In the case of Russia vs China, it would really come down to who is worse.
Both have massive force projection issues, with questionable ability to wage any kind of offensive war for an extended period of time.
Russian military modernization programs have been... suboptimal at best, impotent at worst.
Most of the PRC's equipment is unproven, especially in combat. The PRC also has the massive issue of too much tail for the head. They actually have a rather small amount of true combat soldiers, with huge amounts of questionable "support" roles.
Both armies have horrible, horrible morale issues, with Russia taking a slight edge, because at least their army takes orders and has recent combat experience. China calls in dancing girls to relieve their stressed out troops.
Nuclear arsenal... Russia wins, obviously.
Russian fighters are old, but proven in combat, China's are better on paper, but their papers are dubious at best, and we wouldn't know until war actually broke out.
I personally think any direct conflict would lead to a brutal slugfest with no clear winner, as a large amount of China's military would have to remain at home to suppress the citizenry and enforce draft laws.
>>28858005 >Ability to move forces through friendly territories without threat of attack on supply lines >Able to set up within a friendly host nation within relatively secure areas to run operations out of >All connected by land >Able to do all at a leisurely pace with not pressure to arrive quickly Yes, quite the stunning display of force projection.
>>28858383 He meant Russia can send forces without ever having to leave a roadway you fucking idiot. The obvious comparison here being to the United States, which has to ship/fly all material over the Atlantic, into Europe (or over Africa), and then reach their target. Makes things much more difficult and costly.
>>28856733 The Chinese are defenitely behind on tactics/strategy/combat experience - battlefield competence in general.
In joint Russian-Chinese military games, the Chinese staff have been criticized by their Russian counterparts for trying to perform the same kind of armored column assaults in urban areas that Russia tried in Chechenya (which got ambushed and destroyed to the last)
However, one must not underestimate the fact that the Chinese can draw from a bottomless supply of fresh manpower.
The technology gap between the two is not that great. Chinese ATGMs have performed well in Syria, so brushing off their equipment as "cheap, flawed copies" is defenitely a wrong assumption. Combined with the fact that they can find labour and technical resources for mass production much easier - China is certain to prevail in a war of attrition.
Also Russia has not reached (into mass production, 10 prototypes of Armata that have not even passed factory tests yet don't count) the levels of tech that made Saddams "quantity over quantity" gamble so hopeless against the US forces.
Another factor that speaks in favour of the Chinese mass is the potentially massive area that the conflict between China and Russia would envelop. The area in question - Manchuria, the last unreversed Chinese loss from their "Century of Humiliation"
The higher quality Russian forces could be spread too thin to cover such a large area vs. the Chinese horde.
In terms of the societiess ability to wage war, I'd say the Russians are better off - the culture of "entire nation towards one cause" has been drilled into them reasonably well. China has more problems with Byzantine-styled infighting and lack of trust which leads to indecision and failure on the battlefield.
tl;dr I'd bet on the gooks, but the Russians have a good chance to if they can capitalize on their superior tactics, ~tech and cohesion.
>>28860592 >Right now? Russia >In five years? China nyet. in purely conventional steel on steel terms China wins crushingly- Russians themselves begrudgingly concede this. However that doesn't mean a Sino-Russo war would be a foregone conclusion, not when the Russians could always rely on its massive asymmetric response capabilities. Nukes are the most known but they also have a veritable arsenal of conventional BMs for example that they have in no unstated terms have said and demonstrated usage in the tactical sense- in 8.8.8 for example they fired off a couple Iskanders that demolished a whole Georgian tank battalion. Pair it up with cruise missiles they are now showing off in Syria, demolishing strategic-operational targets deep behind enemy lines; obvious targets being mainly China's many dams. Couple those with the most sophisticated and comprehensive land based IADS to make up for the smaller airforce and even boasting the only reliable countermeasure to low-flying cruise missiles(Mig-31) strikes. The whole thing then seems not so one-sided and becomes a Pyrrhic Chinese victory at best case for the Chinese.
>>28858566 >The technology gap between the two is not that great. Chinese ATGMs have performed well in Syria, Except that today's sophisticated equipment require equally if not moreso sophisticated labor . We are talking about skilled workers who graduated in a technical school at least, having a few years more beyond that is the most common and have years of experience. And those are the workers only- the engineers and designers have much better qualifications still. And- more importantly those qualifications and experience have to be relevant from the start- you can't just expect an expert in car manufacturing to get right on to jet manufacturing right of the bat- it will take some time to retrain, reeducate that its arguablly better to have someone fresh to undergo the process instead. And no, Chinese ATGMs in Syria aren't that different in technology terms to a 1980s Soviet or American one- this is why they are so cheap and makes them prevalent too. >Also Russia has not reached (into mass production, 10 prototypes of Armata that have not even passed factory tests yet don't count) the levels of tech that made Saddams "quantity over quantity" gamble so hopeless against the US forces. Nope. 14(we saw 7 in the parade, typically there is a reserve tank for each one) T-14s have passed factory tests and are currently undergoing Army trials. >Another factor that speaks in favour of the Chinese mass is the potentially massive area that the conflict between China and Russia would envelop. The area in question - Manchuria, the last unreversed Chinese loss from their "Century of Humiliation" its really much better to have a Century of Humiliation instead of a moment of widespread death and destruction and a Century of pain and devastation after.
>>28858885 >The real question is if Russia is more powerful than India Oh yes. much, much more powerful. Even if its on pure steel on steel terms Russia outclasses the Indians in every category except number of bodies- which could easily be bodybags when you are severely lacking in capital systems of war(tanks, ifvs, jets, etc.). >>28858318 >Please. Operating 20 planes from a country they already have a base in means shit. In recent years the US has never prosecuted a successful air campaign(in their terms) without a land base nearby. Yes, the intercontinental B-2 bombing durka-durkastan from CONUS is awesome and all but the planes would be tearing themselves apart before they could do anything meaningful, same for the B-52s. Nothing still beats having a nearby base from which to lob bombs from.
Except they are not and the only sources that claim the Russians are having an effect are Sputnik/RT and places that repost their stuff.
>>28862612 Century of Humiliation included the widespread death and destruction, more than WW2 did for Russia.
> Opium wars, not all that much property destruction but extremely costly in money and prestige. > Heavy taxes were needed to pay off the war reparations, which causes huge domestic problems > Taiping Rebellion triggered by losses to the West and government weakness killed 20-30 million > Loss of territory and loss of influence with client states > Civil war following the fall of the Qing, > Sino Japanese war into WW2, another 20-30 million dead depending on how you count
The Chinese are extremely touchy about foreign interference. They might have lots of internal problems but pretty much all of that vanishes if there's a hostile foreign power to fight/direct attention at.
This is why they don't back down an inch for the debates about those south pacific shit rocks. They absolutely refuse to back down against western powers about anything even when it's against their better interests.
>>28862860 >Century of Humiliation included the widespread death and destruction, more than WW2 did for Russia. yet here they are still- thriving and ready to show everyone who's boss(really more like resuming its dominant economic position it enjoyed most of its 3k years). Do you think getting nuked six ways to sunday would even afford them the survivors to lament the forthcoming time of humiliation? >>28862860 >The Chinese are extremely touchy about foreign interference. They might have lots of internal problems but pretty much all of that vanishes if there's a hostile foreign power to fight/direct attention at. If I was the Chinese Elite(the only dudes that matter, same as everywhere else) and I get to choose between total annihilation of the 3k years long and still ongoing Chinese Civilization versus backing down and biding my time yet again (pretty much the perfect storm of catastrophes happened to make the original Century of Humiliation possible and its unlikely to happen twice), Id choose the latter. >This is why they don't back down an inch for the debates about those south pacific shit rocks. They absolutely refuse to back down against western powers about anything even when it's against their better interests. Nobody relevant except China and US cares about the rocks- and even then the US knows it doesn't have much going for it in the SCS dispute. They can't even give an in no uncertain terms support to its allies there in case conflict erupts between them and China!
>>28862994 >Russia's military has so far in Syria performed better than US and better than US in Afghanistan. different objectives m8
you don't see Russian troops in a low scale conflict where most of the guys you're fighting hide in the population and shoot at you then run away (oh wait Russia did do that and they also left, but they left the country in a worse state)
you're comparing a relatively conventional conflict to a insurgency m8.
Not just that, you make the claim that Russia does better because they bomb indiscriminately. Which if the US did as well they'd wreck shit. US and Russia have different priorities in the Syrian war.
You're comparing a lumberjack to a wooden statue maker in who can cut more wood quicker.
>>28863039 >If I was the Chinese Elite(the only dudes that matter, same as everywhere else) and I get to choose between total annihilation of the 3k years long and still ongoing Chinese Civilization versus backing down and biding my time yet again (pretty much the perfect storm of catastrophes happened to make the original Century of Humiliation possible and its unlikely to happen twice), Id choose the latter. to make it clear, this of course only when in an existential crisis' you know like when there is a popular and successful waging of war on Russia and invasion of its soil(more about how far popular support when rallied would matter in the overall calculus), a succesful embargo by the US that leaves China reeling(actual foreign interference), not your average Tuesday night trade disputes.
>>28856593 OP is brilliant. He clearly plans to get the battalion sized contingents of russian and chinese shills that infest this place locked into a shill-off. He might also have kicked off world war three.
>>28863166 >http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/10/25/russia-vladimir-putin-ash-carter-syria/74586002/ WOW... biggest piece of propaganda yet! It's fucking laughable how desperate ameriniggers are getting! They base this off some bullshit some retard came up with to make some money off US taxpayers.
Russian AF is kicking the shit out of NATO forces. NATO is basically US at this point while everyone else has dilapidated equipment. Germany has like 16 operational planes at this point (and they can't even fly at night). Everyone else's planes in "the coalition" are grounded.
Canadian CF-18's are falling apart so badly that they've decided not to even try to fly them anymore over Iraq.
PRC-PLA even with no morale or low morale could still forcibly invade and take Taiwan. WZ10, WZ18, J10, J20, J31, ZTZ-99s vs American and French shit that Taiwan has: cobra and Apache, M48A5, M60A3, F16A, Mirage 2000, IDF
>>28856733 >Both have massive force projection issues, Meme. This is now officially a fucking meme. >>28858437 That's a pretty stupid thing to say. Because Russia is connected to almost all of Eurasia. There is a reason why they don't need massive carrier fleets. Their entire country is a carrier fleet.
Russia is a rival of our country, but we must be sure to correctly gauge their strengths and weaknesses precisely because they are a rival.
Bullshitting people with "muh power projection" means fucking nothing when Russia has two things in its favor: 1. Russia extends from Europe (right next to their border) all the way to the Continental United States (Bering Strait). 2. Advanced rocket and nuclear ICBM technology. It's so advanced, we literally have been outsourcing rocket construction to the Russians until just a couple of years ago due to political differences. And nukes.
Russia needs a different kind of capability to project its power. Considerably far more different than what we do.
We are a country bordered between two oceans. To reach the parts of the world where we have strategic issues with (Old World), we REQUIRE massive carrier fleets. For the Russians to reach the parts of the world where they have strategic issues with (Old World again), they only need to have military bases in and around their own country's borders as well as military roadway systems.
You can build asphalt roads for cheap. Building operational several carrier battle groups is far more expensive, so even the difficult and costly shit, I don't understand.
>>28866437 Well, that may not be too much of a difference. Most of Russia's population is concentrated in Western Russia. Even China's arsenal can prove devastating to them with that vastly smaller amount. On the flipside, China's population is heavily concentrated on the Central Plains and the coastal areas, which will be obliterated in case a nuclear war sets out between the two countries.
>>28863728 NATO (non-US) is shit, but that's because they're welfare states that disregard defense spending because they're too complacent. I don't think the Russian air force is anywhere near close to US air capability, which is why they went the missile air defense tech tree route.
>>28866524 Chinese first strike: >Option 1: Counterforce Chinese warheads destroy appox 100 Russia nuclear targets. Russian Nuclear forces have appox 1000 warheads available for countervalue operations.
>Option 2: Countervalue Chinese warheads hit 100-150 industrial targets. 10-30 million dead, 25%-40% of GDP lost, major losses to Petroleum sector.
Russian Nuclear Forces have 1500 warheads available for response. 600 Industrial targets hit, 200-300 Million dead, 70% of GDP lost.
Russian first strike: Option 1: Counterforce Russian nuclear warheads destroy appox 80% of Chinese nuclear targets, still retain 200-350 warheads. Chinese have 10-20 warheads available for countervalue. China hits 7-12 industrial targets in Russia. Russia hits 100-175 industrial targets in China. Total losses: Russia: 10 Million dead, 15% GDP total loss. China: 100 Million dead, 50% GDP total loss.
No countervalue strike for Russia because why in the world would they ever pick a countervalue first strike.
>>28867989 Given that such a small countervalue strike in the Russian first strike scenario could potential be countered by ABM defenses, wouldn't this scenario mean that China would be effectively impotent?
>>28866499 That's the main thing people forget about when it comes to comparing the US military power and Russia's. Is that the Russians don't need to cross oceans to get to anywhere that is in their interest. They don't require a strong navy because they don't have oceans to patrol. The Russians need a shit load of land vehicles to cover the huge land mass. And they do that great. People just seem to forget that the US way of military power isn't the only way you can show it.
For people to think Russia has a chance is idiotic at best. China is well known for its mental fortitude in face of pressure and superior logistics. Chinese DHL can send anywhere in a flash. Russia suffers from Muslim problems while China does not it shows superior Chinese intellect. The matter that the subject of this thread is Russia and China is misleading it should be China and America. And we know which Asian country is better.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.