About Russia or NATO without the US, Which is stronger? Page 2
|June 7th, 2012||#11|
| || |
|June 7th, 2012||#12|
| || |
Let's take a look at their submarines.
Russian subs were never all they were cracked up to be. The loss of a Russian sub showed the kinds of problems they faced. You could see the old military culture of avoiding blame showing up almost immediately, with the initial attempts to blame the loss of the sub on a collision with an American sub. It took nearly a year, and constant pressure from Putin, for the Navy to finally admit that it had been lost due to explosion of the fuel in a torpedo on board (which is the kind of thing that happens in a Navy which doesn't do the maintenance it really needs).
Like every other kind of military equipment that the Soviets built, the Navy has always cut corners to save money. Their surface ships were incredibly formidable looking, with their superstructures bristling with guns and other weapons, but that disguised serious problems, most important of which was that they didn't actually carry much ammunition. One of our destroyers, with much less impressive looking upper decks, would still be firing away several hours after theirs had exhausted their entire magazines. In fact, in nearly every way the real Soviet policy about their military was that it was far more important to look formidable than to actually be formidable. It was, in fact, a gigantic bluff.
Their nuclear-powered submarines were legendary, because of the significant death rate among sailors who served on them. ("How can you tell a Soviet submarine sailor? They glow in the dark.") Men were cheap and expendable (a general attitude in Russia predating the Soviet Union, going back to before Peter the Great). So they skimped on shielding on their reactors, among other things. Admiral Rickover once was given a tour of a Soviet nuclear submarine, and happened to be carrying a film dosimeter. It turned out later that he'd been exposed to more radiation during his brief tour of that sub than he had in total in all the years he spent commanding America's nuclear submarine program.
I've spent almost my whole life trying to keep an eye on what the Russians did and did not do, and let me assure you that we in the West have a very clear picture of what potential Russia has today.
At this point, the Russian military is, for all practical purposes, useless in most regards. The Russian descendant of the Strategic Rocket Forces continues and for obvious reasons is still worthy of respect. But most of the conventional force that they're often credited with having is in practice not real, because its equipment is useless for lack of spare parts and vital maintenance that the military no longer can afford, and the men can't be relied on. They have a few units which actually can operate, a few divisions, a few squadrons, a few ships, but their effective conventional military power now is probably much less than that of the UK, as well as being far less versatile.
|June 7th, 2012||#13|
| || |
|June 7th, 2012||#14|
| || |
First and foremost, Russian defense will focus on the development of strategic nuclear weapons, construction of over 100 military vessels for Russian Navy, including construction of four originally French-made Mistral-class amphibious assault ships, and the introduction into the Air Force of over 1,000 helicopters and 600 military planes, including fifth generation PAK-FA fighter. Most of the military hardware will be equipped with next-generation weaponry.
For the first time ever, Russia is planning to buy military equipment from NATO-member countries Ė two Mistral helicopter carriers will be bought in France (with two more licensed to be built in Russia), as well as samples of armored vehicles from Italy and elements of personal combat systems also from France.
|June 7th, 2012||#15|
| || |
Past Russian weapons also had a poor combat record. (Korea, Vietnam, Israel-Arab war, Balkan, Iraq)
|June 7th, 2012||#16|
| || |
China stopped the United States Military dead in its tracks in the Korean War.
The USA could not kill Chinese fast enough to turn the tide of the battle.
The USA had to back up and regroup.
Because of China there is still a north and south Korea to this day.
China would be more powerful than the USA, if the USA butted up against China along a border the same size as the border with Canada or Mexico.
China has transportation issues, not manpower issues.
Moving Troops long distance to the would-be war zone is a major stumbling block for China, albeit one that China hopes to have rectified one day. The USA is working to deal with China when that day comes.
★INITIAL SUCCESS✫or✫TOTAL FAILURE★
Last edited by Gator; June 7th, 2012 at 21:22..
|June 8th, 2012||#17|
| || |
Q: How do you spot a Russian stealth sub?
A: Follow the radioactive cloud until you can see the smoke.
We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
|June 8th, 2012||#18|
| || |
After the fall of the iron curtain German pilots trained with western pilots against F-15, F-16 and F-18s. Those exercises showed that the MiG-29 was superior in a dog fight. Big part of this dog fight superiority was due to the fact that the German pilots had many hours behind them as fighter pilots, often 3-4 times as many as their opponents. But in larger scale exercises (many aircraft on both sides) western tactics & command & control of air war were proven to be much better and kill-ratio turned against MiGs.
In one-on-one duel they were superior- I donít remember exactly what the kill-ratio was, but it was at least 1:3 or even more.
|June 8th, 2012||#19|
| || |
|June 8th, 2012||#20|
| || |
Last edited by hamidreza; June 8th, 2012 at 09:53..
|NATO head calls on China, Russia to help fund Afghan forces|
|Russia may give NATO a base for Afghan supply runs|
|Putin says before poll Russia needs stronger army|
|NATO, Russia vow unity on terrorism, disagree on shield (AFP)|
|NATO seeks missile defense agreement with Russia (Reuters)|