Who has the stronger land forces, US or Russia?

[ValentinianIII]

One of my friends used to be a conscript in the Russian army before immigrating to the US. He didn't have anything nice to say about the Russian military at all. He often bitterly recounts undergoing a very intense psychological and physical abuse regimen known as, Dedovshchina. The stories he recounted made it seem like the greater danger to Russian conscripts came from their own senior officers instead of the enemy. I have no idea how widespread that system is, though.

 

[Hundegesicht]

I would say the USA is stronger on paper. But the Americans can't handle losses, which is why I would say Russia would win. However I think a war like this would be impossible Russia and the USA are so far away.

~90 kilometres? O_o

 

[lassia]

Now the real question is a land war, on neutral ground USA vs PRC... I think PRC would win but I can't be sure. We're pretty dang tough too

Doubt it. A more interesting scenario is Russia vs China in Mongolian grasslands, given that much of Chinese military tech was copied from Russia.

 

[sourboy]

One of my friends used to be a conscript in the Russian army before immigrating to the US. He didn't have anything nice to say about the Russian military at all. He often bitterly recounts undergoing a very intense psychological and physical abuse regimen known as, Dedovshchina. The stories he recounted made it seem like the greater danger to Russian conscripts came from their own senior officers instead of the enemy. I have no idea how widespread that system is, though.

This was recent headline news... I saw a documentary on it. It's certainly widespread. Seems it was "reported" there's a lot of defectors due to this, let alone suicides.

 

[Winner]

One of my friends used to be a conscript in the Russian army before immigrating to the US. He didn't have anything nice to say about the Russian military at all. He often bitterly recounts undergoing a very intense psychological and physical abuse regimen known as, Dedovshchina. The stories he recounted made it seem like the greater danger to Russian conscripts came from their own senior officers instead of the enemy. I have no idea how widespread that system is, though.

Extremelly. It used to exist in the Czech military too (Russians exported it around the whole Eastern Bloc), in a milder form.

Military service in the communist armies was 2 years long. Those soldiers who had already served a year used to terrorize the new recruits. A lot of them collapsed, mentally. In Russia, people die.

 

[ValentinianIII]

That's depressing. So it is widespread. Why would senior military officials in Russia allow such a harsh system for conscripts. While most militaries condition recruits during training, that kind of brutality is counterproductive. Constant beatings and psychological torture ruins morale and well-being of conscripts, and I imagine it doesn't create a sense of group togetherness. It doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[innonimatu]

Constant beatings and psychological torture ruins morale and well-being of conscripts, and I imagine it doesn't create a sense of group togetherness. It doesn't make much sense to me.

The Soviet Union was a multinational state and a dictatorship. A sense of group among the military was more dangerous for those ruling than low morale. As for well-being...

Damn, I'm cynical today!

 

[MobBoss]

They had to go back to port to fix it (this wasn't the first time that this type of thing happened.) They were suppose to start the 6 months out to sea on or near January but since it would not submerge they had to go to port and fix it.

Routine repairs happen all the time. /shrug.

Think whaterver you want but ask your congress person why we are spending so much in iraq why are some of our subs can not submerge?

You gave extremely suspect and unverifiable opinion that ONE, count em, ONE sub, cant submerge. How does ONE, become SOME?

That one of the navies newest subs. If that can not submerge that much what makes you guys think the older subs can do better?

Logical fallacy. Just because a new sub may have some problem doesnt mean older subs have the same problem.

BTW truth >>>>>>>> leaking classified info

Actual fact >>>>>>> rumor and innuendo.

 

[A1CBOZ]

They had to go back to port to fix it (this wasn't the first time that this type of thing happened.) They were suppose to start the 6 months out to sea on or near January but since it would not submerge they had to go to port and fix it.

And even if you are accurate on that, it is nothing compared to the fact the Russian subs very rarely ever go more than 200 NM from land and that the only real areas they patrol anymore are in the north next to Finland, an in the Pacific out of Petropovlosk.(SP?) And that many of their subs have been scrapped at an ever increasing rate since they can't afford to keep them.

That one of the navies newest subs. If that can not submerge that much what makes you guys think the older subs can do better?

Actually, the Virginia Class is newest. If the Cheyenne was so unreliable, it would have been scrapped, but hey, this is the US, not Russia.

And on topic. The US wouldn't even need the army to defeat Russia, the Air Force could do it alone. Occupying Rusia would be a different story. But is impossible anyway.

 

[nivi]

Of course, it all goes back to Iraq with you. Even if it's true, theres still quite a difference between a sub that needs (and gets) fixing, and rusted sardin cans.

 

[plarq]

Russian Navy...
PRC Navy...

No more comments. Both of countries (maybe including India) suck when engaging enemies across border. They fare better in defense.

 

[CaptainF]

US.

Pope wear a funny hat?

 

[Lotus49]

The Russian armor/tanks are far superior. It is not widely known, but U.S. tanks cannot rotate their main gun turrets beyond 10 degrees from center... but you didn't hear this from me!!

Also the F-22 cannot retract it's landing gear! Just imagine what problems the older planes have!

Plus American CVN's can only operate 1 propeller screw at a time, otherwise the operating system software crashes for the nuke powerplants and the coolant control rods jam!! A devestating glitch!

 

[Winner]

Russians have some good stuff, the problem is most of it are prototypes. They proudly show them at various exhibitions, but the fact is they don't have money to produce them in large numbers. Which means the bulk of their military still uses the Cold war equipment, which is no match for the modern NATO toys.

 

[Steph]

Guess you never heard that some subs in the US fleet can not dive (I'm not talking about 20 year old one's either!

I'd rather be in a US sub that cannot dive than in a Russian sub that can only dive.

 

[Steph]

The stories he recounted made it seem like the greater danger to Russian conscripts came from their own senior officers instead of the enemy. I have no idea how widespread that system is, though.

Didn't Stalin bosted that it takes more courage in the Russian armies to go backward (i.e. toward the Politic Commisar and NKVD) than forward (toward the Germans)?

 

[philippe]

I'd rather be in a US sub that cannot dive than in a Russian sub that can only dive.

quote of the day

 

[BaneBlade]

vote and discuss

What is warmer, sun or moon?
You're stuck in 1980 or what?

 

[RedRalph]

I'm fairly sure the russian missile defences aere still in very good shape, I think the Topol is the best ICBM in the world, but in every other respect the US is way ahead. It's irrelevant though, if they fought eachother the whole world would be gone within a few hours.

 

[Winner]

I'm fairly sure the russian missile defences aere still in very good shape, I think the Topol is the best ICBM in the world, but in every other respect the US is way ahead. It's irrelevant though, if they fought eachother the whole world would be gone within a few hours.

If they fought only with each other, the rest of the world would just watch a good fireworks. Life would go on without them.