>people who compare US and Russian military budgets and proclaim that US is 10 times more powerful
>people who compare UK or French budgets with Russian budgets and believe their armies are comparable to Russian armed forces
Let me explain you something.
Everything is simply far cheaper in Russia.
Army is cheaper to maintain (mostly conscripts).
Research and development is cheaper (done by government owned companies).
Production is cheaper (government owned companies).
Wages are lower, supplies are less expensive.
Some of military spending isn't accounted for under defense budget.
US has fucking 11 super-carriers, which cost awfully lot of money to maintain.
USN is obviously far more powerful than Russian Navy.
But when it comes to army and air force, while US is without a doubt more powerful, it's a lot closer match.
Thing is, Russia isn't a global superpower.
Russian interests are near them. And in this case, they have the advantage, because USA is across the ocean. It's easier for them to deploy forces and project force. They don't need a ridiculous navy (nor can they afford it without sacrificing power of army and air force).
But Russia is without a doubt pretty powerful on their own, and literally shits on every European military, both in terms of numbers and what it can do. Budgets don't tell the whole story.
>>28051302
>>28051302
Russia has 2.5k active tanks. Turkey has 3k. Poland has 1k.
Good luck with that NATO eastern flank Putin-san.
>>28051330
>instead of providing counter arguments i will shitpost
>>28051330
Refute my points.
>>28051347
Yes, and shitload in storage. Those active tanks are better than Polish, and especially better than Turkish revamped M-60's.
But I'm not saying Russia could steamroll Europe without problems, just that they are very powerful.
>>28051358
>>28051360
>but i spent so long making this bait! pls reply seriously!
>>28051360
Russia has 500 moderns tanks. Rest are junk.
Turkey has 400 Leopards 2. Poland has 250 and soon 350 Leopards 2.
And no, you can't just reactivate 12k tanks that are rusting in the middle of nowhere for 20 years.
>>28051372
I'm not OP, but please tell me how they can't just reactivate them.
force projection is expensive shit
But most of the Russian military is using very very dated equipment
The only issue with US vs Russia is the year+ It would take to transfer sufficient equipment to steamroll Russian military.
>>28051380
Ever been to a scrap yard? Do you think you can just "Reactivate" the vehicles there?
Way cheaper to just build new ones.
>>28051372
>rusting in the middle of nowhere
But that's not true. They are in storage, they weren't discarded.
If need arises, they could be reactivated quickly and used for mobilization. Sure, most are of lower quality, but they add numbers.
Also, upgraded T-72's are literally equivalent if not better compared to Polish and Turkish Leopards.
T-90's are far superior, and so are T-80's.
>b-but they explode when hit
>>28051366
So you have no arguments.
>>28051380
>I'm not OP, but please tell me how they can't just reactivate them.
Because they're literally rusted together
>>28051380
Rust is a very, VERY serious concern that can completely ruin parts. This is why the US keeps their old vehicles in the desert.
>>28051398
The only thing you've said that's right is that Russia isn't a superpower anymore and is just a regional power. But keep acting like this thread isn't bait, it's cute.
>>28051397
>The only issue with US vs Russia is the year+ It would take to transfer sufficient equipment to steamroll Russian military.
That's actually a huge issue, if you knew shit about logistics. However, most people here don't so they think all those troops exist in vacuum and you can just move them with the speed to light and concentrate them wherever you want quickly.
Go read how much time it took to prepare Desert Storm. And here we're talking about Iraq.
>Ever been to a scrap yard?
They aren't sent to scrap yard you dolt, they're in storage. They are still maintained.
>>28051398
>>28051409
And you keep repeating ''bait'' without addressing any of the points made in this thread.
>I'll just call it bait over and over again, that means I win!
Nope.
>>28051398
T-80 are shit to the point they are getting removed from service. And no matter how much ERA you glue to T-72 it's still T-72.
>>28051426
1. That's Ukraine, not Russia. Reverse search that image.
2. Those tanks are practically discarded, they aren't in storage.
>>28051412
>they're in storage. They are still maintained.
>implying Russia won't just spam ATGMs to counter NATO
a shitty Monkey Model Kornet is enough to blow up an Abrams with DU armor etc.
>>28051412
>They are still maintained.
>>28051412
>still maintained
>>28051302
Don't bother, OP. After Ukraine /k/ has become Butthurt Belt Central.
Which is sad, it used to be one of the few places to have a reasonable military/political discussion.
>>28051397
How is producing a new tank cheaper than oiling up the mechanics and removing rust? I've seen videos where Russians dug up and old WW2 era tank from a lake, repaired parts of the engine and it was still kicking.
>>28051445
Those are ABANDONED tanks, they are not in storage.
>>28051431
>are shit to the point they are getting remove from service
Explain why are they so shit.
>t-they explode when their ammunition is hit
That doesn't mean they're useless in combat.
You mentioned Poland.
Poles have 142 A4 Leopard 2's, and 105 A5 Leopard 2's.
A4 Leopards are literally from 80's. They got them as charity from Germans.
Rest of their tank force are T-72's and PT-91 (Polish upgrade of T-72).
All these tanks except maybe A5 are inferior to T-80's and upgraded T-72's.
Turks have 354 A4's, 1600 M-60's (750 are ordinary A3's), and 1400 M-48's (absolutely useless).
>>28051380
Mothballing any piece of equipment is a very expensive, complex, process that no one guarantee is going to work, even if you do it to the point.
Usually consist on replacing every fluid of the engine, hydraulics etc... with one wich prevents moisture, then you seal, and I mean *seal* every hatch, visor, engine port, firing port, exaust pipes, cracks, grids, to make it as waterproof as possible, and try to store the tank under a roof if possible.
Even if yo do this process well, you cannot just refuel, fill the oil and drive off, you need to replace almost every rubber gasket everywhere, treat rust (there's always some rust going trough) repaint, replace electrical lines or install them new if you removed them, same goes for visors, radios, lights, NV etc, etc...
It's cheaper and more feasible than starting a t72 production line, but still requires a lot of work.
>>28051426
>>28051460
>>28051468
Those are ABANDONED tanks you retard.
I'm not talking about Russian tanks which are rotting in scrapyard, and neither are they.
They are storing those tanks, they are still maintained, only less regularly and they aren't used.
>>28051445
>>28051372
Well, to be fair they still have more than 1000 upgraded t72 totally active.
But yeah, even small europoor countries like mine (spain) have >200 Leopard 2A6 that we barely use. Numbers of russians tanks looks very small.
>>28051486
Turk Leopards got upgraded to NG standard.
All polish Leos are getting upgraded to A6 standard within a year.
>>28051501
only 140 million ppl in russia
and russia has a smaller GDP than all these EU countries
>>28051485
Because they will be blown up by abrams or apaches in their hundreds?
>>28051492
>you cannot just refuel, fill the oil and drive off
I literally never said that and neither did he.
But refitting them for use is far faster than making a new tank, and far cheaper.
You're exaggerating the problems to suit your argument.
Having tanks in storage isn't Russian policy, Soviets did that too with older models. They are simply cheap reserve, even if outdated.
However in this case, outdated Russian tanks in storage are actually equivalent or superior to most of front-line European tanks (you mentioned Poland and Turkey).
>>28051485
>>28051496
>Images from Chita armaments and equipment storage base
>THEY'RE ABANDONED
pls
How many active Abrams does the US have? I keep seeing 10,000 to 12,000 manufactured from different source, but no concise active number.
>>28051302
>Some of military spending isn't accounted for under defense budget.
Just pointing this out, this is true for most nation. The US "operations" budget adds something like another $200 billion. And China's budget has been estimated to actually be twice the public number.
Hello RDIF, Why up so early?
>>28051486
All Leo 2s will fire modern ammunition, have better FCS, better protection and stabilizers than any shitbucket Russia can dredge up from whatever storage they have. Anything not a T-90 will be horribly shat upon by a Leo 2A4 or A5.
>>28051302
Not to mention that our military industrial complex allows politicians to dump money into stupid shit and then cancel the projects- just to be sure that their buddies who own companies that develop weapons get a nice pay check.
See:
XM8
V-22 (the first time)
F-22/F-35 (why would we need both?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_military_projects#United_States
>>28051485
>literal damage control
Show us a picture of one of your mothballed tanks Vatnik. I'm fucking waiting...
>>28051508
>Turk Leopards got upgraded to NG standard.
Source.
As far as I know, majority are still not upgraded.
>All polish Leos are getting upgraded to A6 standard within a year.
Source.
And we're still talking about 600 tanks in total. Which is exactly the same as Russian T-90 arsenal.
>>28051511
You're forgetting that Russians too have helicopters and tons of soldiers with RPGs to assist Russian tanks. Russian tanks are also large in numbers compared to European nations.
>>28051534
I'm pretty sure that's not true, operations budget is accounted for in military spending. At least it was when I looked at it.
>>28051541
I'm not RIDF dude, I'm simply saying Russia isn't as weak as some here presume.
>>28051544
Sure thing bro.
Source: pulled out of your ass.
And I'm not even talking about storage retard, Russia has upgraded T-80's and 72's in active service.
These are superior to A4 Leopards, and possibly A5 Leopards.
>>28051545
>Not to mention that our military industrial complex allows politicians to dump money into stupid shit and then cancel the projects
Exactly.
Russians fail far less in this aspect. Because defense research and development is owned by the state.
>>28051302
>these dumb faggots thinking Russia can put all its troops in one location and be completely vulnerable elsewhere
Real life doesn't work like the video games
>>28051302
>Russia
>superior
Well, OP what is superior anymore? Firepower? Influence? Economy? Resource? You're trying to argue a very irrelevant point.
I believe the Russian military is still very capable just as any other military would be.
But you ignore the fact that Russia, just like the U.S. is too pussy to ever go head on with each other and instead make little keked proxy nations fight under their own respective flags.
>Muh refuted debate points
>B-but you see let me explain why the Ruskie Federation is-
No one fucking cares. Anyone who's not an idiot knows too damn well the constant saber rattling that goes on is just smoke and mirrors and has been happening since for-fucking-ever.
Also, if you live in the U.S.either fucking kill yourself or move to Russia already, dipshit.
>>28051533
At the very least 9000
>>28051567
Except I addressed that, and that is correct, they can't.
But they can easily deploy a large part of their forces, far easier than Americans can.
Russia is only really vulnerable from the west. East is very hard to invade, China would be friendly or most probably neutral, Central Asia forms a buffer, Caucasus is difficult to invade.
>>28051460
How much would it cost me to ship one of those over to the states as an "art piece"
>>28051515
God, Russia can't even turn the tide in Ukraine and Syria. How the fuck do you plan on single handedly taking on NATO?
Jesus titty fucking Christ
KILL THE RUSSIAKEKS, WWIII NOW!
I can't wait to see you in the hills around Ankara, taking a shit next to your fox hole, SQUATTING. I won't even shoot you, which I could. I'd rather call in arty so we don't have to give away our position.
While your counting to see if you have enough rounds to go on patrol I'll be sipping coffee and smoking cigarettes watching your stupid mongoloid Slavic face drip cold sweat and mucus on a tv screen.
>>28051572
>But you ignore the fact that Russia, just like the U.S. is too pussy to ever go head on with each other
True.
I'm not trying to make such point. This isn't RUSSIA STRONG thread.
The t90 and t72 still use that big fat diesel engine
Even a drunk russian truck mechanic redneck could reactivate it in a couple of days.
But why this cold war 2.0 debate? Remember guys, the enemy is the islam, not the commies.
>>28051565
>Russians fail far less in this aspect. Because defense research and development is owned by the state.
Yes, and everyone knows Russia is known throughout the world as being free of corruption and back dealing.
Christ. Greece is better about that shit than Russia.
>>28051565
>These are superior to A4 Leopards, and possibly A5 Leopards.
And this is not pulled out of your ass?
>>28051533
>>28051573
But to be honest its closer to 6000.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=+us+army+tank+inventory
>>28051591
>completely talks about something irrelevant
>>28051591
Whatever dude. I'm not Russian.
>KILL THE RUSSIAKEKS, WWIII NOW!
It doesn't seem your allies are supporting you my friend.
>>28051302
>Russia's army is made up of poorly paid conscripts with crappy supplies
>This makes it better
I see OP. Well I can't beat that logic. Thank you for telling me this, i'm now sure of Russian superiority.
>>28051515
The soviets keep the these vehicles because that's how they fought. The most powerful weapon in the sovet army wasn't the t80, mig 29 or the nukes, was their humongous reserve force and the mobilization system which was absolutely amazing, even in the worst of the late 80's when you cannot find meat in all moscow, mobilizing, retrainning and arming one million of people on weeks was something very feasible, they used to run yearly mobilization exercises and the system worked like a swiss clock. The logic behind that is: a motorized division of reservists, T54's and trucks is still a motorized rifle division. By the time they have to tap the 50's vintage tanks reserve, with the attrition of modern warfare, the Bundeswheir and NATO are going to be on a sadly state, or even worse.
I don't see Russia pulling this, really, even if they got the tanks rolling, are they going to have the crews ready to crew them?, almost everyone but the drunks and deadbeats had skipped military service for decades, and one thing is do a refresh course, that was the soviet plan, and another is teaching 1000 crews from scratch, takes a lot of time and resources.
>>28051533
It used to be over 9000 (lolmeme) in 2010 but there's a constant production line to keep the factories running and to replace older high mileage vehicles.
New Abrams hulls were manufactured years ago, they just sit in storage yards somewhere in Ohio. They bead blast the surface rust off and put all the parts together when they need a new tank. Some cable documentary has the details.
>>28051601
>free of corruption
There's far less corruption. These are state firms.
In USA, it's totally different. Private firms aim to maximize their profit. Corruption in defense industry is bigger than in Russia, IMO, but this is pure speculation.
>>28051606
I'm pulling it out of the fact that these are 90's or 00's upgrades of T-80's. Original T-80's were equivalent of A4 Leopards in 80's.
Serious question because I dont know it
What kind of ATGm countermeasures does the abrams use?
Because in modern combat one single atgm can destroy (almost?) any tank now, and you can deploy one in a couple of minutes
>>28051302
>Air Force
In terms of being a closer match than the USN vs the Russian Navy you're correct, but it's still not all that close a match. Only by including strike aircraft such as the Su-24 can Russia reach half of America's fixed-wing fighter force in terms of numbers. There's a similar disparity in terms of helicopters.
>>28051593
Should have worded yourself better in the main post, you come off as doing such, even in the slightest.
To be honest, I'd wish the U.S. and Russia would ally closer and work towards further space expansion.
If we're paving the way to become Terrans anyway, might as well embrace it.
>space muhreens
>>28051635
Yeah nah. Transparency International has consistently ranked Russia as being absolutely shit in terms of corruption.
>>28051665
>Should have worded yourself better in the main post, you come off as doing such, even in the slightest.
talk about someone who needs better wording...
>>28051565
>These are superior to A4 Leopards, and possibly A5 Leopards
This is just plain vatnik dreams your'e spouting, no basis in reality whatsoever.
Russia knows this, that's why they are trying to produce the T-14 in such large numbers, to close the large gap in tank technology. It's kind of telling when Russia is desperately rushing a radically new design while NATO is content with minor upgrades to legacy systems.
>>28051683
Purge yourself, heathen.
>>28051677
>Transparency International
You mean that EU-funded organization, with russian chapter headed by a known pro-western shill. Yeah, completely 100% unbiased facts.
>>28051751
To be fair, most of the dark blue countries are probably correctly labeled. But the rest should be taken with a grain of salt
>>28051751
>>28051302
>Army is cheaper to maintain (mostly conscripts)
Yes, that is /why/ the British and French are on the same level as the Rusks. 50,000 British or French regulars are worth more than 200,000 Russian conscripts. The conscripts are poorly equipped, poorly funded, poorly motivated. They'd simply get the shit kicked out of them.
>R&D is cheaper
You also do less of it. I think your R&D investment was at like 1% of GDP compared to closer to double that by Western countries.
>when it comes to army and air force [...] it's a closer match.
It really isn't. The US AF and USN possess the two largest air forces in the world. Russia has a lot of men and material, which is likely in poor state. Great for beating the shit out of Ukrainians, Georgians or Syrians... Not so great when you're rocking up against Leclercs, Challenger 2s, and Abrams'.
>Russia is without a doubt pretty powerful on their own
True, I'll concede that point.
>and literally shits on every European military, both in terms of numbers and what it can do.
Disagree. France and Britain arguably have just as much influence in the Middle East as Russia does, significantly more in South America. Russia has an advantage in Central and East Asia.
Numbers-wise, Russia is forecast to not meet its conscript goals within 5 years, I believe. Russia's zerg rush tactics are unlikely to work against Western doctrine.
>>28051751
It's odd that most of Europe looks pretty shit then.
Are you seriously trying to say corruption in Russia isn't a hilariously bad problem? Medvedev admitted it, Putin admitted it. Fighting corruption has been one of his big domestic crusades in fact, comparable to Obama and Obamacare.
>>28051548
Turkey Leos - modernization pending approval
Poland Leos - talks with manufacturer
see link -->
http://www.defence24.com/261471,rheinmetall-on-leopard-2-tanks-modernization-our-proposal-cooperation
>>28051796
Corruption is simply a symptom of current legislation being in the way of working economy. Money is like water - you either harness it's energy or build a dam only to have it flow elsewhere.
Capital leaving the country, now that is a serious problem. But a dude taking bribes, even on high level, what is he going to do with the cash? He is going to build a house with a private golf course, park, all the bells and whistles, which will probably create more jobs for the country in the long run.
>>28051794
Norwegian conscripts did very well during Saber strike this summer.
Then again, that's after you've spent 80% of the year training, and once they finally get decent, they're done.
>>28051839
>which will probably create more jobs for the country in the long run.
Or he'll stick it in a bank account and just watch the numbers grow because he's worth billions already and can't spend the money fast enough.
>>28051878
Norway also has some serious equipment and spends a nice chunk of money on each soldier's care and training. Compare that to Dmitry and Sergei who were given a brief introduction to tank warfare and told to drive across the Ukie border... I don't really think it's applicable.
You take part in SS or just read about it?
>>28051839
>America has loads of corruption, it's awful!
>Uh, actually, Russia is the one with a ton of corruption at ever level.
>Well that's fun, corruption is good when it's Russia!
Christ.
>>28051909
>stick it in a bank account
The trick is to make him stick it into a _Russian_ bank account. The money still works for the good of the state.
>>28051910
>Christ
Yes, Christ. Your reading comprehension is somewhere around kindergarden levels.
>>28051909
I didn't, but I was at Noble Jump and Noble Ledger(Or Noble shovel). Not part of the conscript part of the army
Still waiting on photos of those massive storage areas containing 1000's of tanks just waiting to roll out after a quick oil change and some fresh bearing grease.
>>28051460
>Got a tear in my eye
>>28051330
>bait
Russia is a paper tiger, senpai.
>>28052071
Don't forget with all of their serial numbers clearly displayed.
>>28051794
Just to state again, I'm not Russian.
>50,000 British or French regulars are worth more than 200,000 Russian conscripts.
Dude, that's pure bullshit.
This isn't 13th century, you can teach a guy everything you can teach a regular in 1 year, probably even less.
And given how French and UK troops don't have as much involvement as US, most of their troops are simply as experienced as Russian conscripts, not some battle-hardened killing machines.
>You also do less of it.
No, it's simply cheaper.
>Not so great when you're rocking up against Leclercs, Challenger 2s, and Abrams'.
T-90's are roughly comparable to those vehicles, and there's more of them than Challengers and Leclercs combined.
I wasn't talking about USA, USA is obviously more powerful.
I'm just saying it's not 8:1 as budgets would imply.
>Russia's zerg rush tactics
Don't use such bullshit if you want to be taken seriously.
And I'm not talking about political influence, but military power. Russia shits on France and UK.
>>28052163
>Dude, that's pure bullshit.
Except past wars have shown that volunteer soldiers have consistently performed better than conscripts. Conscription is generally a desperation measure to shore up troop numbers you can't otherwise obtain.
>And given how French and UK troops don't have as much involvement as US, most of their troops are simply as experienced as Russian conscripts, not some battle-hardened killing machines.
Except Britain has always been actively involved in NATO operations and is practically joined to the hip with the US, and France has a lot of military ops going on in North Africa.
>And I'm not talking about political influence, but military power. Russia shits on France and UK.
In a vacuum, yes. I'd like to see Russia actually REACH the UK or France, though.
>>28052163
>in 1 year, probably even less
You're right, but are the Russians doing that? No. That's why they are using fucking conscripts. We're not talking about a year from now, we're talking about current abilities. Russia can train their conscripts in a year, and the UK/France could introduce conscription themselves to even out the numbers parity.
>French and UK troops don't have as much involvement as US, most of their troops are simply as experienced as Russian conscripts
They're obviously not as experienced as Rusks, but Britain's contribution to the 2003 ousting was around 45,000 men, and then Britain/France rotated through Afghanistan. Comparing the regulars to conscripts is nonsensical. It would take a year to build up to an equitable skill ratio (and then it would cost a lot more money to do so, which negates the entire premise of your original argument - that they are cheaper).
>No, it's simply cheaper
Russia also does less of it.
>T-90s are roughly comparable to those vehicles, and there's more of them
In good enough condition to be of use on the battlefield?
>And I'm not talking about political influence, but military power. Russia shits on France and UK.
Talking about the military without also taking into account political reach is farcical.
Russia doesn't shit on either of them, the Russian military is highly antiquated. If you're talking about ICBMs, sure, Russia has the upper-hand. But if you're talking about the entire military-complex, I'd put France and Britain on the same level as Russia.
>>28052324
I meant They're obviously not as experienced as Yanks.
>>28051635
>Original T-80's were equivalent of A4 Leopards in 80's.
Yeah, sure. Their stellar performance in Chechnya is a proof of that.
Meanwhile Iraqi M1A1's operated by literal monkeys do better than T-80 ever did against enemy with tons of TOWs and Kornets.
Five Iraqi Abrams suffered penetrations so far. FIVE. And that's export model M1A1.
>>28052324
In a fight against anyone, I'd rather take my bros from across the ocean in the UK or France over any slav.
>>28051639
Most important countermeasure is proper use of combined arms warfare.
Second is mobility, to not allow enemy to flank or creep up and take easy shots.
Third is use of terrain and positioning to reduce chances of getting hit.
These 3 are most important countermeasures, and are in use since 60's.
Form there, there are 3 improvements in survivability added.
Composite and reactive armors (cobham, ERA, NERA), making front of tanks very hard to penetrate even from most potent ATGMs. Any modern tank uses some sort of it.
Soft-kill Active Protection Systems. Those include laser warning systems and jammers. First are fairy common. Second includes Russian Shtora-1 and American AN/VLQ-6 MCD. Shtora is integral part of T-90 tank, MCD is addon component, that can be installed to any armored vehicle.
Hard-kill Active Protection Systems, that detect and destroy incoming missile. Only currently fielded is Israeli Throphy on Merkava tanks.
>>28051302
>>people who compare US and Russian military budgets and proclaim that US is 10 times more powerful
American officers earn 10 times more than Russian officers.
American equipment costs 10 times more than Russian equipment.
American military spends 10 times more in superfluous stuff like lodging and housing for soldiers and their families.
>>28051485
Even if you dig up a T34 and get it to do a doughnut in the frost doesn't mean it is ready for sustained combat action. Find me a tank commander who is comfy rolling around in a dug-up t34 going up against an Abrams or leopard 2.
>>28051302
your shitty pilots got shot down by a sandnigger's plane
>>28052470
Is this meme day? What should I bring?
>>28051302
>Army is cheaper to maintain (mostly conscripts).
You say that like it is a good thing.
>Wages are lower
This isn't good either.
>US has fucking 11 super-carriers, which cost awfully lot of money to maintain
But the US has plenty of money to maintain them. The US could afford to have 20+ carriers if it really wanted them.
>USN is obviously far more powerful than Russian Navy.
True. And the Navy is the most important branch for national defense.
>>28051302
French pilots have a lot more experience and a far better material than russian's pilot and we are not that much outnumbered
I don't know well the situation of the british army though
>>28052579
>True. And the Navy is the most important branch for national defense.
Only for countries like the US whose enemies are overseas. For Russia, the Army and Air Force are more important, the very same reason France and Germany focused more upon their army than their navy. Their land borders necessitated larger portions of funding going to the Army.
>>28051360
>Yes, and shitload in storage.
Most of which require a complete rebuild.
>>28051595
Islam can barely handle war against itself.
Russia can barely handle a war against Ukraine, but they've been trying to fabricate casus bellie with "muh ethnic russians" which can be anything.
Russia is the evil dictatorship that threatens to nuke countries near it.
ISIS is sunday villain and Russia isn't even bombing isis but is attacking Muslim Brotherhood.
>>28051751
It's not our fault we're so far ahead in human rights and corruption that we get to be the ones that can make unbiased evaluation.
You're the ones clinging to putin and his power play.
Saw those images of tank graveyards? I wonder how many officers still note them down as "in storage" as per trying to save their own ass from being sent to a gulag or from orders above to force project.
Let's not forget how fucking retarde the soviet union was. I mean planting fucking corn, genious.
>>28051533
>How many active Abrams does the US have?
iirc ~2000, another ~4000 in depot storage
over 9000 numbers include foreign operators
>>28053005
>Russia is the evil dictatorship that threatens to nuke countries near it.
ISIS is sunday villain and Russia isn't even bombing isis but is attacking Muslim Brotherhood.
>>28051545
>slav thinks he can talk shit
Communist procurement makes the US process look modest and inexpensive
http://www.academia.edu/10906696/WHY_THREE_TANKS
>>28051751
>LIES
>LIES OF WEST
>WHY YOU ALWAYS LIE ABOUT POOR RUSSIA?
I'm glad to see russians haven't changed a bit
>>28051302
>Everything is simply far cheaper in Russia.
Yes, but not by orders of magnitude cheaper than in west.
>Army is cheaper to maintain (mostly conscripts).
Once you reach certain point in population, professional military becomes more cost efficient.
>Research and development is cheaper (done by government owned companies).
>Production is cheaper (government owned companies).
Those companies, like Russian state lack oversight and transparency that comes with concepts unknown to Russian state, rule of law and civic society.
>Wages are lower, supplies are less expensive.
Wages might be lower, but that doesn't make materials and tools any less expensive.
>Some of military spending isn't accounted for under defense budget.
Nigga plz.
>Thing is, Russia isn't a global superpower.
Nope. It's regional power that acts like it's global superpower it used to be and have spent massive part of it's defense budgets since end of cold war to maintain global superpower part of it's military. Strategic rocket forces and nuclear submarines.
>>28051360
>Yes, and shitload in storage. Those active tanks are better than Polish, and especially better than Turkish revamped M-60's.
When it comes to things like radios and thermal sight systems? I'll doubt. T-72B3 probably isn't match for Leo2A5 or Leo2A4.
>>28051412
Logistics is the thing that you are absolutely correct on here. There's a reason that the Russians have been using primarily dumb bombs in Syria with the exception of some cruise missiles for testing and demonstration/advertising purposes. They don't want to expend their PGM stockpiles if they don't have to. Munitions, fuel, transportation, readiness, etc. are the things that win wars. In any conventional war scenario in
Eastern Europe, Russia has the advantage in almost all of these areas. You look at these massive snap exercises they've been putting on recently and the fact that literally all their lines of communication are internal and it becomes very clear that they have a huge advantage in their near abroad.
Now as for having huge numbers of tanks in reserve... I honestly don't know enough about that to say much but to me at least it seems like a lot of that stuff on both the naval and land side of things have been allowed to slip away since the end of the cold war and it would take some fairly significant investment to recapitalize those platforms but again that is mostly speculation on my part.
>>28051544
Yeah... T-34s didn't do that great against Tigers or Panthers did they, nor did P-51s do all that great against German jet fighters... Your argument might be correct that a single Leopard 2A4 would destroy an older T-72 but in the grand scheme of things that doesn't really matter unless the Germans can field them in sufficient numbers.
>>28053499
Except unlike Tigers, Panthers, and ME-262s, Leo 2s actually work and are rather reliable.
>>28051591
God, the US can't even turn the tide in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan. How the fuck do you plan on single handedly taking on Russia?
>>28051302
>Delusional Russiaboo thinking Russia can take on Europe
Someone reset the clock until the next thread.
>>28051516
>All that slavshit.
WHY REGAN WHY?
>>28053551
The US stands a good chance of defeating Russia in a conventional engagement. It's a whole different story if the US actually tries OCCUPYING Russia.
>>28051639
That is fairly recent. April 23, 2015
>>28053499
So in the great patriotic war of 2025 where Russia finally wins against the Germans through sheer numbers you'll be arguing that the T-72 is superior the the Leopard 2 despite losing more T-72s than Leopard 2s ever produced?
Are you one of those people?
>>28053583
>The US stands a good chance of defeating Russia in a conventional engagement.
There's pretty much no scenario where the US can lose to Russia outside of the Russian Federation itself.
>>28053599
Oh I wouldn't argue it's better in the battlefield but were having a discussion about overall military capability and capacity. You can't say Germany wins cause it has better tanks. That's all I'm trying to say here
>>28053583
That's the only problem the US have, how to occupy shit.
They can with ease beat any nation in a stand up fight. Russia should be alot harder then Iraq, but it will be alot easier since they are not on the same level that the Soviets were on.
Russia's population is in freefall.. give it another ten years and occupying russia will not be a problem. they currently have 43 milion men of fighting age, that drops to 35 million in ten years and drops by millions every year after.. russia will be split between china and the west before 2050..
>>28053678
?
That has stopped years ago
In reality throughout the west we are seeing the white population in freefall
With average IQ's dropping at a rate of 4-5 per decade
Countries like france or UK or Germany won't survive this century without something drastic happening soon.
The US will transition into a brown third world country like mexico/brazil too. Due to falling white population + rampant race mixing + 1-2 million non-white immigrants every year.
>>28053638
I'm still not certain that Russia could out produce Germany tank wise despite Uralvagonzavod being fuckhuge. Plus once they expend their T-80 arsenal its gone for good essentially.
I really don't think that the T-90 is as good as advertised.
>>28053713
>I really don't think that the T-90 is as good as advertised.
The T-90 is literally just an upgraded T-72. The Russians just renamed it after the Gulf War put the T-72s reputation into the shitter.
>>28053817
The first T-90 is a T-72 with T-80 FCS.
T-90A got a new turret and other things.
After that it became something which is not just a upgraded T-72B
>>28053959
You are trying to argue with a shitposter. Stop wasting your time.
>>28051651
They have a slight edge in SAMS though
>>28052163
The UK has the same experiance as US but with a slower manpower turn over. So man for man the brits have more experianced personal still in the ranks. You would find it hard to find a junior infantry Nco who hadn't been in a firefight.
Same with the french. They have got more experiance of acting by there's elves recently though.
>>28052340
Not so obvious. Other nations contributions may have been smaller, but also come from smaller organisations.
The UK had 45000 troops take part in the invasion of Iraq with about 10000 rotating through for about 6 years after words. They had 10000 troops rotating into afghans most dangerous province for 10 years. They intervened solo into sierra leone in 2001. They provided the 2nd largest amount of combat aircraft in libiya. Special Forces have been active in Nigeria, libiya, iraq, Yemen, afghanastan and that's just what's in the press. Have provided logistical support to French in mali, logistics and recce to US aircraft over syria. Also the first nation to send advisors to ukraine. That's quite a lot for a small nation to do since 2000. The US is not the only country to use their military.
>>28051302
can' tell if b8 or RIDF
>>28051565
>Russians fail far less in this aspect. Because defense research and development is owned by the state.
Yeah becuase they either arent invovation, or they are usy copying western designs xdddd
The US inovates, the russians upgrade and upgrade until they are forced too. The T series tanks for russia have hardly changed design wise since the 60's just getting slightly bigger, and composites and different ERA's. They have pretty muc hkept the T-64 chassi from the 1960 to the 2012. only until recently have they started a whole new chassi with the T-14, the PAK FA is just another development of the flanker airframe. The US inovates, with new chassis, airframes etc. Whine all you want but the US has faliures because they are the only ones who try new things 99% of the time.
>>28051558
wow its almost like other countries dont have infantry deployable AT and helicopters too!
>>28051398
>Upgraded T-72s are equivalent to Leopards
>T-90s are superior
No matter how much you want your shitty T-72 rebrand to be good, slavs, it never will.
>>28051595
I no longer am impressed with anything that has a sand nigger in it, they are incompetent sand people. They are retarded.
>>28051635
>state firsm
>less corruption
just put a bag over your head.
Me big strong ruskia, me have many "modern" tanks
>>28053527
>Me-262
>Reliable
>pick one
>>28051358
Maybe he is shitposting, but he describes perfectly this thread
>>28057002
wait my bad misread it shit
>>28051302
>people who are stil arguing about US and Russia on K
Stop this, it's more /pol/ than /k/ and (i think) and it's an endless debate
>>28051533
>5,567 in active service
>4,393 M1A1 and 2,385 M1 in storage,1,174 M1A2 and M1A2SEP variants, 8308 total
>>28053527
Tigers were more reliable than T-34. Panther was just slightly less reliable than T-34. None of them was even close as reliable as Sherman.
