US army vs. Russian army - Page 12

dalem · 04-12-2006, 16:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

1) Operational planning
2) Artillery staturation patterns
3) Casualty tolerance

The Russians are specialized in rehersing battles. We train for battles. That is the big difference between us. They rehersed the battle right, it's gravy. They rehersed the battle wrong, it's graveyard.

I'll give you casualty tolerance, but have Russian operational planning and artillery science been demonstrated as superior? I know they are big on the theory, but when has it been used effectively?

-dale

dalem · 04-12-2006, 16:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firral

I also did not try to prove that Russian army surpasses army of the USA.
Now Russia is weaker than the USA, but it does not mean at all that she can be won easily.

You stated the opposing forces, I claim a vast superiority on the part of one of those forces.

Quote:

Germany it has been divided under the general agreement of the countries of winners after WW2.
Lithuania and Poland? When? Last 20 years? You rave? Throw out on a dump the school textbook of history.
Hungary? It is a separate theme. Unfortunately I badly know English what to describe, that there was actually. I can give an example, that revolts much of participants in Hungary have been connected with SS. It was attempt of a revenge.
Afghanistan. Perhaps the only thing. The truth it was interesting to me as would act the USA if in Mexico to authority send someone similar to talibs?

I forgot I was discussing things with a Communist/Leftist/Socialist - history begins when you say it begins. How silly of me.

-dale

**Officer of Engineers** · 04-12-2006, 17:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

I'll give you casualty tolerance, but have Russian operational planning and artillery science been demonstrated as superior?

Ever since we gave up trying to match them number for number and instead opted for precision and manouver with a smaller but more lethal force.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

I know they are big on the theory, but when has it been used effectively?

Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. They built roads in Afghanistan to support their armour thrust all within 2 weeks.

urmomma158 · 04-12-2006, 17:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firral

I also did not try to prove that Russian army surpasses army of the USA.
Now Russia is weaker than the USA, but it does not mean at all that she can be won easily.

Germany it has been divided under the general agreement of the countries of winners after WW2.
Lithuania and Poland? When? Last 20 years? You rave? Throw out on a dump the school textbook of history.
Hungary? It is a separate theme. Unfortunately I badly know English what to describe, that there was actually. I can give an example, that revolts much of participants in Hungary have been connected with SS. It was attempt of a revenge.
Afghanistan. Perhaps the only thing. The truth it was interesting to me as would act the USA if in Mexico to authority send someone similar to talibs?

What do revolts have to with the army. Dont forget russians get bad training.

Insomniac · 04-12-2006, 22:53 PM

As long as America doesn't invade Russia during the winter, I'd say the USA has the edge.

If it came down to a nuclear war, then I must say that Russia would have the edge with their defense-penetrating ballistic missiles.

Firral · 04-12-2006, 23:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

You stated the opposing forces, I claim a vast superiority on the part of one of those forces.

First where I declared the superiority. Repeat my retort.
Secondly, look at history of the world still time. War it not simply best planes, or the best tanks. In your representation of war between the countries are similar to fight of children near school. War includes many factors about which you probably even do not know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

I forgot I was discussing things with a Communist/Leftist/Socialist - history begins when you say it begins. How silly of me.

I have forgotten, that in your understanding any guy from the east is "Communist/Leftist/Socialist" (and certainly the drunkard)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insomniac

As long as America doesn't invade Russia during the winter, I'd say the USA has the edge.

In this case the winter will not be the strong factor. The German generals which have lost war complained of winter, for the justification of the defeat only.

Quote:

Originally Posted by urmomma158

Dont forget russians get bad training.

You sometime saw as we train to speak about it?

RepublicanGuard · 04-13-2006, 03:57 AM

You guys are idiots.

I am by no means biast toward the Ruskies, but THEY ARE NOT STUPID!
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE PUSHOVERS LIKE THE IRAQI ARMY!

Their equippment is maintained and their soldiers are trained, unlike Iraq's.
Just remember in history guys,

WHO BEAT TEH GERMANS? They did. SS tankers laughed at American/Allied tanks and assaults when comparing them to the ferocity of the russian front.

From a Panther Commander of teh 2nd SS "On the western front, the most feared enemy was the RAF, on the eastern front, it was the JS series."

That's where germany took its most casualties: There in the east.

dalem · 04-13-2006, 05:28 AM

Okay, let me try this:

1) Sensible post: OOE, I read you as making the point that since we conceded the quantity factor to the Sovs we conceded the superiority of their operational art. Is that correct? If so I'm not sure I follow you. If their operational art was truly superior (or superior enough?) isn't that still independent of numbers? I'm confused.

And everything I've read leads me to agree with you on the artillery aspect - lots of good guns aimed at NATO and a good idea of what to do with them.

2) Less sensible post: Republican Guard and Firral - remember the limits of the hypothetical and recognize the facts involved - the Russian army today is not any sort of match against an equal U.S. force. It's not even close.

-dale

Anon · 04-13-2006, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

I'll give you casualty tolerance, but have Russian operational planning and artillery science been demonstrated as superior? I know they are big on the theory, but when has it been used effectively?

-dale

LOL, besides WWII you mean?

Anon · 04-13-2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insomniac

If it came down to a nuclear war, then I must say that Russia would have the edge with their defense-penetrating ballistic missiles.

What does that mean?

PS: Your custom sig quote is attributed to USAF Ace "Boots" Blesse.

**Officer of Engineers** · 04-13-2006, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

1) Sensible post: OOE, I read you as making the point that since we conceded the quantity factor to the Sovs we conceded the superiority of their operational art. Is that correct? If so I'm not sure I follow you. If their operational art was truly superior (or superior enough?) isn't that still independent of numbers? I'm confused.

I'm not sure we're speaking the same thing. Operations is to use what you have, not what you don't have. Their ability to march 173 divisions on schedule within a 72 hour period had no parallel in our system.

Anon · 04-13-2006, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I'm not sure we're speaking the same thing. Operations is to use what you have, not what you don't have. Their ability to march 173 divisions on schedule within a 72 hour period had no parallel in our system.

That does not mean the US cannot do the same thing, it means that we didnt codify or practice the 'requirement'.

Why?

Cause the US has never had 173 divisions at one time, nor anywhere close....LOL.

**Officer of Engineers** · 04-13-2006, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

That does not mean the US cannot do the same thing, it means that we didnt codify or practice the 'requirement'.

What I've been trying to say is that we stopped playing their game and started playing ours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Why?

Cause the US has never had 173 divisions at one time, nor anywhere close....LOL.

Including Reserved Divisions? NATO - 120, South Korea 37, Japan - 12. Pretty close

gunnut · 04-13-2006, 16:12 PM

Does the Russian army still have 173 divisions? Or was that the number the old Soviet Union maintained during the height of the Cold War? Are/were they all active units?

Where the hell do you put these divisions? The logistics must be a nightmare.

**Officer of Engineers** · 04-13-2006, 16:17 PM

That was the Warsaw Pact.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Serbia in WWI	Labud_NS	The World Wars	24	09-16-2008 22:46 PM
Army Exceeding Retention Goals as Recruitment Suffers	Shek	The War in Iraq	0	12-18-2005 12:22 PM
Human Rights Watch - East Punjab	Sher-e-Punjab	Political Discussions	175	03-29-2005 16:05 PM
India eyes Pakistan's leaner, meaner army	Aryan	South Asian Defense Topics	24	05-18-2004 11:43 AM
And old article, but nevertheless good	Gio	The Western Alliance	19	08-13-2003 19:23 PM

04-12-2006, 22:53 PM	#170 (permalink)
Insomniac Banished Join Date: 07-25-05 Posts: 214	As long as America doesn't invade Russia during the winter, I'd say the USA has the edge. If it came down to a nuclear war, then I must say that Russia would have the edge with their defense-penetrating ballistic missiles.

04-13-2006, 03:57 AM	#172 (permalink)
RepublicanGuard Banished Join Date: 03-04-05 Posts: 73	You guys are idiots. I am by no means biast toward the Ruskies, but THEY ARE NOT STUPID! THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE PUSHOVERS LIKE THE IRAQI ARMY! Their equippment is maintained and their soldiers are trained, unlike Iraq's. Just remember in history guys, WHO BEAT TEH GERMANS? They did. SS tankers laughed at American/Allied tanks and assaults when comparing them to the ferocity of the russian front. From a Panther Commander of teh 2nd SS "On the western front, the most feared enemy was the RAF, on the eastern front, it was the JS series." That's where germany took its most casualties: There in the east.

04-13-2006, 05:28 AM	#173 (permalink)
dalem Lord High Hullabalooster *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-04 Location: Columbia Heights, MN Posts: 8,731 Country:	Okay, let me try this: 1) Sensible post: OOE, I read you as making the point that since we conceded the quantity factor to the Sovs we conceded the superiority of their operational art. Is that correct? If so I'm not sure I follow you. If their operational art was truly superior (or superior enough?) isn't that still independent of numbers? I'm confused. And everything I've read leads me to agree with you on the artillery aspect - lots of good guns aimed at NATO and a good idea of what to do with them. 2) Less sensible post: Republican Guard and Firral - remember the limits of the hypothetical and recognize the facts involved - the Russian army today is not any sort of match against an equal U.S. force. It's not even close. -dale

04-13-2006, 16:12 PM	#179 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 10,207 Country:	Does the Russian army still have 173 divisions? Or was that the number the old Soviet Union maintained during the height of the Cold War? Are/were they all active units? Where the hell do you put these divisions? The logistics must be a nightmare.

04-13-2006, 16:17 PM	#180 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 17,059 Country:	That was the Warsaw Pact.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)