The Definitive Thread: US vs. Russia

[Krayzeenbk]

Originally posted by Heresson
You are highly overestimating Russia. My state is poor and it is even poorer. Comparing Russia to USA is like comparing Netherlands to Romania.

If you're talking about GNP per capita, then it has nothing to do with military ability.
Industrial + Agricultural + some Service GNP is the way to go because the whole country is fighting, not just a single person.
Yeah Russia is pretty low on GNP p.c., but the population is dropping and GNP is growing, which makes for a very fast rise in GNP p.c.

[Krayzeenbk]

Originally posted by Serb
Rodina is Rodina and you perfectly know that I don't speak Polish, how could I know what meanings you put in this definition.
What could you know about Russian soldiers? WHAT COULD YOU KNOW?
Heresson, sometimes your anti-Russian trolling makes me sick. Your bullsh*t charges which has nothing common with truth, your hatred toward Soviets sounds very weird from someone who who consider himself as "the only true communist here".
Everything has its limits Heresson, you just insulted memory of millions people who died to save the World from Nazism and to save YOUR country from total extermination.

LOL Serb...

When the Russians invaded Berlin, there was a mass rape and whatnot - fact.

From the Russian point of view it goes like this - the Germans invade, kill about 20 million civillians, and now the Russian soldiers are in Berlin so let's beat the sh*t out of everything while we can. Yes, it happened.

The unpatriotism - Serb I think you oughta stop slinging this idiotic "it's in our genes to defend the Rodina" crap. Speak for yourself. It makes me ashamed to think there's Russians that really think like that.
Besides, it's much better to be a thinking soldier than a blind fanatic in combat.

Each Russian soldier is also different. Heresson said that before SU times, many were dragged to service. However, this was not entirely the case. Service was about the only way for a serf to become noble. Service was also the only way for a noble to prove himself worthy of being a noble. I've heard Westerners dismiss the Russian Empire's "peasant armies" as useless masses. The soldiers might have been peasants before they were drafted, but many were also in the army for life, were well armed, well trained, and had probably seen combat in several wars, making for very good killers.

Serb: the clearer you see the situation, the better you can use it to your advantage. Dying for Rodina just because someone invades is no good.

It's ok for Heresson to be anti-Russian, Serb, it shouldn't make you sick. It should make you see the situation clearly. That way, you will know who the enemy is when it's time to kill him (j/k Heresson ).

[Lord Merciless]

Why would these 2 nations go to war? There must be a cause at least, or some kind of a scenario. The success of this War very much depends on the popular support in each country.

If American people opposes the war, while Russian people supports it. => America loses the war.
Both country's people oppose the war. => stalemate and maintainance of status quo.
If the American people fully supports it, then Russia is lost regardless what.

Invasion against the Russia often failed because those tiny European countries didn't have enough resources, both human and materiel wise. In the end, they were all worn out against Russians in attritions. America has twice the population and far greater industrial capacity than Russia, so it would win a war of attrition. But this requires tremendous popular support.

I assume that an American invasion against Russia can only come from the European side, as other fronts would pose too much on logistics. Fighting against Russians require massed armored formations, and these guys consume hell of materiels every day. It would be really unpractical to carry all the stuff across Caucasus or Afghanistan.

If Russia is heavily engaged on their European fronts, it's vulnerable to backstabs from China. They can easily lose everything up to Ural Mountain.

Krayzeenbk, why would you think that China would wait for American economy to be destroyed to invade Russia? Or rather, why would the US pick two major powers to fight at once? The war effort against Russia alone would be paramount. It's more likely that when the fighting starts, both sides will try to convince China to join in an alliance.

[Krayzeenbk]

If America can't handle the logistics of a far east invasion, then America can not invade at all.

The American population will be decimated by the war, and the American industrial base will be totally wiped out (this goes for Russians too, but you never see the American side of it).

The problem with you analysis is that you assume America will be able to build in peace as it always has been during war. However, this is completely not the case. You can expect missile strikes on nearly all valuable American economic targets within 20 minutes of war. After the first week, the American (and Russian) economy will be just as tiny as any European nation's, and attrition will be how the war is fought. Now, let's say you're invading Russia. You can't just compare the populations of the U.S. and Russia and say the U.S. will win because it's bigger, since there is no way you can transport 290 million people across the ocean to Russia. Meaning that invasion is futile.

China's military is pretty ineffective against Russia or America. Russia has enough of a military to fight both America and China at once (that's why there's the peacetime draft), and it's always positioned to respond quickly and effectively to any invasion from China. A Chinese invasion of Russia would fail unless America removed the Russian forces, which would mean America would be the one occupying the territory, which in turn means China would be attacking America, which is ALSO diplomatically the much more likely scenario.

The likeliest scenario of all is China doesn't get involved at all.

America and Russia will not go to conventional war to each other because it is clear that it's futile, and will result in the loss of power for both nations.

Popular support - if the Americans fully support the war, it will still be just as indecisive. A world war isn't the Vietnam War.

[Lord Merciless]

With what means can the Russia strile the American heartland? They can only use long range bombers and ballistic missiles, both very interceptable means. You are also grossly overestimating the effect of missiles.
First, if they were as effective as you described, why the hell do we still need the Air Force?
Second, you are underestimating the number of targets. During the Gulf War, coalition forces flew as many as 100,000 missions in six weeks, and a country as tiny as Irak still managed to protect most of its forces. The 4-day ground campagne destroyed far more Iraqi military than the whole six weeks aerial bombardement.
This point leads to the third point which is neither side has enough missiles to wreck the other's economy. The cost of building millions of ICBMs would be utterly prohibitive. Both countries even have trouble maintaining a few thousands of such systems.


But in general, this scenario is completely unlikely. If the shooting really starts, the losing side will immediately break out the nukes.

[Shi Huangdi]

The American navy is the best in the world and everyone knows it. Russia's navy would be crushed. The USA also has plenty of long-ranger bombers that could bomb Afghanistan from their bases in Missouri. We would be able to turn Russia into Rubble.

[Krayzeenbk]

With what means? With ballistic missiles no doubt. And if you think they are interceptible, then I think you ought to read something by the NSA which says they're not.

Here's the basic message of the NSA paper: you're trying to hit something that's barely visible and travelling at 20 times the speed of a bullet with something that's travelling in another direction at 5-6 times the speed of a bullet. If you screw up the point of collision calculation by centimeters, the interceptor missile has to make a 250-something g turn in order to "try" to intercept the incoming missile again.

The interceptor tests were pathetic. The ballistic missiles that were hit were American missiles with known characteristics, a known flight path, were intercepted before the separation of warhead(s), deployed no countermeasures, and most damning of all, had a HOMING BEACON on board.... And still the interceptors missed (was it half or 3/4, can't remember). So this was a very, very basic single missile attack that was TELLING the interceptor exactly where to go and still it missed. So how can you expect to destroy on the order of 50-60 thousand conventional Russian ICBMs, with not-so-known flight characteristics, for which you don't have exact trajectory data, which are spewing countermeasures, which are carrying multiple warheads, and which are falling very, very fast? The 60,000 missiles very quickly become around 1,440,000 warheads all headed for God-knows-where and you will be lucky to destroy 1 before it hits its target.

And that's only the first wave. You better hope your ICBMs destroy the second.

Cramming warheads onto missiles is the Russian missile technology innovation that made America wet its pants in the 1970s, for a very good reason.

Of course you're right, as soon as once country gets the upper hand, things go nuclear.

Here is where I get my data from. According to CNN, Russia had around 30,000 nuclear ICBMs back in the day. In Russia, I heard that Russian nuclear doctrine called for the use of conventional ICBMs, which are relatively easy to produce, during a nuclear attack to provide extra "dummy" targets if there is any attempt at interception. More specifically, I heard that the number of conventional missiles was about 4-6 times the number of nukes, and all were essentially the same as the nukes except in the type of warhead.

So, at maximum, America is dealing with about 4,320,000 warheads that are very much impossible to intercept. When Bush and the National Science Academy argue about science, I'll go with the NSA.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Krayzeenbk
So how can you expect to destroy on the order of 50-60 thousand conventional Russian ICBMs,

Wowowow. Source please?

[Heresson]

1)A nation needs to be strong to survive the war.
2)Again, not 20mlns, and not Russians.
3)I'm not against Russia, just against Russian imperialism
and tendency to see the history only from one side.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Ah that is not even a contest. Whoever would invade (conventionally only - would lose). And that is why it is never going to happen. If there will be a war between the two - a serious one - we all better start building that colony on the Moon.

[Serb]

Krayzeenbk,
First of all, are you in service or you are retired?
What is you rank? (I hope you will not broke rules while answering this question)
Personally I’m agreed with your analysis 100%. Pacific fleet is our weak chain now. Just want to add that even this week chain is much stronger then you ever faced before.
The next of your suggestion is very reasonable too- ‘do it quick or don’t do it at all’. It sounds very similar with words of Mainstein, when he was asked about chances of German invasion in SU. BUT you just can't make it quick, it’s simply impossible.
If you noticed, I didn’t discus chances of Russian invasion in America, because those chances are about zero.

Anyway David asked a hypothetical question- what if there were no nukes?
If there were no nukes David, our military was in MUCH better shape then it’s now, because we don’t need strong conventional army, because we can’t afford it now. And we can’t afford it now because we don’t need it now. We don’t want to conquer anyone; we don’t want to be world policemen, as you are-we doesn’t need large conventional army, because our nuclear potential is more then enough for self-defense. But if there was no nukes our conventional army was in MUCH better shape then today, I can assure you.

When the Russians invaded Berlin, there was a mass rape and whatnot - fact.

I know nothing about that.

Shoul I enlighten you about American war crimes in Vietnam?

The unpatriotism - Serb I think you oughta stop slinging this idiotic "it's in our genes to defend the Rodina" crap.

Ok, ok perhaps it was exaggeration a bit (but only a bit )
I started my post with words “it's my turn for flags waving.” I realize that my speech was a bit dramatic and sometimes it was a pure chest thumping , but please, please don’t took away from us our patriotism. Sure thing, revenge is a bad motivation and fighter should always keep his head chill, but this adrenalin rush which we call a fight for Rodina saved our asses many times. And it works.

It makes me ashamed to think there's Russians that really think like that.

No. We start to think like that only when we have no choice. When our nation is on edge of total extermination. I can assure you that we prefer to die, but not to remain under occupation. You could say this is only my opinion, yes I can’t speak for other Russians here, but I’m sure 100% that I’m not alone.

Besides, it's much better to be a thinking soldier than a blind fanatic in combat.

Yes, it is good when forces is equal, but when you think that you chances is about zero, only adrenaline rush could help you to win. My point was that during our history, when were in deep sh*t this adrenalin rush is the only thing which saved our asses.

Serb: the clearer you see the situation, the better you can use it to your advantage. Dying for Rodina just because someone invades is no good.

Perhaps, no inogda bivaet prosto pohui na vse. Btw do you speak Russian?

It's ok for Heresson to be anti-Russian, Serb, it shouldn't make you sick. It should make you see the situation clearly. That way, you will know who the enemy is when it's time to kill him

Advice accepted. Thank you.
P.S. Krayzeenbk, forgive me if my post was another flag waving. I’m pretty drunk write now. Today is a great celebration in Russia- the day of VDV (den Vozdushno Desantnih Voisk)- a paratrooper’s day.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
The American navy is the best in the world and everyone knows it. Russia's navy would be crushed. The USA also has plenty of long-ranger bombers that could bomb Afghanistan from their bases in Missouri. We would be able to turn Russia into Rubble.

Shi Huangdi,
I hate to repeat myself. But I guess I should. You still didn’t receive the message I was trying to send. This message was send about 100 years ago to all invaders who wanted to conquer young Soviet republic. Think about it again and have a nice day:

[David Floyd]

OK, Serb, I think we need to have a little talk...

You are nothing without allies. Don't you know this? In every single sandbox fight you are calling the great success of American military, you always create coalition even when your enemy is ten times weaker then you. (blah, sure you never have balls to attack someone who is equal to you) All what you can is cowardly bombings from safe distance. Great warriors my ass.

I'm taking out allies to give Russia an advantage. If we put in allies and let the US use air and naval bases in places such as Japan, Germany, England, etc., it's just too easy.

You will start to lose your carriers one by one when they meet with our carrier-killers of "Kirov" class.

What, all 1 one of them?

"Disposals/Reserve: The first two units of the class are in reserve: Admiral Ushakov (ex-Kirov) inactive but nominally in commission in the Northern Fleet since suffering a nuclear accident in 1990. She entered a shipyard for overhaul in 1999, but funds are lacking; it is very unlikely that she will return to service. Admiral Lazarev (ex-Frunze) has been inoperable in the Pacific Fleet since the early 1990's; the Navy is reportedly asking for donations to fund her repair, but she is unlikely to see further service."

Source: http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/

This means that Russia is left with one more in overhaul status, the Admiral Nakhimov, and one that is active, the Petr Velikiy. I will admit that these are nice ships, but so what? One Kirov isn't going to be able to defeat the US Navy, and almost certainly not even one US carrier group.

Even assuming 1 Kirov vs. 1 Nimitz, ignoring escorts and submarines, the Nimitz-class carrier comes out way ahead. Right now, there are over 70 aircraft stationed on it, although there are room for around 100 that could be stationed on one in a pinch. But I'll just assume the minimum of 70. This air wing would be able to put up enough airborne radar to create a bubble around the carrier, where if anything entered the bubble the carrier would know immediately. The Kirov has no such abilities, so it is very clear that the US carrier would be able to locate the Russian Kirov long before the Kirov located it. If you throw satellites into the mix, the US ship would be located a bit sooner, but so would the Kirov. This means that the carrier can maneuver in such a way as to attack the Kirov at whatever time it wants to - probably around 3 am.

The Kirov has very impressive SAM systems, of course, but US carrier wings also have impressive jamming capability. An Alpha Strike on the Kirov, conducted in the early morning hours with, say, 2 squadrons of F/A-18 Hornets, backed up by probably a squadron of Tomcats (to confuse the Russian radar pictures as much as possible, give them something else to shoot at), and protected by jamming aircraft, would have a high probability of taking down the Kirov. Sure, there would be large aircraft losses, but even an entire US carrier air wing is much more easily replaceable than a Russian Kirov. We have spare air wings at various naval air stations, while Russia doesn't exactly have spare Kirovs lying around.

And let's not forget that the Russian radar systems are not as good as the American AEGIS system. This means that they are not able to track as many targets at once, or detect aircraft from as long of ranges, to my knowledge.

Now, if you want to throw in escorts, I don't know what a Russian battle group is generally composed of, so I can't really comment on that until someone is kind enough to tell me what is in one. I think it's clear, though, that on their own merits, a US Nimitz-class carrier, even with a minimal number of aircraft, is certainly superior to the Russian Kirov. And remember, the US has 12 carriers, compared to only 1 Russian Kirov.

Just explain to me, why do you think that you will invade very well?

When did I say we would invade? I said the most ground fighting that would take place would be probably in the Russian Far East, or other fringe areas where US special forces could make hit and run strikes, and possibly a limited invasion of the Russian Far East in Kamchatka and Sakhalin Island, with US Marines, as a propaganda boost, and as a way to base US fighters in range of Soviet Pacific naval bases. I can also see the US going after the Trans-Siberian railway with special forces - Russia can't protect the entire coastline, nor can they protect the entire Trans-Siberian railway, and if the US cuts it in a few places, that makes it all the more easy to strike at the Russian Far East, and isolate ground and naval forces in the area.

A dozen of carriers- this is the limit of your capabilities.

A single carrier battle group has the combat power of many small nations. This isn't exactly a minor thing - US carrier can project themselves anywhere around the globe, and any Russian naval forces foolish enough to sortie would inevitably be destroyed. They'd be tracked from the ports by US satellites, nibbled at by submarines, hit by US strategic bombers, and annihilated by US aircraft carriers.

While we're on the subject of submarines, by the way, I will admit also that Russia has a good submarine force.

However, this from Hazegray, again:

"Due to continued political, economic and societal chaos in Russia, the Fleet is in a badly deteriorated state. Even those ships that remain in commission and theoretically operational are generally unable to deploy, due to lack of trained crews and lack of funds to buy fuel and stores. In general maintenance is minimal or nonexistent, and there are no funds to conduct much-needed overhauls, even for major fleet units. Many ships have been abandoned when repairs or refits came due.
This list identifies those units believed to remain operational, but most of these units are unable to deploy for the reasons cited above. Ships in refit are listed only when there is a reasonable chance of them returning to service. Ships laid up pending refit generally are listed, as they could return to service if funding became available."

We won't look at ballistic missile submarines, because we are assuming no nukes (not that no nukes exist, just that none will be used, hence SSBNs still exist, and while the US might try to deploy a few as fast attack boats, Russia certainly would not).

Your best surface attack boats (SSGNs) are the Krasnodar (Oscar-II) class, of which Russia has 8, 5 of which are part of Pacific Fleet, and 3 of which belong to the Northern Fleet. These are intended for strikes against US aircraft carriers.

However, US aircraft carriers are strongly protected by at least 2 US attack submarines (Los Angeles class or better), as well as ASW frigates and destroyers, as well as S-3 Viking ASW aircraft operating from the carrier, and various ASW helicopters operating from the carrier and escorts. A US carrier group is a very tough target for even a group of these SSGNs, and almost impossible for a single one to hit. This doesn't even bring into the picture US anti-missile capabilities - the CIWS alone is highly capable, even assuming the carriers escorts don't get a chance to go after the missiles.

But, the real point here is that these 8 SSGNs are unsuited for anti-submarine operations, which is very important.

Russia's most modern attack submarine is the Akula/Akula-II class, of which they possess 11, divided fairly evenly among the Pacific and Northern fleets. Other modern SSNs include 3 Sierra-I/IIs, and 8 Victor-IIIs.

Outside of this, the Russian's have 18 Kilo and Improved Kilo class boats, which are diesel-electric subs. These are not long range boats, but are instead more suited to coastal/littoral operations.

So, in terms of long range nuclear attack submarines, Russia possesses a total of 22.

By the way, "Discarded Classes: Single 'Mike' class sunk 1989; all 'Victor-II' and 'Victor-I' discarded by 1996; all 'Alfa' class withdrawn from service 1990-1991 but one retained through 1995 for experimental purposes." - Hazegray again.

Contrast this to the United States SSN force:

2 Seawolf-class
50 Los Angeles class

The Seawolf class is regarded as the best attack submarine in the world, according to Hazegray, and really has no equal in the Russian navy. The Los Angeles-class is also excellent, and while some of the older boats are not as good as the Akula or Akula-II, most of these submarines have been extensively improved and overhauled over the years, bringing most of them above the standard of Russian submarines.

This looks at the boats themselves, while totally ignoring the maintenance and crews. It is pretty much universally conceded that US military training is top-notch, certainly better than that of the Russian's, due to the large amount of money we invest in it. US maintenance is also far above Russian standards, again due to money - Russia can't afford to extensively maintain every one of it's submarines, and many of them cannot even deploy.

However, there is one more telling fact.

Assuming that the US divides it's submarine forces evenly across the Atlantic and Pacific, and Russia concentrates every SSN it has in, say, the Pacific, the US would still outnumber the Russians in the Pacific by a ratio of 22 to 26 - this would be a fairly even fight, and both sides would take casualties, although in the end I think the US would win this, due primarily to the presence of a Seawolf and the superiority of US training, maintenance, and, in many cases, equipment and SONAR.

Assuming that both sides divide their submarines evenly, the ratio in both oceans becomes 26 to 11, a huge advantage for the United States.

Further, in order to deploy into the Atlantic at all, most Russian submarines will have to pass the GIUK SOSUS line, as well as face large SOSUS networks in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The US would know the approximate locations of many of the Russian submarines, and could maneuver with a 2 to 1 superiority over each Russian sub, even assuming the US retained two submarines for each of the 12 aircraft carriers for defense (ignoring the fact that not all 12 carriers can be deployed at once in one area, indeed, not more than 2-4 per ocean could be deployed at one time).

So, I think every important factor one can look at shows that the US has a huge superiority in submarines. If Russia tries to make up the difference by introducing it's SSBNs into the mix as attack subs, the US will respond in kind, and the US outnumbers Russia in terms of SSBNs by a ratio of 18 to 12, as well as having, in most cases, far more advanced SSBNs, with the exception of the single Russian Typhoon, which is probably about the equal of an Ohio.

What does this mean? Well, what it means is that if (when) the US achieves submarine superiority, they can begin to engage Russian surface forces with an even heavier superiority, forcing Russia to concentrate more and more ASW assets with their surface battlegroups, leaving holes that US attack subs can get through in order to launch missile attacks at Russian bases near the coast - Russian bombers on the Kola Peninsula could be especially vulnerable.

Further, the US would be able to time it's attacks against Russian surface forces - various US submarines could launch missile attacks against Russian surface ships at random times, followed up by strikes by US aircraft.

The only other factor to look at is the Russian strategic bomber force. I don't have exact numbers for it, but it certainly isn't as large as it was during the 1980s, nor as highly trained or maintained.

In addition, immediately upon the outbreak of hostilities, US heavy bombers (B-52Hs, B-1Bs, and B-2As) would be able to launch a single coordinated strike against Russian bomber bases on the Kola Peninsula. Because of the fact that Russia would need carrier locations before it could send its bombers after US carrier groups, it is possible that a large number of Backfire bombers could be caught on the ground. But in any case, US bomber attacks (launching standoff cruise missiles in the case of the B-52s and B-1s, with other attacks carried out by B-2s) combined with very likely submarine attacks, these airbases would be very heavily damaged. Russia has no capability to do a similar thing to US bases, which are located deep within the United States, in places such as Louisiana, New Mexico, and Wyoming.

The presence of Russian bombers really applies mainly to the US Atlantic Fleet, because the Russians do not have very many bombers (relatively) stationed along or near the Pacific coast. So the US Pacific Fleet would receive virtually a free ride.

But let's assume that Russia launches an immediate massive bomber attack on a US carrier. Their maximum possible net gain for this battle is one US carrier, with moderate losses to their own aircraft. It is unlikely in the extreme they would be able to launch concentrated attacks against two or three US carriers, simply because these carriers would most likely not be in range upon the outbreak of war, and Russia would be lucky to have an immediate location on even one US carrier in range.

So, if Russia launches, say, 100 bombers or more against a US carrier, it's probably fair to say that the US carrier would be heavily damaged or possibly even sunk, although I think heavy damage is more likely due to the presence of US Ticonderoga class cruisers and Arleigh Burke class destroyers, both equipped with the AEGIS system, and the presence of the CIWS on most US warships. However, I'll grant you that Russia has some pretty kickass anti-ship cruise missiles, and I'll concede that assuming the Russians found a US carrier and were able to concentrate 50-100 bombers against it, they would probably sink it. These are some big assumptions, though, especially the assumption that they could concentrate that many heavy bombers against a target with only an approximate location several hours old at best, given the state of Russian training, maintenance, and readiness.

These attacks would have to taper off, though, in any case, due to US attacks on the Russian bomber bases in the Kola Peninsula, and I'm willing to accept the loss of a US carrier in exchange for heavy damage to the forward operating bases of Backfire bombers.

So, I think it's clear that the US would win the naval war, which I maintain is the only part that would be significant. There would not be massive air battles, simply because without allies, the US has no forward bases, at least nothing closer than Okinawa. Further, large ground combat is also unlikely, except, as I said, isolated Special Forces strikes (which Russia could POSSIBLY do as well, although I doubt it), and possible US ground forces seizing Russian territory in the Kamchatka area.

[joseph1944]

One way to keep China out of the mix is to park 2 Ohios off of their coast.
Each Ohio carries 24 missile with 12 warhead per missile, so that is 288 warhead per sub. With 2 subs we would have 576 warhead. Each warhead is 100kt device with 6500 miles range. Ref; Jane's Fighting Ships 1998/9

I think China would yell alot but do nothing.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by joseph1944
One way to keep China out of the mix is to park 2 Ohios off of their coast.
Each Ohio carries 24 missile with 12 warhead per missile, so that is 288 warhead per sub. With 2 subs we would have 576 warhead. Each warhead is 100kt device with 6500 miles range. Ref; Jane's Fighting Ships 1998/9

I think China would yell alot but do nothing.

No nukes in this scenario. If they are in, the whole thread would be pointless.