Who has the most powerful military?

[IronsightSniper]

Then you are out of this argument. Anyways, I've known that link for many years and they are hugely inaccurate. All of their "counting" is just that, counting. They do not account for each unit of equipment's quality, but only it's quantity. Pound for pound, most if not all Russian equipment are equivalent or superior to all U.S. equipment. We just cannot compare.

[MeltedLazerz]

Originally Posted by IronsightSniper

What you call Freedom Fighters, Russians called Taliban. Don't listen to Rambo too easily. The Russians were not "massacring" civilians, they were destroying Taliban emplacements. You should note that there were more Taliban back then then there are now, and thanks to the Ruskies, their numbers have been cut in half. If it weren't for them, American soldiers would have to face 1,000,000 Taliban, not 100,000. You should thank them, instead of ridiculing them and their military when you are just as misinformed as the Taliban who ambush their T-80s. You need to understand the role of Perception in history.

Also, the Americans pretty much cut the Taliban in half by recruiting them. Yes, they practically stole soldiers from the Taliban. They told them that they were there to help and all that stuff, and convinced a large amount of the Taliban to switch sides and fight for the US instead.

[IronsightSniper]

And for some reason we've been in Afghanistan almost as long as they have.

[justavictim82]

Originally Posted by IronsightSniper

And for some reason we've been in Afghanistan almost as long as they have.

The reason why we are fighting there this long is that we were in the same shape the russians were. The russians had little to no support in the region like we have now. Pakistan helped neither and even gave refuge on both occasions. Id dont care how good of a military you have when you fight an indiginous enemy on their terrrian, it is going to be a almost impossible task to win. The Russians have never really won anything directly. They won WW2 due to shear numbers and their winter. Same with the Napoleonic wars.

[IronsightSniper]

Nope, the Russians had territory directly adjacent to Afghanistan. As for Russians not winning anything directly, that is plain false. Sheer numbers helped but they had excellent equipment too. The T-34 for example, is utterly superior to all U.S. and most German tanks of that war. Same pretty much applies today.

[justavictim82]

I will give the russians credit for turning themselves around in a very short time. They went from light armaments, obsolete armor, and cossacks in 1941 to a superior fighting force by 1944. Who is to say socialism/communism cant get anything done well

[jcaz76]

Originally Posted by justavictim82

The chinese win. By sheer numbers. Never underestimate the power of wave after wave if chinese soldiers under attack. Ask the Germans how fighting Russia at Leningrad or Stalingrad wasnt any fun. AK47's are also cheap to make and a 10 year old can learn to fire them. The chinese could easily replace their casualties as well with fresh meatshields. A million dead soldiers would be nothing when they have a billion more to replace them where as it would cripple our military. Aeriel Superiority would be a draw. Us has better equipment but the Chinese have more numbers and/or could produce more for any prolonged time frame.

well first of all, sheer numbers means nothing when they have limited transportaion. The chinese do have a lot of troops but their numbers would come in small quantities because of their lack of overseas transportation, which would give the US a very superior defense, which directly leads to saying that the US has that in one of their strong suits. The US has devestating technology compared to AK 47s. If we were to deploy our military in china, we would win them not by number, but by trained and efficient troops that know specifically how to deal with guerrilla warfare. And to add to that, our air force outweighs theirs by very very far, and if you rule the sky, you can undoubtedly and easily say you rule the ground.

[justavictim82]

Originally Posted by jcaz76

well first of all, sheer numbers means nothing when they have limited transportaion. The chinese do have a lot of troops but their numbers would come in small quantities because of their lack of overseas transportation, which would give the US a very superior defense, which directly leads to saying that the US has that in one of their strong suits. The US has devestating technology compared to AK 47s. If we were to deploy our military in china, we would win them not by number, but by trained and efficient troops that know specifically how to deal with guerrilla warfare. And to add to that, our air force outweighs theirs by very very far, and if you rule the sky, you can undoubtedly and easily say you rule the ground.

I dont care how tactically advanced any country is you will not win a ground war in china. Its too much ground to cover (this isnt iraq people) for air superiority or for ground troops. The Chinese would go guerrilla as well and know their terrain better than anyone (see Afghanistan) Also if the Chinese wanted naval superiority they could have it in 5-10 years. The problem is that modern navies are not very cost effective. Most warships are used for troop support (escorting Troop and aircraft carriers, softening invasions with shell fire, etc) you arent going to see major sea battles like the ones in WW2 because ballistics have gotten 1000x better and more accurate in the last 70 odd years.

[tom the pit leader]

Originally Posted by justavictim82

I dont care how tactically advanced any country is you will not win a ground war in china. Its too much ground to cover (this isnt iraq people) for air superiority or for ground troops. The Chinese would go guerrilla as well and know their terrain better than anyone (see Afghanistan) Also if the Chinese wanted naval superiority they could have it in 5-10 years. The problem is that modern navies are not very cost effective. Most warships are used for troop support (escorting Troop and aircraft carriers, softening invasions with shell fire, etc) you arent going to see major sea battles like the ones in WW2 because ballistics have gotten 1000x better and more accurate in the last 70 odd years.

Japan almost did in WW2. It only after the US started to bankroll china and launch counter attacks that China had a prayer. It all depends on how little you care about civilian casualties. Japan burned a swath in China that made the Holocaust look like a picnic.

Any place can be conquered if you believe in the wholesale slaughter of the innocent and you lack other enemies to fight.

[IronsightSniper]

Originally Posted by jcaz76

well first of all, sheer numbers means nothing when they have limited transportaion. The chinese do have a lot of troops but their numbers would come in small quantities because of their lack of overseas transportation, which would give the US a very superior defense, which directly leads to saying that the US has that in one of their strong suits. The US has devestating technology compared to AK 47s. If we were to deploy our military in china, we would win them not by number, but by trained and efficient troops that know specifically how to deal with guerrilla warfare. And to add to that, our air force outweighs theirs by very very far, and if you rule the sky, you can undoubtedly and easily say you rule the ground.

Well you are so wrong on many points. How do you honestly think those goods manufactured in China goes to the U.S.? That's right, Container ships. Some can be just as large as a Nimitz classed aircraft carrier. And you are so very wrong about Chinese equipment and training. There's a stereotype out there on the basis that because I do not know anything about China, I will assume that they are doing the same things they were doing in the 50's. Completely and utterly wrong. There's a video on Youtube you can watch where a joint-U.S. and Chinese training regime is taken place. In one scene, you'd see a Chinese soldier dressed in Russian blues competeing in a timed obstacal course with a U.S. Marine. Who wins? The chinaman. And your belief that most Chinese soldiers field AK-47's is retarded. One thing, the Chinese army is actually quite small compared to their population, unlike our own. It's in the 4-5 million range I believe. They do not equip their Standard infantry with AK-47s or AK-74s, but Chinese manufactured Type-95 Bullpups. In a way, Type-95s are superior and more advanced than the M4s we field. And please, don't get me started on Naval Power. Dong Feng 21D and shit.