How does tthe Russian military compare to Western military powers?

In reality, any Russian aggression against a NATO state would have them going against both the US and a unified EU, because, ya know, NATO, but either one on their own could also handle them in a non-nuclear conflict.

>t.clueless about Russian military in the past 15 years

>Russian aggression against a NATO
Nice propaganda, brainwashed natofaggot bot. In reality any NATO attempt to attack Russia will result in natofaggots getting glassed. Period. Nothing to discuss here. Go play WWIII in your favourite video game, clown.

Attached: 15a18m r-36m2 voevoda (2).jpg (1200x1101, 110K)

Better at staging large, mass movement of troops and materials and sweeping advances with close support elements. Terrible at small unit operations owing to them not really trusting their own command and control save at very senior levels of responsibility. They tend to be somewhat worse than the west when it comes to full spectrum warfare and making use of force multipliers (basically they don't get as much bang for their buck on a per-man/per-unit level). On the other hand they emphasise more integrated support at the line of advance than the west does, so theoretically could bring more immediate firepower to bare. In practice, western style training and combined arms makes up for that shortfall.

In simplest terms, when they want something done, they do it big, quickly and with overwhelming force. But not necessarily very thoroughly. The downside being, that is pretty much all they can do well. They might end up throwing thousands of men at an objective that could be taken by a few hundred, and when forced to split their forces can really start to suffer from lack of effective communication and junior command experience. Compare the sledgehammer vs the scalpel methods of problem solving.

Hundreds of years of history tells us the same thing over and over again: Russia sucks on offense but crushes on defense.

Excuse me. The USA has a tech phase in a full on war with an on par nation. (or even 2 at same time)
-
As i stated | Protracted war phase against a russia, china determination after tech is depleted
That is NOT US doctrine. Because they don't HAVE Numbers.
The US can't land the numbers in this stage
They don't have the delivery needed in a conventional.

hence my categorization

>NATO attempt to attack Russia
Generally speaking, the primary concern on NATO's end is Russia trying to appropriate sovereign territory in Eastern Europe, not NATO attempting to attack Russia. Also, if Russia really wants to trigger MAD, that's on them.

Their general performance is poor. The Russian military has only a small core of contract/professional soldiers. Their conscription program absorbs large amount of resources for no return, the conscripts are of no military value.

Russian air force has serious training problems, as while they theoretically have a deep reserve of air frames only a small number of pilots have enough flight time to be considered well trained.

The Russian navy mostly suffers for legacy equipment that received minimal or no maintenance for more then ten years. The legacy submarine fleet is unsafe to operate and hopelessly obsolete in any case, while age and poor maintenance leave the surface fleet barely operational.

The problem comes down to money. Russia can not afford to maintain legacy equipment, develop new equipment or deploy new equipment in useful numbers, yet insist on attempting to do all.

>primary concern on NATO's end
Is the lack of funding due to people realizing rancid cold war tier natofaggot propaganda about Russians is bullshit.
>not NATO attempting to attack Russia
Between natofaggot scum and Russians only the former had plans to attack the latter, not vice versa. Choke on your shit, brainwashed bot.

Attached: cia.jpg (881x666, 68K)

>Because they don't HAVE Numbers
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces
>The U.S. Air Force is the world's largest air force, the U.S. Navy is the world's largest navy by tonnage, and the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps combined are the world's second largest air arm

>if Russia really wants to trigger MAD, that's on them
No, that's on natofaggot scum attempting to attack Russia. In which case nato pigs are getting glassed.

currently: Rusfed if nuke threats did not exist - could be Steam rolled and dismantled in the tech phase.
If they can keep their bases alive they would be subject to the massive ground assault that comes next.
Russia could do it if they stayed light on their feet.

My opinion: Russia is more vulnerable than China right now

>nato pigs are getting glassed
It would also result in the destruction of Russia's population. Hence MAD.

>Russia is more vulnerable than China right now
Absolutely. China is a rising power while Russia is a former global power trying to slow its decline.

are u retarded

Not really. Russia has fuck all remaining functional delivery platforms. They'd deliver less then one hundred weapon before they'd be out of the war.

MAD is over. Russia could, and would, lose a nuclear war.

>It would also result in the destruction of Russia's population
No, natofaggot attempt to destroy Russia will result in natofaggot scum getting purged from the face of the planed in a set of artificial sunrises.

>t. SSBNs stuck in port

Natopig cope.

Attached: 3m30 bulava salvo.webm (1920x1080, 2.86M)

>t.coping amerishartnik fagstench

Attached: 955a borey k-549 knyaz vladimir (3).jpg (3840x2160, 2.63M)

I am actually not but. I'll pass that funny shit along to my friends and keep getting paid.
:)

Bruh thats an ukrainian vehicle

Made by whom?

>how does tthe Russian military compare to Western military powers?
Naval and Air forces compare extremely poorly. Ground forces are slightly better, but still suffer from obsolete equipment and the continuing conscription system that does Russia more harm than good.

The latest and most advanced Russian SSB. It has not been commissioned or received any weapons.

What's it going to do, sink at them?

lol

Tanks are better
Small arms are better
Interceptors are better
Missile boats and AShMs are better
Helicopters are better
Uniforms and individual equipment is better
Transport planes are better
Better bombers
Everythin else is worse

Attached: Z01HqrfjWVM.jpg (1200x800, 556K)

Based and Tiananmen Squarepilled

Are you vietnamese and living in northern virginia by chance?

Attached: B4992796-DAF4-4703-A5C8-B38732ED4006.png (1413x958, 72K)

Am I missing something or is the identity of the Armatard exposed

>Russian Nukes will work but somehow NATO Nukes won't
You are either incredibly stupid or don't actually hold your belief's genuinely.

I knew a slavafag vietnamese “communist” that used to say shit exactly like this.
He used to be into airsoft and dressed up as a spetnaz for the last day of school
He thought his ‘communist heritage’ made him russian
Literal we wuz
Also a fag

Conventionally, Russia is a 2nd tier military. Rundown equipment, funding shortfalls and procurement difficulty, undertraining and a general lack of meaningful experience on the modern battlefield. However, keep in mind that even a skeleton of the USSR is still a pretty respectable juggernaut, even if it is 80% Iron(III) oxide

Their nuclear forces are the only reason anyone that doesn't immediately border them takes them half-seriously. China may be the only neighboouring country that can gaze back at Russia without flinching.

Basically Russia may present a problem to any country that is not the US or China, but Russians are beyond brain damaged when it comes to expeditionary warfare. Their doctrine never gave too much attention to anything beyond immediate zerg rushes over land.

Oof boomer get out of 2002

This. Russia is in an even worse shape militarily right now.

>Tanks are better
The Armatas and arguably T-90s might be better but most of the tanks they have are outdated

>Small arms are better
Maybe they are but not by a big margin. And they don't usually come with a lot of attachments that NATO has

>Missile boats and AShMs are better
I don't really know a lot about this, anyways their navy is shit so it should be irrelevant

>Helicopters are better
In what aspect? They might be cheaper and better in their price-quality ratio but that doesn't matter since NATO has a much bigger budget anyways

>Uniforms and individual equipment are better
How so? I don't really think so. The only thing they might have better is the body armor

>Transport planes are better
>Better bombers
That's true, but they have much less of them than USA or other NATO powers

>Their doctrine never gave too much attention to anything beyond immediate zerg rushes over land.
well maybe because they can get by land to almost anywhere in the world?

If he was Communist then why did his family flee from Vietnam?

t80u and t72b3m are better than any shit nato fields in meaningful numbers
>anyways their navy is shit so it should be irrelevant
It's not shit, Russian navy can literally defend against full blown amerishart naval invasion because it was built to do it
>In what aspect?
Simply newer, remember RAH 66 hahaha

This is literally the most reasonable post in the entire thread.

You're giving them way too much credit here.

So much that they suffered a near national spiritual breakdown when they tried to fight Georgia.

I dont think they were actually c o m u n i s t s
>[gibs]

Why the fuck would russia even attempt at doing that nowadays? They arent the soviet union anymore, they dont need satellite countries which will only make their borders more difficult to protect.

No such vehicle.

>it can do it because it was built to do it
great reasoning there bud

vocaroo.com/i/s0Ki7jID53LI

Attached: 1559778342862.jpg (553x552, 38K)

kek

The T-72B3M is a desperate attempt to keep a shit tank in service a bit longer because Russia is too poor to build Armatas. None of those tanks are anywhere near as good as what you think they are.

Yeah if there's enough slavshit that sunk in shallow waters it might actually prevent US ships from reaching the shore.

Jesus, Jow Forums is fucking stupid.
>satellite states are harder to defend
Unified satellites join NATO and allow for a massing of offensive power directly on their border. Starting small territorial disputes with them prevents their joining of NATO which has been the overriding goal of Russia's foreign policy for some time. This isn't arguing that NATO should exist (it shouldn't), but leaving their satellites alone DOES NOT help Russia as much as preventing their joining of NATO does.

>it shouldn't
Oh boy this should be good

I mean it's pretty simple. As soon as the USSR fell, NATO became obsolete. Russian aggression (the only semi-plausible reason for it) only became a thing because of NATO advancement on their borders. There are better ways to ensure the sovereignty of Russia's satellites than these useless nigger bureaucrats trying to keep themselves in a job.

>russian transports and bombers are better
The fuck, the US has far more cargo planes with big capacity and they are actually maintained, and our b2 and soon b21 raider btfos their aging bombers

Russia has better, faster bombers

>NATO advancement on their border
If you mean "countries begging us to let them join because they didnt trust Russia not to invade them" like Poland is "advancement" then I'm sorry you're retarded. Georgia and Ukraine prove that Russia seeks dominion over Eastern Europe. All we've done is ensure they arent going to get suddenly invaded.

Russia could easily steamroll any country in NATO 1 vs. 1, including the USA. But of course, real wars aren't 1 vs. 1, and the combined forces of NATO would be too much for Russia to handle.

Attached: man_thinking_png_838017.jpg (800x533, 180K)

Stupid ameriblob. Your bombers cant even do this

youtube.com/watch?v=SSvE7LFJ-UA

fpbp

op they are an over rated joke

Choo choo

Attached: IMG_4820.jpg (1200x848, 63K)

>Russia is more vulnerable than China right now
what are you going to tell us next, that the sky is blue?

Yes it is advancement and there's nothing unreasonable about Russia not wanting a major military on their border. The US wouldn't allow such alliances anywhere in the Western hemisphere for the most of it's history. There were other ways to secure the independence of Russia's satellites than to keep employing a bunch of beyond useless welfare queens.

>and there's nothing unreasonable about Russia not wanting a major military on their border
Sure, maybe from their perspective it's a bad situation to be in, but I don't see why we should care at all about their perspective or the problems it (allegedly) causes them. They've been given so many opportunities to act like actual people but they've squandered each and every single one to maintain their pathetic insecurity about not being top dog.

>The US wouldn't allow such alliances anywhere in the Western hemisphere for the most of it's history.
Yeah, and Russia isn't the US, now is it? When you have the GDP of Italy it makes it a lot harder to justify throwing your empty weight around.

Lol, is that the latest stealth sub that's incredibly noisy and easy to detect?

They developed a shit ton of nukes for a reason, their sub fleet isn’t even a shadow of what it was though. Demographic issues is the least of their worries considering the abysmal health system that makes the US look good on top of oligarchs.
Shut the fuck up you emu rapist, Russian equipment in general has been on a very steep decline ever since the collapse of the USSR barring shit like the Val/Ots weapons, AK-12, and the Gsh pistol. The Air Force barely functions and the VMF is a complete skeleton.
>inb4 muh armata
>inb4 muh su-57
>unironically saying communist heritage
That sounds like bullshit but I believe you.
t. Slav German mutt

The Russian economy sits between Spain and fucking Italy in terms of GDP. Yet they still maintain the image of being a superpower.

qt

Attached: 2S19M2 Msta-S self-propelled artillery.jpg (1280x853, 413K)