to roll into a place and plant yourself on the throne, but actually managing the country afterwards in another issue and something the US utterly fails in.
Yeah, but the statement "US is fine at taking out standing armies" barely holds water.
If you want to put out Iraq as an example I can easily put out China in the Korean war where they fought to a stalemate. And we're talking about a shitty china with barely any fire power at the time.
Without bringing up the fact Iraq was a coalition or the wast inferiority of the Iraqis in literally every regard, including a population of barely 18 million, less than, for example, Romania.
It can also be barely called a standing army when the vast majority of it was conscripts with no will to fight.
>Militarily, is Russia all that strong? I thought their hardware was all outdated and shit since their economy isn't very good.
They are still an inormous threat to the civilized world. If it wasn't for the Nato whole Europe would have had a Crimean Expirience. That's why we need to expand the NATO to grow more force to get on par with Russia. That's also why Russia wants to trick us to end the Nato.
Just look at the Russians. Isn't it obvious what they are striving for is more space to conquer?
>Could they take on the US?
Sure they could. Look at the size of Russia and then look at tiny USA.
>What about China?
They can take on china and they do so regularly. The last time Simple Russian farmers killed an occupational force of china in an area of a border dispute.
you could still see the deep trenches inthe ground produced by the Russian farmers landmachines.
It's kind of pointless to discuss full scale war with any of those 3 countries, since they all have nukes, but okay for shits and giggles.
A lot of Russia's gear is outdated yes, most notably their navy of which only half is in operational state. They're getting some new frigates, corvettes and diesel-electric subs soon, but there doesn't seem much development in replacing the old carrier and larger surface combatants they have now. The stuff they have is pretty stacked with anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles, but the platforms are old, in few numbers and won't last much longer. But mainly, Russia lacks the logistics/sealift for any kind of operation too far from home. Their navy basically serves as coastal defence.
Russia's Air Force is doing better, but again a lot of their air frames are pretty old and won't last much longer against 5th gen fighters with stealth and superior BVR capabilities, nullifying the part where Russian fighters excel in; dogfighting. They only ordered like 40 Su-35s and the PAK FA program will probably fail due to the lack of capable engines and India bailing out.
Russia's strength is in their army and their air-defence. No one will ever try to invade or get near Russia since you would get blown the fuck out on land and in the air. The West has yet to make a mobile long-range SAM system like the S-300 and S-400.
I was hoping you were joking to be honest.
There is so much bullshit in that post I don't even.
>They can take on china and they do so regularly. The last time Simple Russian farmers killed an occupational force of china in an area of a border dispute.
which incident was that
Here we go again.
Sign us up anyway, we're sadists.
Sorry, can't hear you over the sound of one Russian tank division having more tanks than the whole country of Germany.
jamal have life in Europe ?
You people are confusing a war with a full on head to head single battle.
Russia surely has more troops, but in a war, Germany could probably defend itself long enough to put its industry in motion, eventually, Germany would build a more significant mechanized force. Except for nukes, you'd get fucked by nukes.
But this is not WW2 anymore. Military equipment has gotten far more costly and complicated and can almost never be built by just 1 country and never in a short amount of time. Even German built tanks, frigates and subs all rely heavily on foreign suppliers for sensors/electronics/armaments and none of that can be bought just off the shelf. Not even mentioning the time it would take for Germany to get more Typhoons or Patriot batteries. Protip: years.
In reality Germany would get steamrolled by Russia in weeks. Germany's Air Force is in bad state and their 1-layered IADS is not going to hold up long against Russian missiles. Once Russia has air superiority then Germany is their playground
It's gettning stronger now. We recieved lots of newest stuff, military budget has priority. Yes, we can take on the US by cracking the Earth in half and jumping out of holes in the ground under White House.
Not to mention the German army is in complete disarray. Half their shit is not operational any more due to neglect and lack of finances. IIRC they even borrowed some of your Dutch planes to get shit over to Afghanis at one point.
People also seem to completely over look what strategic advantage simply having a large army is on a sufficiently large land mass. You can just put pressure on the small German army while the rest of your forces exploits the holes and bum rushes your ass.
Operation Bagration anyone?
They're the number 2 military in the world, no matter what some brainwashed leftist drones will tell you.
Gotten pretty good at spanking US lapdogs in the recent years too.
Just read about S-500. S-400 was a hardcore shit. And currently first exemplares of S-500 are being delivered to Army. The game is over for West, you've lost your chance to waste us. You should've done in 1945-1950, now we are untouchable. Read about S-500 before commenting, I am serious.
I read about it, some sceptics say Sovietunion was lieing about the Farmers thing as you could find parts of cassete bombs on the battleground....
But anyone could have placed them there even the chinese. And the trenches of the tracks clearly proof that landmachines were used, even though some argue that Langmachines and Tanks are built in the same factories and their tracks look totally a like...
This is not even about how good American military is, but more about how they are behind two oceans and how Russian Navy has always had rather rudimentary amphibious capabilities and was always meant to repel CBG attacks, not land troops in the US. Even if US military was shit, it's a 320 million country on another side of the globe.
>first exemplares of S-500 are being delivered to Army
>how they are behind two oceans
definitely. that's one of their strong suits when it comes to defence against foreign invasions. not only are they located in the middle of fuck all between the oceans, they also happen to have some of the best naval forces. all in all, a great position to be in, geographically and militarily speaking.
Russian mobile SAMs are cool and all, but it certainly doesn't make you untouchable. Especially not with the development of stealthy standoff missiles and AR missiles
>>53469567 Use logic. If S-400 was currently our best - do you think we'd risk this much sending it to Syria? Alpha versions of S-500 were ready in 2008, now public announcement is being delayed as it will tremendoulsly change geopolitcs. You will soon hear about it, mark my words.
All anti air/anti missile stuff.. Defensive, mostly.
>We are untouchable
In Russia perhaps.. But Russias issue is that it cannot really touch anything either. Logistically, they don't have the capabilities to project forces much further than their own borders.. They could take Crimea because they already had a base there, and because Ukraine borders Russia.. They wouldn't be able to take much more.. If ever a full-scale NATO v Russia war broke out, Russia would be more or less stuck in Russia, while NATO forces can literally drop in from anywhere.
I will believe it when I will actually hear about it from some source better than fucking 4chan/int.
>If S-400 was currently our best - do you think we'd risk this much sending it to Syria?
Pls. Russia sold it to fucking Algeria already. And Krasukha-4 is deployed in Syria too. You just go and name a better ECM system.
>Russia can do total war without getting a domestic backlash that matters.
This is Russia's major advantage, I don't think it gets mentioned enough. It's a BIG advantage. Remember Obama's "red line" against Assad? He couldn't back up his threat because US public opinion was against more Middle-East entanglements. The Russian President can act without caring about the public opinion.
However as >>53469727 says, Russia's major disadvantage is lack of power projection capability. The naval base in Syria is pretty much the only exception to this, although they need Turkey's permission to get to it...
You mean that bydlo population is our advantage? That might soon change. People are getting fed up with all the bullshit it seems. A war would certainly trigger major interior troubles, hell, I don't even think a war will be necessary.
>NATO forces can literally drop in from anywhere
Is it that scenario where the combined NATO military assets magically teleport directly to Russia's borders? Anyway, good luck with dropping it "literally anywhere".
Not just the population's mindset, also the control the State has over the media, and the set-up of Russia's political system (power is concentrated in the Executive i.e. the President).
In the UK, even if ALL the media supported the Prime Minister, he could still be stopped by MPs. The House of Commons can remove the Prime Minister at any time if a majority decides he has to go.
A Russian President doesn't have to worry about taking the MPs with him, he can do what he wants.
You are right though, if they go TOO far, then the population will take matters into their own hands. But currently Putin's popularity is very high, majority of the Russian public trust him to do what is right
people actually don't know that the only place russia actually can be invaded is from europe or central asia.
invading frozen thundra, mountains or thousands of kilometers of swamps from other 'anywheres' isn't actually a good idea.
>Look at the size of Russia and then look at tiny USA.
>What was your point again?
That they're surrounded. Yes, they have a lot of anti-missle and anti-air stuff, but even if they shoot all missiles and air forces down, they're still in Russia.
Maybe not literally everywhere, but you cannot argue that NATO is less flexible than Russia.
>my world view is completely incorrect
That of most people.. Map projections fuck with your perception. Did you know Australia is pretty much the same size as the US?
Russia is really big, it's just that Africa is fucking massive.
Mercator doesn't just distort land near the poles (making it artificially bigger), it shrinks landmass near the equator
I'm always a bit surprised that there are countries that are literally smaller than us.. And I don't mean meme-city states like the Vatican or Monaco, or tiny Islands but 'actual' states like Luxembourg..
Too bad most of it is wasteland.
Neutrality fucked us in WWII... Neutrality like we practised it doesn't actually work. You need weapons and soldiers to safeguard your neutral territories, like the Swiss have...
Not bicycles and a few WWI-era rifles, and 1 (one) airplane..
It worked for ages (of course we played ball with some other players but that was normal) and the Swiss were lucky they were in a mountainous area and they weren't as strategically important area. We were in between Britain and Germany AND yes flimsy as fuck at the time.
>It worked for ages (of course we played ball with some other players but that was normal)
It also worked because we always had enough militairy forces available.. If I'm not mistaken most of that was before it was common to have large standing armies as states, so everybody relied on mercenaries. That already changed in World War I, but because we were neuteal in that we did not adapt.. When World War II came it we were completely powerless to resist the Germans. Neutrality does not work if you are powerless.
>the Swiss were lucky they were in a mountainous area and they weren't as strategically important area.
The Swiss were also well armed and well trained.. Yes, they had their mountains. But we could theorhetically have flooded our lands like in the olden times.
>We were in between Britain and Germany AND yes flimsy as fuck at the time.
Still, if we had enough militairy forces to maintain neutrality, Hitler would have been much more likely to ignore us. And we might have held out longer than 3 (three) days.. There's a reason people keep referring to WWII when it's about the need for having a militairy budget in our country.
>Militarily, is Russia all that strong?
>I thought their hardware was all outdated and shit since their economy isn't very good.
You right. I am working on military plant. Our rockets don't work. They do not reach USA i guess.
WWII wasn't great, I agree.
But the fact remains, we're in between two countries in a new age where massive beach landings were a thing and airplanes were a really good weapon.
I can't imagine a person as aggressive and bold as Hitler NOT doing anything about the Netherlands and to be frank I don't think there would be much point to hold out a few more weeks.
>. That's why we need to expand the NATO to grow more force to get on par with Russia.
>NATO grow more force
>Russia more scared and do this too
>"muh aggressive Russia! USA strong!", NATO grow more force
>russian economy can't handle it
>collapse of USSR 2 - electric boogaloo.
>Sure they could. Look at the size of Russia and then look at tiny USA.
You imply that wars are won purely by the amount of land a nation has? Maybe that would be a tiny bit more applicable if that land was actually filled up, which it is not.
Britain couldn't either?
It's generally not stoppable unless you stop a bomber group dead in its tracks with a lot of fighters.
You can however decrease the damage done by taking down planes.
Surrounded by what, early warning radars? In a war against NATO Russia doesn't need to occupy mainland USA or invade Europe, it just needs to be able to retaliate hard enough to the alliance to think twice before even considering attacking it. I don't think Russians themselves have any illusions about the probability of going beyond a stalemate in such a situation.
>you cannot argue that NATO is less flexible than Russia
I'm not trying to. The point is Russia is a land power, it has no important maritime trade or supply routes to defend and its human, military and natural resources are concentrated in its European Part and Ural region, which are protected by Arctic Ocean as well as European and Siberian landmasses. And while NATO launched land invasion of European part of Russia from Europe will face the whole Russian Ground Forces with its thousands of tanks, SAMs and else, it is yet the only way for NATO to attack Russia, because elsewise the invasion will face something worse - thousands of kilometres of forests, mountains, swamps and ice deserts, some parts of which they don't even bother to protect.
So yeah, NATO is much more flexible and USA is behind two oceans, but Russia has a vast geographical advantage too.
If I was Russia I'd be paranoid about our drones, we got drones that take off on Navy ships and that land on them, and this fucking thing; pic - an unmanned space shuttle drone thing that just hanged out in space for two weeks and came back down.
oh yeah this thing
Not even Iran should be paranoid about your drones.
>and this fucking thing; pic
And what about it? What will US do, drop it from orbit? That's one expensive JDAM.
Not the same guy, but the only way a war between NATO and Russia could happen is for Russia to attack a NATO country first, so outside their own borders. There's no fucking way the West would ever think of invading Russia by land. At most by air, but then NATO would first disable Russia's IADS and that's tricky. Could be done with a combination of EW and a saturation attack of F-35s dropping JASSMs/JSOWs/HARMs
We're talking hypothetically here. Attacking NATO is disadvantageous for Russia, in real life they obviously won't do it either.
Neglectingly low range. The combination of JASSM-ER and MALD saturation attack could at least have a chance.
>Which is stronger
>Japanese Navy or Russian Navy?
>Are Russian able to invade Japanese through Japanese Sea?
If all Russian navy were in Pacific Fleet, then the answer would be yes.
Well there's stealth of course. With F-35s acclaimed RCS of 0.01 - 0.001 it could theoretically get in range undetected (or at least not locked onto) to drop JSOWs/HARMs
Exact RCS numbers are vastly assumptional and do not take into account actual IADS, just frontal projection against a lone standing SAM site.
yes the Russian military is strong they have gotten there shit together since the 90s, Russia and the united states can't fight each other, the people i know in the military when they did those war game simulations said that a conventional war with Russia would cause so many casualties on both sides that we both would run out of soldiers very quickly, imagine the eastern front by multiplied several times over, a Nuclear war would kill the entire world. China is still devolving so yes Russia could probably take china in a war but it would be costly.
The funny thing is being a soldier in our military I see how vastly inefficient and incompetent it is, yet everyone else is more so.
As long as your the tallest midget you're good.
You mean how the Chinese have managed to copy and mass produce the Raytheon built Javalin? How one of these can take down
Small armored vehicles
They can accomplish all of this at a stupid low costs in large number yields
Strength is relative
They are currently number 2 or 3.
They have gotten their shit together since the 90's, but oil's crash will take its toll again.
Defensively they'd do okay but would eventually lose.
They'd win defensively.
One word for this whole pointless thread
In terms of conventional forces, they have a lot of stuff but I'm not sure how well maintained it is. It's all speculation, really.
In terms of strategic weapons, their only rival is the USA, however.