The Definitive Thread: US vs. Russia

[Kramerman]

An invasion of Russia without allies would simply fail. We would need months to deploy our M1 tank divisions (I believe they took 3 months to deploy the fraction of our tanks that we sent to Iraq, due to their 70 ton mass), and it would be impossible for us to hold a beach head for the length of time without taking horiible casualties. However, if we could change the question to a NATO vs. Warsaw Pact question, where the other countries were just suppliers and such but only the US and Russia fought, well then that would chang everything because western Europe would provide the beach head we would need.

[David Floyd]

How many times do I have to tell you people that nowhere do I advocate a mass ground invasion of Russia?????

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by David Floyd
How many times do I have to tell you people that nowhere do I advocate a mass ground invasion of Russia?????

How would you propose this conventional war be fought? Let Russia invade the US? That would be a certain victory for Russia. If there were to be a war, the US knows its best chance is by invasion and strategic bombing. Any other way would be a long, drawn out, indesicive war, a stalemate, or a Russian victory, as i see it.

Kman

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Kramerman
An invasion of Russia without allies would simply fail. We would need months to deploy our M1 tank divisions (I believe they took 3 months to deploy the fraction of our tanks that we sent to Iraq, due to their 70 ton mass), and it would be impossible for us to hold a beach head for the length of time without taking horiible casualties. However, if we could change the question to a NATO vs. Warsaw Pact question, where the other countries were just suppliers and such but only the US and Russia fought, well then that would chang everything because western Europe would provide the beach head we would need.

Young man and this is not a slam at a young person, but we could very well drop several thousand troops in Russia real easy. And if we secured an airfield look out here we come. Slave until you do some time with American forces don't underestimate them, you might be supprise.

[Lord Merciless]

Both Russia and the US can not be defeated without full-scale invasions. There is no winner if the result is a stalemate.

[Serb]

No, what I said is that without allies, it becomes more even because the US is unable to bring ground or air forces into the picture in significant numbers.

Then what about your brilliant power projection? I’m saying once again to you without allies you are nothing. Your power projection no more then a myth without allies.

No, but I also doubt the US and Russia will go to war. It's a hypothetical.

You started this bs thread, as you said- “for your own amusement”. Now, when you see how many people here saying that your claims that “USA could easily wipe the floor with Russia” no more then arrogant bs, I would like to know- how your amusement is going? Having fun? I guess that you expected that everybody would support your arrogant claims and US flag waving. I would be very happy if you was an American general, because you David are pretty-****ty general. You are making the worst mistake a general could ever make- you are greatly underestimate your enemy. Such mistakes are usually punished and punished very hard.

Regardless of how could you think the Russian military is, surely you don't think that in its present state it could take on Europe and Japan, with US backing, and hope to win, right?

The present state of our military is MUCH better then it was 3-5 ears ago. Your problem is that your opinion based on low grade Hollywood movies, which have nothing common with reality. You believe that we are decoying, while in reality we are moving out of crisis. The nightmares of Yelt sin’s rule are over now. With every year we spent more and more on defense.
Now back to original question. I said that in case conventional war between USA and Russia, your allies in Europe will refuse your requests for “right of passage”. More likely their respond will be smth like this-
“ Dear Americans,
sure we are your friends and partners, and we will always respect an unmatched bravery( suicidal idiotism) you showed when you attacked Russia, but unfortunately we can’t help you. Sure we believe in your future success ( as much as we believe in existence of Santa Claus) in war against Russia, but for God sake do not involve us in your showdowns. You are very far away from our continent, but Russia is close. It is our houses and factories which will be bombed by Russians, not yours. If you want to get them, fine but leave us alone.”

The source you cited has not been updated for 5 years.
"© Copyright Bellona // Reproduction recommended if sources stated
CD-version, updated 1997-09-28"
Most likely Hazegray is referring to vessels in active service.

This source contain characteristics of subs. For numbers I cited www.naval-technology.com
Sure this cite didn’t have exact picture too and data there exaggerated in USA favor too (because it’s an American cite and it’s normal they advertising their own goods, while trying to blame their competitors. Arm’s trade it’s a business after all, and a pretty dirty business, no fair play here) BUT even considering that this site is not totally objective, it doesn’t have such silly, bullsh*t claims as 1 Typhoon and 1 Kirov as Kaizer-gay’s cite have.
Kaizergay took his data out of his ass. Until you stop to use him as the only source of information I see no reasons to continue this talk.

A possibility, but why would Russia be building SSBNs in this day and age, and why do you think it would be useful before trials, etc.?

If you think that it’s piece a cake to construct such sub as Typhoon you are mistaken. It was under construction for years. (Esp. considering slight problems)

However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - Hazegray was last updated in March, so I'll grant that you could have 2 Typhoons.

SEVEN, boy, SEVEN.

According to the much more recent Hazegray site, the Admiral Nakhimov is in overhaul. It's very possible it was active in 1997, when your site was last updated, and has entered overhaul since.

Pyotr Velikii is a flagship of Northern fleet, Nakhimov of Pacific fleet, third is under repair in docks of Severodvinsk now. Don’t remember which one Ushakov or Lazarev. Fourth could be already repaired or still under repair. But TWO Kirov’s we have for sure- one in Northern fleet, another in Pacific fleet. As for remaining two give me some time and I’ll provide you with link.

So what? The V1 and V2 were designed to end World War 2 - but they didn't. Just because a weapon is designed for a purpose doesn't mean it will necessarily be successful. Surely you will admit that much.

It is you who think that V1 and V2 were designed to stop WW2, personally I think that those missiles were designed to deliver explosive warheads to enemy territory. And sure they were successful. But question wasn’t about this, the question was about battle capabilities of Kirov’s class. You said that one single US carrier could destroy Kirov without any support. I said that Kirov was designed to sink US carrier battle groups and have everything to do so, and a single (without escort) carrier will be torn apart by Kirov easily. So, when I need to decide between opinions of engineers who created the largest surface ship in the World and the opinion of American student of Law, surely I’ll be with experts.

I tend to trust US naval doctrine more than Russian naval doctrine, given that Russia's last major sea battles occured in the Russo-Japanese War. I won't remind you how that one turned out.

Remind me. I’m 100% sure you know NOTHING about Russo-Japanese war of 1905, except that Japanese won. Your bad, because in case if you known something about those battles you more likely never said that you could destroy Russian fleet within hours with price of few subs. Do research about name “Varyag” and remember one thing- Russkie ne zdayutsa.
And btw, who told you that we don’t have naval battles since 1905? I guess you believe that we didn’t have fleet during WW2?
In 1941 we have 171 ship of main classes in 1942 already 192 and numbers was constantly growing. Kerch, Sevstopol, Odessa, Leningrad, Northern convoys WTF was that if not naval battles. Boy, in compare what type of work our Navy done during WW2 your “great battles” in Pacific are childish games.

Yes, the designers of the Kirov certainly have more expertise than I do, but I prefer to rely on the doctrine of the US Navy, which is a historically proven force, unlike the Russian navy, which isn't.

WHAT doctrine?

You know it’s very funny bullsh*t David. Doctrines are changing all the time. Old doctrines are much worse then old weapons. If I’m not mistaken some of your civil war generals used brilliant Napoleon’s doctrines and moved their forces in columns like Napoleon 50 years before them. It was historically proven doctrine, but it was also an obsolete doctrine and modern doctrine demanded that troops should be moved in lines. Of course I might be mistaken and you know your history better then I, but is my suggestion that those generals were in deep shi*t using such historically proven doctrines is wrong?

Also, remember that only one US aircraft has to get through to sink or put out of action your ONLY Kirov in service, and I think that's very doable.

I doubt that one hit could destroy such ship as Kirov, certainly you would need much more then one hit.

In theory and according to you, unless you can provide a (non-outdated) source.

Look on naval-techologis.com or Jane battleships or whatever Western source. But simple calculations could lead you to this number. It has 12 batteries of S-300F, everyone could track 9 targets simultaneously and fire at 6 targets simultaneously. 12*6=72 targets. As long as missile is launched, it reloaded automatically, it took a few seconds and battery could fire again. Total number of S-300F missiles a Kirov class ship carrying is 96 missiles. So, at one single moment it could fire at 72 targets, but within few seconds needed for reloading it could launch remaining 24 missiles. So, the maximum is 96 for long rang combat. But Kirov also has 80 medium ranged missiles and excellent close range missile/artillery defensive complex Kashtan which especially good against precision weapons, missiles, bomb, smart bombs etc. So, as for me it is more then capable to fight against 90 planes at one time.

The whole point of a carrier is that, using its radar aircraft, it can create a bubble around it where other ships cannot enter without being seen. Thus, with adequate tanker support, E-2C Hawkeyes could set up a bubble big enough such that your ONLY Kirov could not come within firing range of the carrier, and the carrier could maneuver in such a manner to keep it that way.

OK. Lets analyze a hypothetical situation Kirov vs. Nimitz. Sure we could analyze when Nimitz has an escort and Kirov has an escort, but it is much complicated and I guess it doesn’t change much, because our battle group would consist of smaller then Kirov missile cruisers, destroyers and subs for ATTACK on your carrier with missiles. And your group would consist of Aegis cruisers, destroyers and subs for PROTECTION of main weapon of your battle group- carrier and its aircrafts. CARRIER is a main weapon of your battle group. The main weapons of carrier are of course its fighters, but considering that our ships have outstanding air DEFENSE your fighters don’t scare them much. CRUISE MISSILES are main weapons of our battle group. What do you have against this weapon? Aegis cruisers. Yeah it’s pretty good, but not for our missiles. Not single country of the world has such missiles as we have. What do you have against group of “Granits” flying on your carrier? A group which undetectable for your radars, because this group is flew on extremely low attitudes with only one single- leader missile which flew on ballistic trajectory and which leads entire (undetectable group of missiles) to its target? And if it’s shot down it replaced by another missile from main group. Not single country has analogs of guidance system of our “Granit” missiles. Considering its high speed, sneakiness and huge devastating effect (why do you think your generals used word “Shipwreck” for this missile in NATO classification?) I guess your carrier is doomed. You have no DEFENSE against main weapon of our battle group.
Summary: We have defense against your battle group, you haven’t defense against our battle group.
Now return to our hypothetical situation.
As I said the range of Kirov’s prime weapon- 20 “Granit” cruise missiles is 550km. First of all, it means that it could fire at your carrier from distance of 550km. Tell me, could your fighters create a bubble with radius of 550km? I doubt. You know, planes should be refueled time after time. If you will send them to such long distances it means that they will stay in their position a very little amount of time. BUT even if yes, it changes nothing. Sure, in modern warfare it’s hard to imagine that two large battle groups could remain unnoticed by satellites, so more likely both of battle groups will know where to find each other. But, again hypothetically,( if you so love your idea about bubbles) let’s remove satellites from the game. First of all how long your fighters will create this bubble? 24 hours a day? Don’t make me laugh, you’ll need a huge amount of fuel for this and people should rest time after time. And without satellites it might took days if not weeks for battle groups to find each other. BUT (again hypothetically) even with bubble 24 hours a day. Tell me, WTF it changes?
IF (again hypothetically), your carrier will notice our Kirov earlier, what are the actions of your carrier then? Two choices: attack or run away.
1) Attack
First of all there is no way that your carrier could launch all its fighters at the same time. Every tack off took amount of time and I guess launch of say 80 fighters will took a pretty big amount of time. A hypothetical suggestion that every tack off took one minute gives us 80 minutes. And I guess take off preparations require larger period of time. Notice, that planes which took off among the first already an hour in air when last fighters took off.

But even if so (again hypothetically) you are launched all fighters. So what? Fighter is not the same as strategic bomber it has much shorter operational range. Sure all depends of fighter’s type, but I wonder if its operational range is MUCH greater then 550 km (fire range of our missiles). So, to launch a massive air attack against Kirov you’ll need to approach it.

Summary:
Your carrier wouldn’t launch a massive air attack against Kirov from safe distance for itself. Because:
To launch massive air attack you need that all of your planes have maximum amount of fuel (to fly on their maximum operational range) and this is very problematic because some of your fighters- which creating the bubble will be already low on fuel, some of them will need a landing. Too lift all your planes you need time and difference on fuel level between first fighter and last fighter will be very serious. It means that massive air attack (of all fighters) is possible only on operational range of fighter, which has the lowest fuel level. It means that massive air attack is possible only on much shorter range then single fully refueled fighter could fly. And I don’t see any possibility for MASSIVE AIR ATTACK on Kirov from safe distance. So if your carrier will notice our Kirov earlier it gives him nothing. All he could to is to send wings to attack Kirov, but for Kirov SAM wings are not a problem.

2) Run away from Kirov.
Best choice, no doubt, because as longer Kirov approach closer then 550km he just launch his missiles and turn back. And you have no chance to save your carrier then. As long as your carrier sunk, you lost the main weapon of your battle group- fighters. So run away it’s carrier’s best choice.

[Serb]

Back to the real world, though, and you would know that the US would use combined arms tactics to take on a Kirov. It would use both submarines and aircraft, probably from more than one carrier, as well as possibly even bombers firing standoff cruise missiles.

That’s what I was saying you long ago. Your only chance against Kirov is numbers. This ship has anti-sub equipment as standard Russian BPLK- Big Anti Submarine Ship (which was designed to hunt subs). It includes torpedo tubes, bombs, mines, anti-subs helicopters etc. For subs it’s the same hard to kill target as for aircrafts. As for cruise missiles, for S-300, Osa and Kashtan there is absolutely no difference what to shot down aircraft or cruise missile. Again, this ship is huge, butt-kicking Leviathan. Your only chance against him is superiority in numbers. Until he has ammo he will kick butts as long as he out of missiles and shells he is yours to destroy, but only God knows what amount of damage it able to bring to your fleet before it will be out of ammo.

Your entire navy, according to Hazegray, consists of one Kuznetsov (a light carrier by US standards), 1 Kirov, 2 Slavas, and 19 destroyers and 13 frigates of all types. This is split among four main fleet commands (Northern, Pacific, Baltic, and Black) in 2 oceans and 2 seas (Black and Baltic).

It’s according to Kaizer gay. But I guess I should believe one of our admirals more then to yours mysterious whatever gay. Not so long ago I saw an interview with one of our Pacific Fleet admirals. During this interview he constantly complain that on Pacific fleet we only have 19 ships of I and II classes against American 56 ships. During this interview he begging for money and saying all the time that 19 ships is not enough quantity of ships, that he needs better funds to move more ships from reserve.
So, we have a bunch of ships which currently in reserve. With proper funds they could return to active duty very quickly. I prefer to believe to our admiral then to Kaizergrey.

This means the only naval forces readily available for service against the US Navy are as follows (and remember these are spread throughout two oceans, and even adding in the Baltic Fleet warships would only add a few frigates to the total):
1 Kuznetsov
1 Kirov
1 Slava
17 destroyers of all types
5 frigates of all types

It’s just ridiculous. This data took out of Hazardgay’s ass and multiply divided.
I only hope that your generals will you his data when the times will come. The less you know about real forces of your enemy the worse for you.

Yes, the Sunburn is very nice - assuming you can get into range to launch it, which I highly doubt.

You doubt, but your admirals are not. 55km is pretty nice range, and… surprise, SURPRISE… it is not its maximum range it was artificially reduced to 55km in accordance with some kind of agreement. But in case of war sure this barrier will be removed.

I already refuted that. It's really 11 to 1, and the further in the future this conflict is, the greater advantage the US gains.

At least 2. First is on Northern fleet, second on Pacific. But more likely 3. I’m 100% sure that one under repair now in Severodvinsk. None of four was decommissioned, so remaining should be in service or under repair.

Yes, those torpedos are the biggest problem to the US Navy.

Just notice, SINCE LATE 70S. This technology is almost 30 years old, BUT YOU STILL DIDN’T CREATED SOMETHING EQUAL!!!

However, with the US retaining such a large advantage in submarines, and with the US advantage in SONAR and the SOSUS lines and arrays, I think that your Oscar-IIs would be mostly intercepted and destroyed early in the war, before they became a problem. In any case, in order to hit a carrier, you have to get within range of a carrier, and a US carrier battle group (CVBG) is very formidable - and in case of a war with Russia, very likely to strongly beef up its ASW capabilities by adding more ASW frigates and destroyers into the formation

Blah….Blah…..Blah….

I guess I should tell to someone who believes in stories about SOSUS lines, arrays and the rest of this bs one story.
Sure you heard about “Kursk”. Do you know that Commander of “Kursk” was awarded by medal “Golden Star of Hero of Russian Federation”? This is the highest Russian award. Do you know why he received Golden Star and title of Hero? I’ll tell you. Few years ago in Mediterranean “Kursk” made a successful training attack on US battle group. The “Kursk” engaged at firing range to your carrier and made a “training launch” of its torpedoes while it was absolutely unnoticed. After his “training target was destroyed” he just swim away. Your entire Fleet tried to chase “Kursk” but failed. When Kursk returned from this raid commander was awarded by medal “Golden Star of Hero” and various medals awarded other crewmembers also.
And you are saying that our Oskar-II will be intercepted early in the war?
More likely your Carriers will be sunk because of our Oskars-II early in the war.

Really? You'll guard every mile of the railroad?

Every bridge, every major station. There is no need to guard every mile. If destroyed, tracks could be replaced within few hours. And btw, I can’t see how your special forces could operate deep within our territory.

Winning a war has nothing to do with conquering the other country, it has everything to do with accomplishing the goals of the war. The US goals would logically be to destroy the conventional power projection assets of Russia - namely their large naval forces, submarine arm, and strategic bombers.

Missiles is our projection assets, MISSILES. We always bet on missiles, form the beginning of cold war. Within several minutes of war you should expect Pearl Harbor II. No nukes? Fine. We have missiles with conventional warheads. So the size of your fleet will be greatly decreased within hours.

This can and would be accomplished early on, and if Russia wished to extend the war rather than just giving up, that would play to the massive US advantages in shipbuilding - what exactly will Russia do, swim a 10 million man army to New York? No, they would have to build a fleet capable of defeating the US Navy, and this would take years, even if the size of the current US Navy remained static. If the US Navy increased proportionally, which is very possible given the greater shipbuilding potential of the United States, Russia could never hope to defeat the US Navy.

A bunch of mistakes.
First off all, you greatly underestimate the possibilities of mobilization economy. In 1941 Hitler out produced SU almost twice. But as long as we switched to mobilization economy, we started to out produce Germany (not actually only Germany but also all Europe conquered by Hitler.) pretty quickly. This is the best type of economy for war time.
Second your industry will be damaged as bad as ours. Forget that you could sit in safety on your continent and making weapons. Not this time. Prepare for explosions, for casualties, for destruction of factories.

Actually the Baltic Fleet is your weakest, but in any case, the ratio is much better than 2.5-1 in the Pacific. I suggest you refer to the numbers I posted above.

Your numbers are wrong because they took from Gasegreat. This guy is bullsh*ter and I haven’t a single reason to trust to his data. As long as you consider this Kaizer-hey source trustworthier then f.e. www.Naval-technology.com our talk is pointless.

That ninth Krasnodar/Oscar-II was the Kursk, just FYI.

In accordance with www.naval-technology.com Kursk was 10th. And now we have 9 fully operational.

That answer your question about those submarines?

You aren’t a lazy boy? Good. Let me guess It’s Shiergay again?

None of those records include anything having to do with stealth, my friend.

Really? I though it had something with it. It’s too late now, I need to sleep, but tomorrow I’ll provide you with link.

They would have to overfly Canada, where they would be detected by US NORAD stations and intercepted - even if they successfully bombed any US target, they would be ravaged by US air superiority fighters. If we really felt like it, we could use the anywhere between 4-8 experimental F-22A Raptor stealth fighters we have in our arsenal. Or you could fly across the Atlantic, where you would still be detected and intercepted by US fighters.

Sure we will go through Atlantic. Under ocean we will detected by detected by whom? Intercepted by whom? Do you know on which attitudes those planes fly and at which speeds?

Most likely, if we attempt a massive invasion, which is why I don't support such a move. I support limited ground insertions in Kamchatka using Marines, light infantry, and airborne forces, in order to take out the submarine base at Petropavlovsk and secure Alaska from possible attack. Good luck reinforcing Kamchatka,

Good luck capturing Kamchatka. You’ll need it, really big luck.

by the way, with anything significant, considering the fact that it is 6000 miles away from European Russia, and the only large transportation asset is the Trans-Siberian railroad, which consists of basically a double track. If you want to play the buildup game, the US will win, if for no other reason than logistics.

In 1945 through this railroad 2 million army with tanks artillery trucks etc, etc, was moved within less then two month from Europe to borders of Japan. It was more then 50 ears ago when we used steam trains, when there was no modern signalization, modern infrastructure, when “Baikalo Amurskaya Magistral” wasn’t constructed. I don’t see any troubles today to do what we done 50 years ago. In any case Railroad transport much faster and much more efficient then Naval transportation.

One more point, regarding your air force. After operations against Chechnya, your fighters and tactical aircraft were almost out of spare parts, and the stockpiles still have not been rebuilt.

And when your majesty last time inspected our Air forces? What could you know about our AF?

[Serb]

Originally posted by joseph1944
Young man and this is not a slam at a young person, but we could very well drop several thousand troops in Russia real easy.

And those several thousands we’ll meet with our several hundreds of thousands (if not a million of course) And we’ll do it much quicker then you are.

Slave until you do some time with American forces don't underestimate them, you might be supprise.

I don’t know to whom you are addressing this “Slave”; there are no slavery or slaves in Russia only Slavs and Slavic brotherhood.
But actually you already were in Siberia. About 100 years ago, write after October revolution. You were beaten.
And I don’t underestimate American military. It is David who believe in “general ****ness of Russian army”, not only current Russian army, but in “general ****ness” of Russian army through history.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by joseph1944
Young man and this is not a slam at a young person, but we could very well drop several thousand troops in Russia real easy. And if we secured an airfield look out here we come. Slave until you do some time with American forces don't underestimate them, you might be supprise.

My father was a career soldier. He spent 2 tours in Vietnam (hes the kinda guy who wished he would of served more - after 2 tours he had 8000 he had racked up in the bank, and thats a lot of money back then) while in the 101st Airborne division. He fought in greneda when he was a Ranger, he was at Panama when they deposed that General Nueriega(sp?) but didnt fight, he was in the gulf war, and then he last served in Somalia. I have a major interest in the US armed forces, I will soon be apart of it, and I know exactly what their capable of. But even a legion of the US' best troops would be slaugtered if just paradroped into Russia. They would be outmanned 10-1 (russia can pump out conscripts like a mother) plus face heavy armor and enemy airsupport. I am sorry to say, that without forward bases for close air support, nor bases for artillery support, nor our supperior armor, US infantry would have little chance against Russia. Dont get me wrong, they would give them hell, and have probably something like a 8-1 kill/death ratio making it a pyhric victory for the Russians, but a victory none the less. The Russians have a long history of such victories, but to them, a victory is a victory...

Kman

EDIT: dont forget, Russia may be decrepit since the fall of the USSR, but it still has a modern military and a real professional one too, not one of these guerilla VC, or freedom fighters, or Iraqi conscripts, they are well trained soldiers that are decently equipped too.

[Kramerman]

In 1941 we have 171 ship of main classes in 1942 already 192 and numbers was constantly growing. Kerch, Sevstopol, Odessa, Leningrad, Northern convoys WTF was that if not naval battles. Boy, in compare what type of work our Navy done during WW2 your “great battles” in Pacific are childish games.

erm... uh... I hope this was a joke, or at least a fit of pariotic fervor. The last thing would call US naval actions in the Pacific are childish games...

I will have toread through the rest of your volumes to see if there is any other stuff like this. You write alot!

[Kramerman]

Serb,
you repeatedly refer to your powerful missile capabilities. And I dont doubt for a second that A Russo-American Naval war would be easily won by the US. But our AEGIS cruisers and missile destroyers armed with Harpoon cruisemissiles are very effective, ontop of our carriers. The US hasnt been sleeping for the last 30 years either, they are quite aware of the threat f anti-ship missiles and created an efctive anti-missile defence known as Phalanx. Almost all ships, including carriers, are equiped with Phalanx chain guns that are fully automated and radar guided and can fire 60 20mm depleted uranium rounds a second at incoming missiles. A single ship by no means could protect itself with this system from a barage of cruise missiles, but a full carrier group probably could. It would be very ironic if anti-missile defences improve to the point that we see the rebirth and rise of the big guns battleships once again. That would be something, heh...

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Serb

And those several thousands we’ll meet with our several hundreds of thousands (if not a million of course) And we’ll do it much quicker then you are.


I don’t know to whom you are addressing this “Slave”; there are no slavery or slaves in Russia only Slavs and Slavic brotherhood.
But actually you already were in Siberia. About 100 years ago, write after October revolution. You were beaten.
And I don’t underestimate American military. It is David who believe in “general ****ness of Russian army”, not only current Russian army, but in “general ****ness” of Russian army through history.

Sorry for the name mixup. The second part of the message was for you (Serb). The first part was for the other young man.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Kramerman
My father was a career soldier. He spent 2 tours in Vietnam (hes the kinda guy who wished he would of served more - after 2 tours he had 8000 he had racked up in the bank, and thats a lot of money back then) while in the 101st Airborne division. He fought in greneda when he was a Ranger, he was at Panama when they deposed that General Nueriega(sp?) but didnt fight, he was in the gulf war, and then he last served in Somalia. I have a major interest in the US armed forces, I will soon be apart of it, and I know exactly what their capable of. But even a legion of the US' best troops would be slaugtered if just paradroped into Russia. They would be outmanned 10-1 (russia can pump out conscripts like a mother) plus face heavy armor and enemy airsupport. I am sorry to say, that without forward bases for close air support, nor bases for artillery support, nor our supperior armor, US infantry would have little chance against Russia. Dont get me wrong, they would give them hell, and have probably something like a 8-1 kill/death ratio making it a pyhric victory for the Russians, but a victory none the less. The Russians have a long history of such victories, but to them, a victory is a victory...

EDIT: dont forget, Russia may be decrepit since the fall of the USSR, but it still has a modern military and a real professional one too, not one of these guerilla VC, or freedom fighters, or Iraqi conscripts, they are well trained soldiers that are decently equipped too.

If we drop them in Europe Russia I agree, however if we dropped them in Kamchatka or in Sakhalin and took an airfield, we then could resupply them very quickly. Both the C-5 and C-17 can haul an M-1. C-141, C-130 and contract airlines can haul everything else.
I was Navy and was discharge some 60 days before My ship when to Nam. Some of my old buddies that were due to be discharge some 30 days after me were extended to go to Nam. I then went to work for the Navy and retired in Nov. 95 with 33y 2m 24d. I was 51 at retirement. They close the base March 96. They gave some money to go earlier.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by joseph1944
If we drop them in Europe Russia I agree, however if we dropped them in Kamchatka or in Sakhalin and took an airfield, we then could resupply them very quickly. Both the C-5 and C-17 can haul an M-1. C-141, C-130 and contract airlines can haul everything else.
I was Navy and was discharge some 60 days before My ship when to Nam. Some of my old buddies that were due to be discharge some 30 days after me were extended to go to Nam. I then went to work for the Navy and retired in Nov. 95 with 33y 2m 24d. I was 51 at retirement. They close the base March 96.

My father was in for 24 years and retired in 94 (he left the army after 'Nam for a couple of years before reenlistng). he retired a E8 master seargent. His father was in for 26 year before him (WWII and Korea) and was a E8 1st seargent. My father was quite thrilled when I told him I wanted to go to a service academy (I am in the middle of seeking a congressional appointment), that I would be the first commissioned officer in the family if I am accepted (and not discharged before graduation, of course) - and my conselour is pretty sure I will be because of my schoolastic and extracurricular achievments.

[Lord Merciless]

I concur with Kramerman. You can't just air drop some troops into hostile territory and hope to win the day. If you do so, then either they serve as part of a large scale invasion, or there are locals who sympathetical to us.