The Mongols conquered Russia and ruled it for over two hundred years.
People get so focused on Napoleon and Hitler, they forget all the successful invasions of Russia.
And yet, Russia is a lot more powerful, successful and influential country than Mongolia today, and has been for several centuries.
Russia has:
[ol]
[li]No major exports except natural resources (for which the prices are falling)[/li][li]A Muslim insurgency that has been smoldering for more than 20 years and which the nation cannot seem to extinguish[/li][li]A massive problem with alcohol and drug abuse[/li][li]A stagnant and aging population[/li][li]A government that is essentially a kleptocracy[/li][li]No allies of any consequence[/li][li]Sanctions in place halting its economic dealings with the outside world.[/li][li]A military which has won a major conflict in nearly 70 years and whose readiness is questionable at best.[/li][/ol]
Alone, any one of those would impair any nation.
Together, they make unlikely that Russia could remain an intact entity under the additional pressures of an unsuccessful military campaign that would severely damage it defensive infrastructure.
That’s what I figured, but I wasn’t certain.
Well, MGS’s have the advantage of speed/manoeuvrability and low profile but… yeah, stopping an armoured push with them ? Not a fun task.
I’d say the real showstopper in the “Fulda Breach” scenario would be Javelins, which are comparatively easier to produce and ship in bulk than MBTs. These things seem good. Heavy too - but that’s less of a concern on the defensive.
Just a Wiki one :o.
[QUOTE=nevadaexile]
Since Russia would also be vulnerable in and around the Black Sea, there may be a plan to build up forces there to prevent Russia from moving too many of them northward towards the Baltic.** There might even be a force projection in the Pacific to tie down more Russian military assets there**.
[/QUOTE]
It’s already there - Kadena AFB. I reckon the current Japanese leadership would jump at the opportunity to help too, if only to set a precedent for the SDF to be used in anger.
That, however, is wild exaggeration. Capitulation wouldn’t be the end of Russia - they’d never invade without a smokescreen of bullshit to hide and retreat behind if NATO didn’t look the other way (as would be the assumption, if Putin really was to try that move). Pretty much like they did in the Ukraine with the rigged votes and provocateurs and so forth.
Worst case scenario : economic sanctions. Big deal - they already got those :). But NATO isn’t going to subject Russia to no Treaty of Versailles - and *that *one didn’t end Germany, did it ?
They lose. Badly. “Completly without warning” means no buildup, and no preparations. Since Crimea, NATO nations have been sending forces to the Baltic-Russian borders. On “manouvers”.
Now, if we allowed the Russians one-sided preparations and a buildup of forces that no-one noticed untill they can use their full strength, it is a different story. They could go quite some distance. But they’d have to obliterate forces from NATO countries to do that.
The NATO alliance, despite all the lip it gets in internal politcal debate in member nations, functions much like nukes does for Russia. It is the guarantee of national survival. And the members are about as likely to let it go as Russia is to give up its nukes. Estonia might not be worth going to war for, but the alternative is losing the NATO accord in the face of an invading Russia. No-one is going to have that.
And members that try to sit it out is going to lose any treaty crdibility they’ve ever had.
It think it is worth pointing out something here: Russia is not the Soviet Union. It is vastly weaker in conventional power. While it has a lot of equpment inherited from the Soviet days, it is at least 20 years old with questionable maintenance since.
Germany, France, the UK. Pick any two, and Russia with surprise might win or manage a stalemate. Against all 3, Russia loses, if bloodily. Toss in the rest of European NATO and they are badly outmatched. If they get the aforementioned invisible buildup and one-sided preparation, they can zerg-rush far, but they still lose.
And that is before we look at the economy factor. If seriously torced off, Norway could spend their military budget into the ground.
Russias GDP is the size of Italys, and only because Europe buys their oil. That is very comfortable for the EU, but essential for Russia.
Oil and gas is 52 % of their federal budget, and 72 % of total exports. Of that, 75-80 % goes to Europe. Russia doesn’t have the pipes to ship that amount elsewhere, and can’t really protect shipping of that voulme, so the odds of getting it sold in a war situation is slim.
So Russia does not have the resources to fight a war with European NATO. Its economy would collapse. However, European NATO has a lot of space to ramp up production and go to a war footing. In fact, it might get the economies up and going again.
Wherever that numbers comes from it is simply not possible that the US Army has six to seven thousand M1 tanks in active service, ready to be crewed and driven into battle. An entire U.S. armored division, to use the 1st as an example, fields something like 300 tanks. The U.S. doesn’t have twenty armored divisions, even if you dig through all the reserve units. The U.S. doesn’t have the equivalent strength of twenty divisions of ANY sort. The tanks exist, but there is no possible way the men and material exists to field them.
According to Wiki, the US has build…
Number built 9,000+[4] (since 1980)
M1A1 Abrams tanks. Of course, I’m sure many have been destroyed, or sent to foreign governments, but the number certainly suggests far more than 300 total tanks.
cite added
Yes, I know the US Army has more than 300 tanks; you may wish to read my post again. That’s approximate the number the **1st Armored Division **has active in the units in its order of battle, not the number possessed by the entire US Armed Services.
So you agree that it is possible that the US has 6 to 7k battle tanks in it’s inventory? That’s actually pretty low to the other estimates on the web. Interesting that the USSR seems to have at least 2 times that amount plus the advantage of not having to ship them across an ocean to get to the battle.
Russian tanks have never stood up well in battle to Western tanks. Comparing Russia and the US in terms of total hardware is about as useful as comparing Germany and France in that respect in 1940. We totally outclass them in everything but numbers.
Misawa and Yokota on the Japanese mainland are far closer to Russia than Kadena which is on Okinawa. Also Kunsan and Osan Air Bases are even closer to Russia than Japan.
We disagree.
Russia just raised its interest rates to try to stave off inflation. It’s a measure that is likely to fail, meaning their economic doldrums are growing worse daily. For it collapse it would simply have to remain in the same economic position or worse and if it started a war with NATO and then lost badly.
I would disagree with that. The Soviet tanks in WWII were among the best in the world. And that’s just considering individual quality. If you combine their quality and quantity, the Red Army was the best tank army in the war.
Pretty much, yeah. T-34s, KV-1s, IS-2s… Russian tanks of WW2 were downright beastly, especially when put side by side with the tanks of the other Allies. There were some duds (Hi, T-35. You look fooken weird, you know that ?) but most of their roster was rock solid.
The only other datapoint I can think of wrt “battle between Western and Russian tanks” is Desert Storm, which is not representative for so many reasons.
Yeah, after years of warfare. T-72s, on the other hand, got ate up by M-1s. Their armor just couldn’t stand up to our shells, no matter where the shell hit. Are the latest Soviet battle tanks significantly better?
The KV-1, KV-1S, KV-85, and IS-2 and 3 were exceptional tanks. Some armed with 152mm guns, and that’s a heavy hitting projectile. Idon’tthink we fielded anything with more than 105mm in WWII. (not sure though) Their tank destroyers were efficient and very capable too, the SU-122 for instance had a 122mm gun.
If their tanks from WWII are an example, their current tanks are total battle beasts. Don’t sell them short.
The T-90 has a top speed of 60–65 km/h. That’s pretty quick for a 45 ton beast. It has a 125mm smooth bore gun.
From Wiki
*Russia is developing a new Universal Combat Platform T-99 (also known as Armata) to be ready for use by 2015. It is expected to have a more powerful engine, improved armor, main gun and autoloader, with ammunition storage separated from the crew.[14]
*
If it’s an autoloader, it’s going to be a beast. I have no idea what the clip load will be or the time between shots, but autoloaders are typically in the 2 to 3 second range. (longer to change clip)
Correction, the clip on the T-99 is like so.
The autoloader can carry 22 ready-to-fire rounds in its carousel and can load a round in 5–8 seconds
That’s a lot of damage per minute. This tank is a beast.
Here is an opinion on which tank is better. I’m a laymen on the matter, but the best answer makes what appears to be sound argument.
Good stuff. If the Russians have not corrected the flaws of the T-72, then they’ll do pretty poorly on the battlefield against Western tanks.
There’s also training, of course. Given Russian performance since WWII when they’ve done military operations, it sure doesn’t seem that their training has been up to snuff. I just don’t see how Russians would perform better than Iraq’s Revolutionary Guard.
It should also be noted that in a war between adversaries of comparable training, Iran vs. Iraq, Iran’s F-14 absolutely outclassed Soviet fighters. Only one F-14 was shot down during the entire war, and by a French fighter:
It’s something like F-14 50, Soviet Migs, 0, during the Iran-Iraq war.
The Iraqis did have success against F-4 and F-5s, much older planes.
Then there’s Israel’s 80-1 shootdown rate in the Lebanon war against Syria’s air force. I realize there’s a difference in training, but how much better are the Russians? 20-1? 10-1? Either way it’ll go badly for them.