How powerful is the US army really?

How powerful is the US army really?

I mean, if it came down to it, toe to toe, how well would they do 1v1 against any other country?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/p0_Zf7LUR_U
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Would lose to either china or russia and is t really in a position to start causing shit with anyone other than third world nations until they get their budget increased over $600b to bring their equiptmemt back up to full strength. Particularly with regards to gen 5 plane numbers f2w n the likes. But they dont make f22 anymore and f35's have been hiking prices to unreasonably high level.
Trump will have some decisions to make and push through congress.

You should attack now if you ever want to do it.

Also they're too preoccupied with fighting amongst themselves over first world problems. Strike now

lol stop. No we wouldn't. We don't hold the position we do in a corner. China and Russia do. They are backed up and defensive always.
Paying attention to international politics would let you know immediately how poorly China or Russia would do in a war against us.

They are certainly the biggest threats to the U.S. since they are the biggest most advanced militaries aside from the U.S. But still nowhere near capable of taking on America in a conventional no holds barred war.

A simple blockade of China would decimate that country within a month. Let alone a full blown war.
Russia suffers immensely every time the U.S. take economic action. Warfare isn't just pewpew pow pow guns and bombs. It's about destroying your enemy. And in a war, even against the both of those countries they would lose long before Americans really suffer.

maskirovkan power projection works, as shown in this guy's perception of russian power

how powerful is US army
>shows picture of US Air Force

army = armed forces = all the different branches combined

The most powerful army on the planet.

no one can invade mainland USA because of distances and natural obstacles, even if troops were on the ground in South America or Northern Canada logistics would be a nightmare for the invaders.
If USA invaded Russia or China it would be a bloodbath the modern world would not be ready to handle, the best tactics those two countries have are basically zap brannigan attacks until we run out of bullets, rinse, repeate.
you said army not combined forces, fucking autist

>you said army not combined forces, fucking autist
"=" means "equal", meaning army is the same thing as armed forces

they call it a "contraction"

you might want to look that up

>Would lose to either china or russia and is t really in a position to start causing shit with anyone other than third world nations until they get their budget increased over $600b to bring their equiptmemt back up to full strength. Particularly with regards to gen 5 plane numbers f2w n the likes. But they dont make f22 anymore and f35's have been hiking prices to unreasonably high level.
>Trump will have some decisions to make and push through congress.
>You should attack now if you ever want to do it.


This is written by either a Moslem in Occupied Europe or some slav/nigger/irrelevant Third Worlder extolling personal fantasies.

The United States of America owns the water, the skies, inner space, the Internet and can land on your soil and fuck you and your relatives up sideways within 72 hours.

We are more than any other empire in any time ever was.

>"How powerful is the US army really?"
US Army is a separate branch, US combined forces are all the forces.

Army is a section of the military/armed forces dumbass.

i stand corrected

Well if you listen to Western media obviously they will tell you that Russia and China would do awful in a war. The simple fact is this thread is irrelevant because both Russia and the US have nuclear weapons that can obliterate the world effortlesly.

Against any other nation it wins in a naval or air war.
The only true obstacles I would see would be a land war against Russia or China where the final goal is to occupy those nations. On a similar note, invasion of the US is impossible under current conditions of those of the foreseeable future.

6 month passed, but they still can't take one shitty Mosul.
/thread

Agreed.
Remember when the first US stealth fighter was shown publicly. We had that tech for decades before. Now apply that to all other mediums
> water, the skies, inner space, the Internet
and that is our actual capability we'd use under a world war III scenario. Until then, all us peons will be in the dark as to what the US is holding.

Also to act like China or Russia is anywhere close to the US on this type of military innovation and R&D is laughable. It has been stated many times that all the "breaches" and missing stealth drones to foreign powers are just a ruse to keep our Enemies thinking we dont have as much advancement.

Well it's the most powerful offensive force on the planet but it would not be able to defeat Russia. China it could defeat because China is more of a paper tiger due to the fact that they haven't really fought any major wars and thus are not a real fighting force nor a warrior class type people.
There's only 2 real countries on the planet that have equivalent 1st tier combat experience and that's USA and Russia. For every war that the USA has had, Russia has had an equivalent war in any given era. For instance let's start with Vietnam, Russia had Afghanistan to test their toys out on and hone their fighting prowess. Then U.S. had desert storm, Russia had Chechnya War 1. Then U.S. had afghan war Russia had Chechnya war 2. Then U.S. had Iraq war 2, Russia had Syrian war (currently ongoing) etc.
In an equal fight on a neutral territory USA would win, but USA in an offensive war against Russia where Russia is defending its homeland, USA stands no chance of winning and would not win. In a nuclear exchange, Russia has a higher chance of winning because the country is the largest on earth and parts of it would survive whereas USA would be annihilated.

Agree with everything you said except I do think Russia is better equipped with their air force.

That's the Iraqi Army. Back in 2003, the US Army invaded Iraq and took Baghdad in a little over a month.
Before that, in 1991, it took a few weeks to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait.

Good points but the US would only have to target west Russia with nuclear weapons because that's where 95% of the population is. No one would win in a nuclear exchange imo.

its easy to see things in black and white when you wield no power or data on the subject.
Putting aside the possibility that Mosul cannot be taken as it should--i.e.-without remorse or mercy for the local population, because of SJW cunts in the west... Why do you think they want to hurry up and finish this war anytime soon?

The US military is the only military on Earth capable of projecting force. The US is literally so far above any other country when it comes to logistical support that no one else would stand a chance.

The Russian Air Force does have some excellent planes but they also have a lot of older stuff or aircraft that are not flight-worthy. Things sitting on runways and being stripped of parts to keep other flying.
An air war over Russia itself would be difficult, over Europe it would be determined fairly quickly.
If it was a question of naval aviation then the US wins hands down.

I would also bet more on the quality of American pilots as well just from having more experience and flight time.

tech and weapons usa is number one but currently it is a skeleton crew. if usa went to real war with someone like russia or china we would lose before the draft could have any impact

that's incorrect 95% doesn't live in west russia. It's more sure, but it's not 95%. Secondly yes USA would wipe out most of the population but some would probably survive cus the country is simply too big whereas USA would be annihilated.
Secondly, Russia has far more nuclear weapons AND biological/chemical weapons than the USA AND on top of that Russia's nukes are generally/typically more powerful in megaton count so in a mutual exchange I'd place my money on Russia winning. Not to mention the fact that China borders Russia and if USA ever nuked Russia, after the radioactive cloud blows in to China, guess who is going to begin nuking the USA also? So in short, USA would perish

Autists

Completely wrong. Russia is showing the world as we speak its force projection capabilities in Syria. Russia single handedly dominated ISIS/Al-qaeda (Al-Nusra) in Syria as we speak all via force projection including successful usage of aircraft carrier, long range bombing, etc.

They have invested so much technology to it but I would say China and Russia would be pretty equal enemies, I think they have more quantity vs quality though.

Unless they are using nukes or some new top secret weaponry the winner would be the one with more money. War is incredibly expensive. Just to gather you troops to a one place and letting them wait costs so much money.

lol russia? is that a joke. you know it costs money to wage war right? Russia is broke as fuck. You're fucking retarded.

It's pointless to try to theorize a full-scale nuclear exchange because nobody wins.

>one of the main problems of these discussions come from some dialogues of conventional means fighting, and others are mixed in with nuclear options.

Once you introduce all out nuclear war.- the release off all our nukes on both sides to exterminate the other, conventional means really go out the window. The fact that people are arguing about how man planes there are and how good they are after thousands of nukes hit each side show a true lack of understanding.

actually you sound pretty retarded to me, U.S. is more broke than russia. 110% debt to GDP whereas Russia has about 10% debt to GDP.

If we got in a war with Russia why would we invade them, knock out there capabilities and it's over. Not saying we would win, just saying we don't have to do what hitter tried.

The U.S. has over 800 over seas military bases. Russia has 9.

Also, U.S. citizens have more guns than any other countries military.

Do you remember 72 years ago when we won World War 2? Multiply that by 720,000,000

>Russia to Syria is projecting force
>top kek
Go Slav squat in some other thread. Russia successfully used their only active aircraft carrier in their own fucking back yard. That's super impressive. There's no way the US could match them with their twelve fucking active carriers. Literally impossible!

U ever look at what America makes a year to Russia, we may be in debt, but we out do them

debt is not broke.
debt just means that someone else wants you to pay them back...or else what, China?...Russia?

Russia has one aircraft carrier with a little over 40 aircraft aboard her. The one area where Russia has proven itself is with strategic bombers but those are few in numbers.
While Russia has force projection capabilities above most nations, it is still well far behind America's.

During scenarios for a WW3 in Europe the most consensus was that the USSR/Russia would have the early advantage but after a few weeks US/NATO would have heavy reinforcements on the continent.

>Trying to say that Russia has demonstratable force projection capability because they parked a decaying carrier in the Med...
The Admiral Kuznetsov is really on its last legs man. They lost two aircraft simply because the thing is falling apart, which is why it got recalled and Russian aircraft are now based in Syria.

Also, Russia isn't singlehandedly doing anything against ISIS/AQ.

Force projection is as much about logistics as it is about kinetic operations. Russia'a logistic capacity doesn't even come close to the US; nobody's does. Even other western nations rely on the US for that.

if you look in to past world wars, key for the victory was access and controll of resources, but also industrial capabilities

sre USA have a huge financial sector, but in case of global war, this capital could become obsolete, but still having this huge industrial sector, there would be very hard for americans to lose

looking only at numbers, neither chinese or russians are even close to amercans - going head to head, usa prolly would win easily, but if russians would use some unorthodox strategy (which they are famous for in times of need) well that would tip the ballance

for example, 12 aircraft carriers sounds like an immense advantage,(which ist also is) but what happens when russian would use a swarming hypersonic missliles against them (read BrahMos and DF-24 as a starter point of the development) well that would place aircraft varriers in the same pot as battleships in the end of WWII - aka obsolete

tl;dr - on paper USA would easily win, in reality - who knows

think you guys should be thankful the us still cares about its image (sorta) otherwise civilian casualties would just be apart of the job and not a taboo practice. imagine if we fought like the taliban there isn't a country in the world that could survive an attack like that from us. terrorist occupy civilian towns cause its safe for them knowing we won't just level the whole area because of the innocents

China & the US rely on each other too much economically. If anything, China & the US would just dick down Russia with more trade tariffs for acting like anyone gives a shit about them.

debt = broke

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA

do you even economics kid?

Russia isn't in debt because no one will lend them money, because they have no way to pay it back.

Jesus christ internet people are stupid. Then again i'm stupid for arguing with a 12 year old.

Those anti-carrier missiles are untested under real conditions and US Carriers have a huge network of defenses just to ensure nothing hits them.
I would not place any money on those missiles defeating an entire carrier group and even if they managed to sink one there's still many left. Those missile launch sites would be tracked down and destroyed.

not to mention an armed populace. more guns in the USA than citizens. Imagine trying to occupy cities with a full armed population.

Fucking impossible.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are testament to that, they planned on dropping many more nukes n would have if China didn't rush to surrender. in a time when civilian casualties didn't matter

USA was more like a pinch hitter in that war. Sure we came in and swept up at the end, but the toughest parts of that war had already been fought.

It was england and russia that won the war. Sure they needed us at the end, but we can't take all the credit, they lost WAY more than we did.

>Hiroshima and Nagasaki
>China
What?

...

...

China has an obligation to Russia geographically above the US..
>also muh communism came from Russia

point is when we bombed japan then, we didn't care about the casualties. n since now we do watts not as easy for us as it used to be. dunno why I typed China... brainfart?

wars*

irrelevant, WWIII is only going to last about 15 minutes

Lockheed martin.

again, it's not finished product yet
currently BrahMos is operating with 2.8-3 Mach with possible developement to 5 Mach
if next generation of those hypersonic missles go near 8 Mach and launches simultaniously 10 to 15 missles at same aircraft carrier (hense swarming) nothing can shot them down, even if you could lock uppon them (which you can't on this speed)
it's pure numbers, not pissing contest (my dad is stronger than yours) - as soon as those numbers turns against americans - game over

That's wrong. Some people really underestimate the US's contribution to WW2.
The USSR joined the war in July, 1941 (And before that had helped Germany tank Poland). the US joined in December, 1941. Only a few months apart.
Americans were fighting on three fronts against the Axis, and supplying its allies, while the USSR fought on one (Admittedly, the biggest). The US pulled off an incredible balancing act during the war but it's often ignored because some people only focus on Europe when looking at WW2.
Without any of the US, UK, USSR, WW2 would have been much hard (if not impossible) to win.

If we didn't play by some sort of moral code?

We would lay waste to the entire world. No one can compete. WMD equipped MIRV's and sleeper cells would be the biggest hurdle on our land.

Still, they would cease to exist.

ITT: patriotic burgers desperately trying to divert attention away from the fact they haven't won a war 1v1..... ever.

you can't /thread your own post nigger
sit in the corner
i don't care how much i might agree with your post, learn to Sup Forums nigger

they won ONE - mexican war 1846

Going to be difficult that many missiles.
If you've ever read Red Storm Rising, there's a similar scenario with an American carrier group being hit by swarms of missiles from Tu-22M Backfires.
It's a tactic that works once and then a counter is made.

In this case, it would be China firing a swarm of missiles and maybe sinking one CV, but then the Americans would be aware of the threat and change things up. Especially making their priority target those launch sites. Even if they're fired from mobile launchers they will need to be moved and that movement will be observed. No weapon or trick works every single time.

Really? Russia literally would have been steamrolled if not for the US feeding, clothing, and supplying them. The American bombing effort effectively kept the Germans production capabilities during the war to a minimum, and on top of that, the US was burning fucking Tojo from the Aleutian Islands all the way to Japan.

People always love to equate the number of Russian casualties to their contribution to the war.

Not sure why; should A county be congratulated for letting the enemy invade their country, or for having such poorly trained conscripts and leadership that mass casualty events were a daily occurrence?

Russia almost lost. cunt hair away from Mosscow. Hitler made mistakes going to those southern oil fields. He also made a mistake getting into a two front war before knocking out England, which was on its last leg.
Germany was close as fuck to winning it all before the US came in with its men and logistics.

So, a theoretical untested weapon platform that in the future might be able to beat a carrier group assuming there are no defensive adjustments and america just sits back to watch.
And assuming that the entire kill chain, from finding the carrier group in real time all the way through terminal guidance works perfectly when half of that kill chain doesn't exist...

Can't help the fact the rest of the world is our bitch, and when we say "jump" you all say "how high?"

exactly what i was trying to say, this wouldn't win a war, but would definetelly make carriers obsolete, because what would you do to protect multi-billion target-dummy? leave it in harbor in safety

revolutionary war
> pic related if you actually think France did shit except make us bread

...

Being near somebody doesn't make you allies. China & Russia also have a history of disputes over shared borders.

Fucking Cold War propaganda all over again. Remember when the west was terrified that the new Soviet MBT would steamroll through Europe? Then after the war everyone came to realize that it was just a metal death trap that would toss its turret at the first sign of fire (who stores ammo in the turret wring), and was more likely to rip the gunner's arm off than make it across a grass field. Russia is incapable of developing anything that's remotely close to being on the same level as the US.

>nothing fast enough
rail gun tech, for example..laser for another.
you people and your "cannot best this weapon" nonsense,
I'm sure they're working on the- impossible to hack period - computer security as well.

Chinks can't compete with airburst guns

Pretty sure this is about who would win in a conventional war, since no one really wins in a nuclear conflict.

Apparently u haven't heard of the su 4

you hold on tight to those delusional dreams little boy. you hold on real tight now, y'hear?

i am not talking about distant future, but about next generation of missles that is allready on drawing boards, which would take months, usa from other hand just invested heavily into outdated aegis (arleigh burke class destroyers) and it is very unlikely they would spend anything in this area in near decade

you'd be surprised how a next door neighbor with a gun pointed at you gets you attention. would make most people try to resolve things rather than escalate

I strongly doubt you can make a carrier obsolete.
You're not just going to scare the US into leaving their carriers in port and out of battle. Even if you inflict losses.
More will be built and they will come with new technology and tactics to fight back.

Much like after Pearl Harbor. Did losing numerous battleships mean the US left them all behind? No. They were rebuilt and modernized and then sent out to kick ass.
The difference was the threat of air attack was taken more seriously to counters to it were emphasized. The same would be true of these missiles- prioritizing developing counters to them and implementing them onto existing/new ships.

Seriously. People don't seem to realize that these magical carrier group-killing ballistic missiles will only work if you can actually find and reliably track the carrier group, which is fucking difficult even without sophisticated electronic countermeasures in play.

rail guns have supperior speed and power, but ... NO guidence system, means rail gun can not turget on a moving object

making it a very expenseve toy

This although as another user said Russia Air Force might be better. Those sukhois are pretty good when it comes to maneuverability so dog fighting I'd give them that. How ever who knows if that'd matter.

>Delusional dreams
Like the kind you have as you lay in bed ignoring the fact that my country's military bases are in your country? ;^)

>what are space satellite

funny you've mentioned, both russians and chinese have at this moment functional space-programs, but usa does not

your viewpoint.
>USA cannot improve weapons

please god tell me your a troll

The only viable option nato had, or still has today, to defend against a full soviet attack into eastern europe was using tactical nukes. youre not going to stop 100 divisions with the vastly out numbered conventional nato forces.

The us of a has stated that aircraft carriers have problems seen there last days

after nukes fly.. it wouldnt.
none of this really matters unless the discussion is a non-nuclear scenario. otherwise these things will be vaporized when tens of thousands of thermo nukes fly

We have 800+ bases around the globe ready to mobilize an army within hours. No other country can say this. Basically if any country came after us, we'd be on their doorstep raising hell before they could do anything but launch an ICBM. Not to mention we now have multiple missile defense networks that can disable ICBMs. There is likely one over the mainland but no one knows for sure (prob top secret), but the others are publicly known as a display of power.

tl;dr
we would own anyone who comes after us. But going after them probably would be difficult, not to mention economically retarded.

if you look into it, aka do some brief googling, ou'll decover for yourself, that lack of guidence cpabilties for rail guns, plagued this program from the start, despite developers being optimistic into solving this "minor annoyance" they admited not long time ago, that guidence system for rail guns may be not possible to fix ever

do not take my word for it, google it

billions of your tax money - wasted

is this thread a joke? check out this short video below. these are just normal u.s. citizens. imagine the power of everyone in that country fighting for one objective. its unreal
youtu.be/p0_Zf7LUR_U

They would have even more reason to go against Russia if they were threatening them. You're just taking financial security and adding their lives on top of it.

putting nukes aside. that heavily populated area would take time to go through. the US can mobilize on site with divisions within a couple days.

>How powerful is the US army really?
We spend more then the next 8 country's do and damn it if we have to we'll SPEND MORE.

Russia can barely afford and institute platinum based chemo therapy for cancer. Their chemical/bio/ entire cbrn development is trash compared to the US. Granted, they definitely have these weapons but the difference is that They flaunt theirs more. We could drown them in vx and bubonic plague for decades. Massive anthrax pollution. Smallpox distribution. Gasses incomparable to sarin. Weaponized necro fasciitis. Nobody wants to have a cbrn war with the US.

>defense networks that can disable ICBMs.

HAHAHAHA

wait you were serious about it? let me laugh harder

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA