Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Russia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: russian millitary muscle
ace    12/7/2003 6:30:42 PM
the russian army has fallen in millitary strenght drasticaly since the sovier union broke up, but their army is still quite credible. they have got numbers and technology. the t 96 has proven to be quite a tank. air power wise, the russians currently mainly use mig 29's, su 30's su 35's have introduced su 37's and are developing su 47's and mig 1.42's. all of which ,if you visit some of the web sites, are quite amazing fighters. their main bombers are the tu-160's . they can carry 40,000 kg, at a max speed of 2,200 km/h for a non refuling distance of 12,300 km and are capable of mid air re fulling. All russian misslies now have a firing range of over 60 degrees, which alowes them to lock on and fire way before the plane faces the enomy head on
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
Phoenix Rising    RE:russia in long term war   12/17/2003 12:03:05 PM
It was Russia's climate as much as anything that stopped the German advance. Modern technology can make up for this; in relative terms, weather is much less of an obstacle now than it used to be. However, this point is moot because there will be no "long-term" full-scale conventional wars with Russia; an invasion of the Russian homeland would inevitably prompt an immediate nuclear response. Russia may bog down in places like Chechnya and the Chinese may take them over from within simply because of the Russian birth rate set against Chinese immigration in the Russian Far East, but there will be no open conventional conflicts with Russia in the foreseeable future. --Phoenix Rising
 
Quote    Reply

ace    RE:russia in long term war   12/20/2003 5:55:09 AM
the cold did greatly work to the russiam advandage, but it wasn't what won them the war. when germany invaded, the russians were outnumbered 2 to 1. in that time, the number of people in the army multiplied by about 10. when germany invaded, russia had a very small amount of tanks, by 1943, russia had the largest number of tanks in the world, and was building them faster than they could be destroyed. by late 1942, the russian airforce was revitilised and looking better than ever, rapidly producing a large amount of never before seen aircrafts ie. yak 3's la 9's ill 2's. the invention of the ketucha's was a real suprise to the germans. russian strategy was also improved very significantly, after stalin gave control of the forces to and air, sea and ground general. it wasn't the cold, but an "explotion" in russian millitary power that lead to russian vicory over the germans, it just took a while to get the factories going. another point is, if the germans blame the cold for their defeat in russia, than why were they so easily driven out of the rest of eastern europe, where it wasn't so cold?
 
Quote    Reply

roadcop    to ace   1/16/2004 9:10:10 PM
On June 22, 1941 Russia had over 18 thousands tanks deployed and about 5000 in reserves and in Far East. German vermacht had about 5000, of which 3195 deployed on Russian Front. The same with Air Forces. Russia outnumbers Germans greatly. Almost all designs of Russian armor and aircraft were equal (if not superior) to Germans. There were 1861 modern tank (T-34 and KVs) in forward deployed units. This forces, if used wisely, could destroy all German Army in a couple of weeks. But... Do more research on WW2 on Russian Front to see exact situation. You right about Russian industry - it was militarised quickly (because it already was almost fully militarised) and relocated to safer regions. Russian military was quickly rebuilt and Army reborn during heavy battles of Moscow, Harkov and Stalingrad. And certainly, cold was not a reason for German defeat. Russians fought in the same weather. And they are the same people. But the truth was on their side, and defending of The Motherland gave them a very high motivation. If, hypotetically, anyone attacks Russia, he will be retaliated with full strength. Russian forces (and population) can live and fight in very difficult situations without proper supply and support. Russian soldier is strong and fierce, and if homeland will be threatened, he will become highly motivated to repel agressor.
 
Quote    Reply

roadcop    russian navy   1/16/2004 9:29:37 PM
Russian Navy is mostly defensive Force now. And it was never intended to project power in distant regions (at least in Soviet epoch). Aside with large surface combatants and subs, Russian Navy has a vast numbers of light ships (some of them are nuclear-capable). How many of them operational now, I cant say exactly (sorry), but their numbers were hundreds 15 years ago (410 in 1988). So, at least 60-100 such ships must be operational. This ships are: Missile Corvettes - 1234 project (Nanuchka class) w. 6 SSNs and point-defence SAMs; - 1241 project (Tarantul class) w. 4 SSNs and exellent point-defence (combined SAMs and Gatlings); - 1239 project (Bora/Sivuch class) w. 8 SSNs - this ships are hovercraft with very high speed, so they are very hard targets. Anti-Submarine Corvettes - 1241P project (Pauk class) fast and capable ships with good point defence. There are some older ships, but I doubt that they are operational. So, in closed naval theatres (such as Baltic or Black Sea) Russian Navy is still a capable force (it also includes land-based bombers and fighters, well-trained and equipped marines and many landings hovercrafts). On open theatres, Russian Navy still can deliver a punch to the USN with its Backfire regiments (equipped with latest supersonic cruise missiles) supported by long-range fighters and Tu-142 Recon Planes.
 
Quote    Reply

Final Historian    Russian military   1/16/2004 10:10:54 PM
You bring up a good point with regards to the Russian military Roadcop. In many ways it was superior to the German one before Operation Barbarossa. However, Stalin's purges essentialy ruined the Soviet military, and left it without decent leadership. This and superior German training and experience is what contributed to the German defeat. That, plus the lack of cold weather gear.
 
Quote    Reply

roadcop    RE:Russian military   1/16/2004 10:27:37 PM
I add some more reasons for our initial defeat in 1941: - unbalanced army structure (not enough trucks and light vehicles, almost none APCs, none full-wheeled trucks, few artillery tractors), which leads to bad mobility and high vulnerability ti any kinf of attack (air, artillery, etc); - German superiority in tactics (Germans fought about 2 years, their formations were well-trained and cooperated syccesfully with another); - bad strategic and operative deployment; - and much more (even may be some luck for Germans, like for Japs in 1904-1905).
 
Quote    Reply

sooner    RE:Russian military   1/24/2004 12:35:02 PM
I am an American and still consider the Russian military one of the most dangerous on earth. I would hate to see the U.S. go against Russia. That would be a long one!
 
Quote    Reply

sooner    United States   1/24/2004 12:37:24 PM
For those of you that aren't American, what do you think of us? Reply.
 
Quote    Reply

roadcop    to sooner   1/30/2004 1:48:56 AM
Okay, I think the USA is the great country with noble history and decent people. Certainly, I dont agree with many of US political or military actions. But in this world we should be allies and friends, not enemies. You'll be surprised how many Russians think the same. If US Government cleverly exploit this, we can be really close allies and powerful enough to deter possible Eastern threat.
 
Quote    Reply

ace    RE:United States   1/31/2004 2:07:24 AM
i was born in russia, and came to australia at the age of 4, and i have one thing to say: USA A OK
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics