Russia vs China

[Vince278]

With the current militaries, my money would still be on the Russians despite their shortcomings. The Russians could also call on more friends to help (including Europe and even the US).

[notyoueither]

LordShiva already said it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by LordShiva


I disagree with this.

China's equipment is of far inferior quality. Despite funding problems, Russia still has technology on its side, and since the oil and gas have started flowing, have been pouring money back into the military. China has the edge in manpower, but a sore disadvantage in armour - Russian tanks are more numerous and better serviced than Chinese, and would chew up whatever China threw at them over land.

Russian and Chinese tanks are not that different in quality. Russia may be spending more than before, but China can still outspend them. As for numbers, I am looking for numbers. The Russians might be more mechanized overall, but in some of this terrain it would not matter.

In the air - no contest. China most advanced jets are older versions of Russia's fleet of Sukhois and MiGs, and are fewer in number. An in terms of missiles, probably the only country that can match Russia in short- and medium- range (not to mention ICBMs) is the U.S.

Russia's airbases are farther away, and China has again more money to spend on not only buying more aircraft, but increasing production sinc eit has licensed to produce aircraft of Russia design. The SU-27's China has are good enough, even if Russia has SU-31's (IIRC), specially since Russia does nto have many- heck, the Russian have been able to keep several of their military construction lines afloat only thanks to exports, mainly to China. Rockets would be irrelevant to a ground war, since neither state would have an incentive for nuclear war.

Re: supply lines: The Chinese side of the frontier isn't as developed as you make it sound. The Chinese Far West is much harder to get to than Russia's central steppes, and the road and rail links would be easily dealt with from the air. Besides, Chinese military concentrations are biased towards Taiwan.

The Chinese ground forces are certainly not "concentrated" against Taiwan. Missile and air forces yes, but not ground forces. And Russia's ground forces are even farther away from the field, in Europe. And therw would be no reason for China to fight in central Asia or Russia's central steppes. If China controlled Russian;s maritime provices on the Pacific, that would be the best spot, as the resources of Siberia have to come out of somwhere.

Re: C. Asian "republics" - they're still allied to Russia, members of the C.I.S., dependent on Russian investment, and most importantly, home to several large Russian military bases. Even without the ex-Soviet strongmen with their pro-Russian leanings in charge, the presence of those troops on their soil would convince any ruler about whose side to be on.

Most of them have for the last few years been doing as much as they can to leave the Russia spehere, except the trully autocratic that rely on Russia for power. BUt China has more to invest that Russia. China is the future, Russia, well, not. These states would have no reason to get involved either way, not would they add much. And cutting off one of their main customers for Russia would make no sense. There would be no rational reason for them to cut the spigot. China can be a better sugar daddy.

Russia would probably lose Vladivostok, since the Far East is harder for them to get to. But not before the entire Pacific Fleet sailed for Shanghai harbour and bombed the **** out of it. China's navy, which is far from blue water, would be no match for Russian subs, allowing Russian boats to sail up and down the Chinese coast shelling/firing missiles at everything between Beijing and Hong Kong. And without the oil-laden ship lanes, China's economy chokes within a week or two.

This I find funny. Russia's fleet is in sad shape. And fleets don;t survive near coasts with 0 air cover. Even lower quality Chinese aircraft in numbers would sink the Russia fleets if it got under their air range. Heck, that lesson is 50 years old! Again, navies without air cover will lose against air power, and Russia would have no way to protect its pacific fleet in what you imagine doing. Your other statements have good points, but this one is just loony.

[notyoueither]

Russian hunter-killers would shut down the Chinese coast and scare the Chinese Navy so bad they would need therapy to come out of port.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by notyoueither
LordShiva already said it.

Yes he did. China loses the strategic war due to Russia being able to shut down their shipping and shut off their energy supplies. Neither side makes much headway in a land war where the transportation networks are sorely inadequate to support forces large enough to threaten the other's holdings.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by notyoueither
LordShiva already said it.

I was too tired to read the whole dissertation.

Originally posted by notyoueither
and scare the Chinese Navy so bad they would need therapy to come out of port.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
We probably wouldn't need an army, but we would need a lot more boarder patrol agents to keep out the illegals jumping over the Great Wall of China in search of American jobs.

now if we can only provoke a 3 way rumble between russia, china, and india!

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by LordShiva


I disagree with this.

China's equipment is of far inferior quality. Despite funding problems, Russia still has technology on its side, and since the oil and gas have started flowing, have been pouring money back into the military. China has the edge in manpower, but a sore disadvantage in armour - Russian tanks are more numerous and better serviced than Chinese, and would chew up whatever China threw at them over land.

The Best Chinese military hardware (Tanks, BTRs, Sukhois) are as good as the best Russian hardware(They're the same!). AND there's a lot more of them!

In the air - no contest. China most advanced jets are older versions of Russia's fleet of Sukhois and MiGs, and are fewer in number.

Now you're talking out of the arsehole. China had the latest model Su27s and the J-10s (Based on the Israeli Lavi design that somehow migrated over to China)

An in terms of missiles, probably the only country that can match Russia in short- and medium- range (not to mention ICBMs) is the U.S.

China, Like every country that desires a long range strike, beats the US with the sheer number of MRBMs and IRBMs. We retired our only IRBMs a long time ago, relying almost exclusively on ICBMs and SLBMs now.

Re: supply lines: The Chinese side of the frontier isn't as developed as you make it sound. The Chinese Far West is much harder to get to than Russia's central steppes, and the road and rail links would be easily dealt with from the air. Besides, Chinese military concentrations are biased towards Taiwan.

But not in Manchuria, which is where most of the fighting is going to occur.

Re: C. Asian "republics" - they're still allied to Russia, members of the C.I.S., dependent on Russian investment, and most importantly, home to several large Russian military bases. Even without the ex-Soviet strongmen with their pro-Russian leanings in charge, the presence of those troops on their soil would convince any ruler about whose side to be on.

I think the C. Asian Republics would sit it out.

Russia would probably lose Vladivostok, since the Far East is harder for them to get to. But not before the entire Pacific Fleet sailed for Shanghai harbour and bombed the **** out of it. China's navy, which is far from blue water, would be no match for Russian subs, allowing Russian boats to sail up and down the Chinese coast shelling/firing missiles at everything between Beijing and Hong Kong. And without the oil-laden ship lanes, China's economy chokes within a week or two.

I think you are really overestmating the readiness of the Russian Navy, to say nothing of the Pacific Fleet, which was always second string to the Northern Fleet in terms of funding and equipment.

But, the most important reason for why China would not kick Russia's ass is that neither side has any interest whatsoever in conflict.

Don't ruin the SoD!

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Now you're talking out of the arsehole. China had the latest model Su27s and the J-10s (Based on the Israeli Lavi design that somehow migrated over to China)

The Su27s are hardly the latest. It was introduced in 1984.

Since then, we're up to Su34s (Su35s are actually older).

Besides, China only has 76 of them.

[Saras]

Everyone would support Russia if China went for a blatant landgrab. Heck, even Lithuania would, if that helps

[BeBMan]

Russia vs. China? India and Taiwan would win that one for sure.....

[Last Conformist]

What China really wants is the Maritime Province.

The Russian piece of Mongolia is essentially crap, unless you happen to be a freshwater marine biologist.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by BeBro
Russia vs. China? India and Taiwan would win that one for sure.....

Tibet, Xinjiang and the U.S. wouldn't fare too badly either.

[Flubber]

Tom Clancy already wrote this book

The Chinese numerical superiority would be telling initially and they would advance. But smart Russian strategy would be to deny the Chinese a telling engagement until reinforcements can arrive from the west. Once the Chinese spearheads are deep into Russian territory, their supply lines are cut by airpower and the attacking force decimated.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Flubber
Tom Clancy already wrote this book

The Chinese numerical superiority would be telling initially and they would advance. But smart Russian strategy would be to deny the Chinese a telling engagement until reinforcements can arrive from the west. Once the Chinese spearheads are deep into Russian territory, their supply lines are cut by airpower and the attacking force decimated.

Don't forget that the Americans ride to the rescue and almost single handedly annihilate the Chinese army, navy and air force with never-fail super weapons while never taking a single casualty themselves.