western military a paper tiger?

I'm sure these arguments were thrown around cheer-leading a certain country around 75 years ago as well. That worked out well for the world didn't it.

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Its not very good at winning, is it?

Name the military greater in power than NATO

Indeed, in his rather myopic OP, wyatt also seems to have "conveniently" ignored the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, and the fact that the Checyan wars were bloodbaths for the Russians and not decisive affairs considering the fact that the Checyan rebels have not been pacified. So no "win" there either.

But as has been raised by others, "winning" is a very elusive term to nail down in the modern era given the shift to asymmetric warfare.

BTW as an aside it is nice to finally see one of the "supporters" of the Russia action admit that they are directly involved in a war in another country, the Ukraine.

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Since the end of the cold war the west has been involved in a few wars.
Iraq- started strong, but in the end you could not call it a victory, at best a draw.
Somalia- did not get the result they wanted. Loss.
The Balkans- I read a article a few year ago where a NATO general said if Serbia had held on for another week the bombing campaign would have been over due to the lack of still serviceable planes.A narrow Victory.
Afghanistan-Started strong, and pulling out now, you could not call it a victory, at best a draw.
Thats just the ones that come to mind.
Now to Russia.
Chechnya- could be classed as a internal issue, but non the less Russian victory.
Georgia- After initial surprise of attack, Russian victory.
Ukraine- Crimea taken without a bullet fired, Russian backed force are defeating Western Backed forces. shaping up to be a Russian victory.
Is the much vaunted western military a paper tiger?
Good for shock and awe against minor opposition,but when it comes right down to it not capable of fighting a war against a well trained and armed foe?

Let's be honest here, if the entire US and Russian air force, army and marines met on an open field the Russians would be destroyed. Nice going trying to push your agenda though.

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Chechnya- could be classed as a internal issue, but non the less Russian victory.
Georgia- After initial surprise of attack, Russian victory.

Really? A former rebel is running the place for Putin, and he pretty much get to run the place the way he always wanted......... Seems to me more of a draw, seeing Chechnya stayed in Russia, but they have former rebel running the place........

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Ukraine- Crimea taken without a bullet fired, Russian backed force are defeating Western Backed forces. shaping up to be a Russian victory.

No one willing to fight them there, so hardly an example of Russian military might. Also, they intent to annex the territory so aren't going to leave. In the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, there is no such intention, so they were always going to leave at some point.

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Good for shock and awe against minor opposition,but when it comes right down to it not capable of fighting a war against a well trained and armed foe?

The Taliban were defeated, as well as Saddam's government. Those wars were won. Now getting rid of insurgents is a different story, and requires a lot of money and a hell of a lot more boots on the ground.

Russia wouldn't last a day against the Americans...America could blow up this planet tomorrow if they so choose. Thankfully they don't.

The Americans lost about 400,000 dead in World War 2 from 1941-1945.
In the Korean War from 1950-1953 they lost about 36,000.
In the Vietnam War from 1955-1975 they lost 58,000.
In the 1991 Gulf War they lost over 250.
In the entire War on Terror (Afghanistan/Iraq) from 2001 to the present they have lost over 5,000.

The Americans have lost on average 1 service person a day since 2001 out of a total population of about 300,000,000 Americans.

In all of American history since 1775 to the present the Americans have lost less than 1,500,000 war dead.

So to sum up, Americans since the 1960s are scared to lose lives and their enemies know this.

By contrast the Russians lost 5,732 from 1994-1996 in the first Chechen War and about 7,500 in the Second Chechen War and in the latest war in Ukraine about 1,500 pro-separatist rebels and Russians have died.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Still no though.

Its pretty simple.

- The US 6th fleet would crush the Russian dilapidated Black sea fleet.
The US 2nd Fleet would face stiffer competition from the Russian northern fleet, but eventually be overwhelmed.

You're assuming it's that easy to get into the Black Sea? You're forgetting that Russia has plenty of modern, capable submarines, and the Bosphorus is a massive chokepoint.

- once the seas are covered, the US air-superiority takes hold. The much vaunted S-300 & S-400 missile batteries will prove ineffective (as demonstrated by Israel in Syria these last few months). America will smash Russia's c&c capabilities.
Russian air power is for the most part, too old & too few to resist.

Syria has and never had S300s or S400s, not sure where you're getting that from. They're far more capable than you give credit for, and being so close to Russia, they could deploy them en masse.

- with the skys & seas under control, & Russia flailingly blindly, the US can pick its time as to when they deploy on land.
If Russia's conscript army hasn't given up, they will be eliminated in due course.

Disagree that they'd have either under total control, so that scenario isn't happening in my eyes.

Which wouldn't matter a jot.

Has history taught you nothing? Attack Russia (or it's backyard), you will lose. They have more experience in massive land wars than anybody else. And the number of tanks (mostly modern as well, there's only a handful of T55s left), so close to Russia so logistics isn't a problem, is going to pose a massive problem for the Americans.

It's certainly not anywhere near a massacre as you've seemed to describe, it's never as easy as that between two actually competent military forces.

Skylinehead wrote: »

You're assuming it's that easy to get into the Black Sea? You're forgetting that Russia has plenty of modern, capable submarines, and the Bosphorus is a massive chokepoint.

Not in the black sea though...
The cream of their crop in the northern fleet.
The black sea has a dozen or so serviceable akula class attack sub's.
Tbh these are outmatched by the likes of the Virginia class sub's America is rolling out

Syria has and never had S300s or S400s, not sure where you're getting that from. They're far more capable than you give credit for, and being so close to Russia, they could deploy them en masse.

Apologies, I got mixed up with the SA-3 & BUK missiles..... Yes, the S-300/400 may prove tricky to defend against, but survivable..... But no one knows for sure.

Disagree that they'd have either under total control, so that scenario isn't happening in my eyes.

we'll agree to disagree etc...

And the number of tanks (mostly modern as well, there's only a handful of T55s left), so close to Russia so logistics isn't a problem, is going to pose a massive problem for the Americans.

Russia has 750 T-90 tanks
US has 1500+ MIA2 Abrams.

It's certainly not anywhere near a massacre as you've seemed to describe, it's never as easy as that between two actually competent military forces.

No, I was being glib.
Still though, a US victory nonetheless.

Skylinehead wrote: »

They're not as modern, but they're still very useful and submarine warfare is still an art form.

Very true, that's why the US is unmatched in its attention to training & maintenance.
Their crews spend longer at sea than anyone, they can cos they have the cash.

Well you don't know that they're survivable against. Seemingly these things can even take down B2s and ICBMS, an F16 isn't going to be much use against them.

True I've no idea of plane survivability.
But Russia has just 180-ish of the S400 so it has its limits.

Why are you ignoring the thousands of T72s and T80s? The T80 is barely older than the Abrams.

The same reason I ignored the thousands of M1's & M1A1's..... If you are comparing modern equipment, the US has the quantative edge everywhere.


[QuoteI'm still not seeing it.[/quote]
That's fine.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Very true, that's why the US is unmatched in its attention to training & maintenance.
Their crews spend longer at sea than anyone, they can cos they have the cash.

They do, and I'm not denying that American submarines would pretty much wreck the Russian surface fleet. Problem is, the Akulas are good enough to do considerable damage to the American one too. Either way, there's no way a carrier group is going to sail into the Black Sea just like that.

True I've no idea of plane survivability.
But Russia has just 180-ish of the S400 so it has its limits.

And a load of S300s too. A proper air defence shield like that, and Americas greatest strength isn't very useful.

The same reason I ignored the thousands of M1's & M1A1's..... If you are comparing modern equipment, the US has the quantative edge everywhere.

Depends on your point of view, there's still 10,000 relatively modern T72s out there. I know they're a little older, but still capable. We're not talking Gulf-War style T55s vs Abrams here. Plus the logistics of getting so many tanks to Eastern Europe isn't easy for America.

Anyway, decent discussion. Obviously it would never happen, but it's interesting what America would do if the S3/400s are as good as is claimed. They always go in with air power first, and if that capability was taken away, what then?

MayoSalmon wrote: »

So they say...Russias military is a dinosaur that is not capable of delivering anything close to a nuclear strike. There in the process of modernization but that is years off.

The US on the other hand is far far far technologically superior and have nukes placed all over Europe

It's not particularly important to have accurate missiles, they're nuclear. Just plonk a few on the East Coast and MAD is assured. But in any case you're understating it, ICBMS from both countries have tremendous capabilities. How would you explain Russia being able to deploy MIRV warheads, which is at least as complex as getting the thing to land where you want it?