Rand conducted a study for officials at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, concluding that in the first seven to 10 days of a conflict with Russia, "the Russians would have very significant advantage in terms of numbers and all aspects of ground combat."
"Because of the power and the range and the lethality of these Russian air defenses, it's going to make all forms of air support much more difficult, and the ground forces are going to feel the effects," Gordon said.
"It's certainly going to put a premium on U.S. Army field artillery. It's going to put a premium on long-range fires to compensate for what will, at least initially, be a significant degradation in the amount of air support -- less joint ISR, less CAS, less interdiction, less offensive and defensive counter-air, so all that is going to have an effect on Army operations because of the quality of these Russian air defenses," he said.
Russia also has a larger number of superior artillery systems than the U.S., Gordon said.
"The Russians take this stuff seriously; artillery has been the strong suit of the Russian Army since the days of the czars," he said.
"They've got a range advantage over us in a number of different areas, particularly cannons," Gordon said. "Typically, modern Russian cannons have got 50 percent to 100 percent greater range than the current generation of U.S. cannons."
This is a good thing , Russia staying competitive is the only thing keeping US Neolib/neocon warhawks from dragging all of NATO into the next world war. If they were as weak as they get portrayed in the media we'd already be a few million casualties into another worthless war on behalf of Israel
Jason Bailey
Can you provide any links to refute what they are saying?
David Cook
>heh, in a hypothetical scenario where you're at a disadvantage and your best tools of war and technology are taken I am superior looks like we win lmao
Yeah ok. lol sage
Kevin Scott
Wow, it's look like US's military industrial complex desperately needs more money to fight back against russian menace.
So we just sit on our ass until that happens or we move now. What will it be?
Mason Richardson
>Russia superior to US in ground combat Of course, our military is filled with women and gang members now.
Jack Taylor
only people surprises by this are retards who've been gobbling CNN all their life the american army is a fucking joke, most they can do is "economically" overthrow countries, fund jihadi-proxies, and spam a couple tomahawks
Parker Garcia
>Rand conducted a study for officials at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, concluding that in the first seven to 10 days of a conflict with Russia
Why only the first 7-10 days?
Parker Perry
+15 rubles.
Joshua Reyes
>Pls give us more money congress!!!
Why would America ever engage in a ground war with Russia again? Also last time I heard it was the Russian mercenaries being destroyed by American forces in Syria...
Ryan Hill
Time needed to transfer brigade or two across the ocean.
Colton Rogers
because that's it, you got rekt in 10 days LMAO
Robert Scott
As compared to whom?
Elijah Nguyen
Hell, even if we had laser drones to blow the things up during boost phase, the Russians could just tape some smoke bombs to the tops of the missiles and create smokescreen shields around them that absorb the beams
Eli Russell
>b-b-uh plis compare us fuck off, amerilard see anyone else larping as world police around here?
Blake Hernandez
Just give them new laptops and a netflix account, and they surrender!
Brayden Garcia
I honestly don't know wtf happened to pol.
Back in the US elections, one of the main themes Clinton was brutally mocked for by Trump supporters was the fact she wanted to go to Russia.
Why the change?
David Cook
you're too much of a fucking brainlet to make sense of the agendas that are going on judging by your flag, I'm not surprised by that you're a monkey
Dylan Cruz
American troops rely heavily with air support. We are literal shit tier in ground combat.
t. NG M1 driver
Sebastian Gonzalez
Conservative think tank puts out report justifying more defense spending. I'm shocked.
So basically, the forces we already have over there are inadequate to stop the invasion? Why are we paying RAND to tell us something we already know. The forces currently in Europe are nothing but a trip wire. They aren't meant to stop shit. They're meant to be a deterrent because Russia won't be able to get far without having to attack US forces and draw them into the war.
All of this shit is just a way to justify spending even more money in shit we don't even need. We shouldn't even be in Europe to begin with. We fund half of NATO by ourselves and get no benefit from this, while the other member nations don't even pay their tiny share and then brag about they have the money to spend on nationalized healthcare.
Wyatt Ramirez
Everyone is shit-tier without control of the skies
Without combined arms we're donezo
Kevin Garcia
Similarly, I attended a lecture by a Col. Porter of US Army Europe two yeas ago. As an intelligence officer, she said that the current models predict that the U.S. And NATO could hold the line in east Germany for about 15 minutes before being overrun based off of our current ORBAT.
Xavier Williams
Fuck off.
Blake Hughes
Have fun shelling mudslimes in Europe (Operation Human Shield) for us all while envoking war-fever in our democracies and us unleashing the tech we didn't unleash in the Middle East. If Putin had that strong of an advantage he'd have taken more of Ukraine instead of being held up by nationalist partisans and """advisors""".
for starters, you ACTUALLY think US agenda relies on the president that's in power doesn't get more brainlet than that, you're a fucking mong
Landon Morris
It's also important to remember that Russia's military isn't full of women and faggots like the wests' are.
It's gonna be real great for morale when hundreds of bitch shaped bodybags holding mangled wives & daughters start shipping back.
Camden Roberts
>Russia superior to US in ground combat Anyone is. No, really, even the Bundeswehr can kill them easily.
Luis Martin
>That's what I thought. You got nothing. You suck at warfare and you have proven this again and again.
Adam Cruz
Israel controls every little thing the USA does, which is why there is a push for war with Russia in the first place.
Where the fuck did I post anything to the contrary?
Logan Young
I think you under estimate the us military, we could easily invade most countries in the world in a few months at most.
Owen Hernandez
>"They've got a range advantage over us in a number of different areas, particularly cannons," Gordon said. "Typically, modern Russian cannons have got 50 percent to 100 percent greater range than the current generation of U.S. cannons." Except most of russian tech is still from the 80's, while Americans for example have those neat ligh-weight 155 guns, and guided projectiles. This guy tries to sell the fact that >war against the Russia would not be a one-side show of American domination as something truly alarming, which is not.
tl;dr: Lobbying from military-industrial complex and Pentagon for more money.
Xavier Anderson
You know what that means, time to squander more money on our bloated military. Of course they're going to say it's not prepared. The eternal parasites making hardware for the military need business.
Benjamin Ortiz
>As an intelligence officer, she said that the current models predict that the U.S. And NATO could hold the line in east Germany for about 15 minutes >East Germany Wow, I didn't know that Polish Army was that powerful and a potential enemy of the whole NATO
Jason King
WE NEED MORE MONEY FOR DEM PROGRAMS
The US homeland is surrounded by big oceans and weak neighbors, no conventional military threatens it, not China, not Russia, not anyone else. Meanwhile, US forward bases in the Baltics, Japan, Korea, etc. actually do threaten its enemies. There are a limited number of countries whose ICBMs can reach the US and that is a suicidal proposition to begin with. It is not even known how good US anti-missile defenses are and if they can actually shoot down incoming nukes if shit really hit the fan because that info is top secret for obvious reasons. Is MAD even still in play?
They want more funding, it's just more shilling from the military industrial complex.
Nolan Lee
>Talking about a conventional war between two huge powers like that will ever happen again
Mhm
Henry Peterson
Funny how the whole assumption here is that such a war would be fought in Russia or elsewhere in Europe. The US is and has for a long time been the agressor in all of its wars. This article is basically outlying how Russia is too strong for America to bully, and this is presented as a threat to the US. It's not.
Sebastian Cox
Russia's army is not built for invasion and international dominance, unlike the US.
Ryan Lewis
Russia is perfectly capable of doing what RAND says it can do, the issue is that it can't hold the territory without going bankrupt from sanctions and gorilla warfare by partisans (that's why Ukraine and Poland created Territorial Defense Forces and why Russia is hoarding gold to keep inflation under control when shit hits the fan, same as the Chinese)
Cut the vaporware bullshit
Lincoln Diaz
RAND wants more defence spending, eh? RAND, inventors of the missile gap. What a fucking shock. Shame it isn't true, a Europe conquered by Russia couldn't be worse than the dystopia we live in now.
Josiah Russell
This, Russia would probably destroy any US attempts at an invasion and vice versa.
Jonathan Perry
The Kraut fears the Pole. But unfortunately for Eastern Europe, you guys are predicted to fold over immediately so it's not worth making predictions
Thomas Sullivan
Ofc. Russia is already spends 33% of federal budget on "defence". Weak, primitive economy build on export of crude resources cannot afford a big offensive style army.
Henry Wilson
americans can't fight without air support, and without air support they can't fight at all because their army is mutt-soyboys
Jason Murphy
If anyone is interested in an actual simulated (non nuclear) war between Russia and the USA, here : youtu.be/r8KglkOgH-g
It's an estimate from 2016 but still holds true I think, as america keeps ramping up it's military budget.
So video in TL;DR: >He makes a scenario where the only unrealistic thing is that US and Russia share a land border. (Therefore making it perfect for this subject of ground troops capabilities) >The USA wins
What did you niggers expect? The USA has too much money involved in the military. More than the next 10-20 next countries on the list combined. Russia has cannon fodder. And good canons.
That's it.
Pretty useless thread, but compared to the rest of the board, pretty intellectual in comparison
Zachary Thomas
>overemphasizing the capabilities of your enemies for a higher defense fund
More news at 11, senpai.
Nicholas Cox
Literally every time US forces couldn't spam airstrikes in Afghanistan and Iraq they got absolutely buttfucked by camel fuckers and shot up like Thanksgiving turkeys who wandered into a firing range. Do burgers even know what their artillery systems are? Any fight where the skies are contested and they have to face uragans and mortars and snipers head on without air support would be a massacre.
Zachary Jackson
After that the Russian IADS will have finally been degraded by SEAD ops to the extent that close air can fight again
Joshua Lewis
1) the air power would need time to suppress and destroy the air defense platforms.
2) Russia has configured its forces for speed and quick conflicts. Their logistics system is lacking. This is not a bad choice as any conflict not won quickly has a good chance to go nuclear or to not be worth the cost.
Adam Watson
Yet no one can answer the question. It seems everyone is afraid to actually compare apples to apples. You have no data to support your extreme claims. If you did, you would spamming it all over this board all day. Stop being butthurt and just acceit reality.
Jack Lewis
20 shekles have been deposited. Would of been 30 but you didn't state the need for more Israeli aid
Luis Hill
Except for the part where the only two countries with any force projection/logistics capabilities like the Americans have would be France and England in that order.
You can have the best soldiers on the planet, doesn't mean anything when you can't get them to where you need them and keep them fed and supplied once they're there.
Evan Gonzalez
>Troops >modern Conventional warfare Derp
Jaxon Cook
doesn't factor in the orbital kinetic weapons that will be used against any radar for AD assets, 2/10
Christian Smith
>Literally every time US forces couldn't spam airstrikes in Afghanistan and Iraq they got absolutely buttfucked by camel fuckers and shot up like Thanksgiving
Russia had way too many tanks to stop. NATO would have to play the game of slow them down let them advance into Germany until they outstrip their air cover. Once the air cover was removed the interdiction battle could begin. The smart plan would not be to conquer anything for Russia.instead it would be to get better negotiating terms. Fighting for two weeks and going to the table would be better for everyone than pressing the button. NATO would eventually be able to push them back but only after the Russian logistics have been destroyed
Jose Clark
This >We need to upgrade our systems goy, give us more money to give to do-nothing bureaucrats and double digit IQ officers!
Jordan Robinson
THIs is so under rated. JR officers study tactics Generals study logistics
Andrew Sullivan
>Defense Just like Red Army right? Built only for the defense of USSR, but curiously equipped with thousands of tanks and bombers.
Kayden Diaz
>Russia has configured its forces for speed and quick conflicts. Their logistics system is lacking. It was more about necessity and not the choice. You have to have loads of money and infrastructure for force projection, especially a longer one.
Jordan Fisher
"I understand the situation. Their supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof -- that's their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you.
Dominic Lee
>GAME THEORY The game in question being Candy Land?
Gabriel Anderson
cannons=/= howitzers Russian cannons have a higher range because they use a larger projectile for direct fire, thus their shells maintain velocity longer due to their mass.
I have always wondered how is Russian air superiority, I know during WW2 the Germans destroyed prett much all of the russian planes while they were still on the ground so we never saw a real eastern front air battle to my knowledge anyway. I can imagine how crazy Russians might be with jets...
Also, doesn't Russia have the most tanks by a pretty huge margin?
Chase Bell
yes, however the vast majority of them are sitting in disrepair in depos
John Morgan
You assume that those bloated numbers of russian tanks in most comparisions are real. Those tanks exist (probably), but some are mothballed, some in repair (for 15 years sometimes), and some in army units far from potential theater of operations.
There is an old proberb, which is still relvant in our times: "Russia is never as weak as her enemies claim, but also never as strong as she presents herself".
Nolan Morris
>Give us another trillion this year, F35 and the railgun ship are thiiiiiis close to completion.jpg
Aaron Evans
The light weight artillery are towed guns. They're great for being moved by helicopters under reduced power to new fixed positions (I.e. Afghanistan) and they do have improved response time. However they take much longer to displace between fire missions than even the most basic self propelled gun and of course they're completely unprotected.
The Paladin is probably the worst self propelled heavy gun in use, mostly because of its relatively low range.
The guided projectiles are GPS-guided, which means they can't hit moving targets (or targets that displace frequently, like self-propelled howitzers).
John Hughes
Patton was truly the greatest larper of all time
Caleb Butler
Duh. US is a Air/Space/Naval power. US would get waxed by Russia on the ground
Russia's army might not be as good in attack, because the old tech is still Gen5, and modern tech barely started production. But their anti air/shore and ground defenses, ECM and everything Dead Man's Hand related are actually superior in tech.
So, as long as you don't attack them, USA is technically superior
Jace Moore
>found the Russian troll still in US proxy I never disagreed with you or RAND. I'm saying 7-10 days isn't holding a front for very long. And which front? China and Korea will flip on Russia when the US/West regains air superiority because we'll have thrown some serious shit back at them to push back in Europe. Screencap this, friendo.
Elijah Price
>so we never saw a real eastern front air battle to my knowledge anyway It was more about the doctrine of Soviet airforce in later war - they proritized air domination and escorting their CAS and bombers, instead of trying to destroy the Luftwaffe. As a result, even after Germans lost superiority in air in 1943, Luftwaffe was operating right up to 1945 on Eastern Front (the lack of parts, personnel and most of all, fuel, was the main problem).
About the tanks, while on paper Russia has loads and loads of tanks, in reality it cannot field all of them (or even most) on one theater of operation.
Parker Ward
those 155s are from the 60s
Matthew Barnes
LIke I said it was a conscience choice. It was also a good one.
Don't you have MLRS for long range support? Plus, US Army recon would be much better than opposite, which gives considerable edge in artillery duels.
Besides, Russian artillery is also dominated by towed artillery. Sure, they have comparatively high number of mobile guns, but as a whole, towed artillery still dominates.
Gee too bad we have not put any effort into new artillery in 35 years. Russian artillery has near 35 - 60% more on the range and fire rate of the M109A6. Got to put billions and trillions into the f35 though amirite?
>what is a boneyard? Hey retard newsflash any nation with a lot of military materiel dumps the old shit in the middle of nowhere to use for scrap and spare parts We have literally thousands of tanks and planes sitting in the Mojave desert for years
>the air power would need time to suppress and destroy the air defense platforms.
eh...The thing about Russian SAM systems is that the good ones are big and easily spotted even if they aren't radiating (and they would be radiating). It wouldn't be like Vietnam era Wild Weasel operations - you'd just use saturation attacks on the SAM sites and be done with it. A S-400 may be able to knock down a couple dozen incoming missiles, but that is why you send 50.
That's just the easy dumb way to do it. Jam the sites down with electronic attack platforms then SDB/HARM them to death.
Day one of the air war would be fucking bananas and there would be non-trivial losses, but day 2 would be total NATO dominance.
Ryan Turner
>those 155s are from the 60s What are you talking about, M198 was deployed in 1979, and it is replaced from 2005 by M777.
>It was also a good one. There were worse options, but I would argue about it being "good".
Russia is a bit better in that aspect, but at the same time, the challenges are also bigger.
Easton Walker
I am well aware of the fact that we have boneyards as well, however we keep them centralized, and only keep somewhat modern vehicles in them, rather than vehicles that date all the way back to ww2
Luis Scott
Yes we are so weak. We are the weakest military in the world. We can't even beat goat farmers and Viet Cong. Please invade us. Please attack American bases across Europe and the Middle East, like those Russian mercenaries did in Syria. Attack us already, we are weak, divided. And we have major blue balls from fighting in these shitty proxy wars all the time.
Attack us. We are all mutts and trannies anyway. Go ahead.
>But their anti air are actually superior Pure speculations. Until direct fight happens it's all pr bullshit. US ravaged Serbia, Iraq, fiiled with soviet anti-air. Israel flyng over Syria for years. Both suffered very few casualties. You can say it was old systems REEEEE, but we don't have another example. >ground defenses What's this? >Dead Man's Hand Another speculations. Russia's nuclear arsenal is in crisis right now, most dangerous ICBM's are very old, already beyond their life cycle. They must be replaced by new projects in the coming few years, but russian industy and military science struggle with it. All these ICBM showed in cartoons, exist only on paper in early development. With no guarantee to repeat the success of their predecessor like Satan.
Blake Morgan
People got to know that when Russian anti air systems fire they give away their position. At first it wouldn't matter, but US Air power will always win against a wheeled rocket platform over time.
>and only keep somewhat modern vehicles in them, rather than vehicles that date all the way back to ww2 Are you implying that having old tanks sitting in a scrapyard is somehow detrimental?
