2019-10-07 wolface 21758
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译:wolface 转载请注明出处

What would a conventional war between the US and Russia look like?


原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译:wolface 转载请注明出处

Penseur Rodinson, worked at The United States of America
There's a reason both countries attack only enemies much weaker thanthem. There's nothing to gain from fighting an even fight. That's why there'snever been a real war between us and never will. Americans don't hate Russiansand Russians, no matter how much Moscow's propaganda machine tries to whip themup, don't hate Americans. I spent 2 years there and like and respect theRussian people. They have a great, dry, national sense of humor.
Russia has some good weapons but, less than half our population andless than half our army. If Russia called up her reserves and transported theentire military to the US, they’d be able to field 1 man for every 1.5 squaremiles. That’s right, each Russian soldier and sailor and airman would have toguard 1.5 square miles of a country that has large areas of wilderness and 330million people, over a third of whom have guns, about 55 armed citizens perRussian.
If America called up her reserves and transported the entire militaryto Russia, each soldier, sailor and airman would have to guard 3 square milesof a country with large areas of wilderness and a very harsh winter. There arefar fewer guns in Russia but, that’s not their only weapon.
The French and Germans both tried it, to no avail. If they’d looked atthe map a bit longer they’d probably have come to their senses. Both countrieshave such large land masses they're practically unoccupiable. Russia's armedforces might be able to take and hold 1 state for awhile, not forever, just forawhile, and it would have to be a small state. Rhode Island doesn’t count.Imagine 2 million Russians trying to guard 20 million New Yorkers or 26 millionTexans or 30 million Californians.
If you can’t occupy a country and loot it or exploit its resources, whyinvade? What good does bombing major cities do? Bombs are expensive. NeitherRussian nor American industrial production are concentrated. Conventionalbombing of even several dozen cities wouldn’t hurt much and bombing severaldozen American cities would take more bombs than Russia has or ever will have.
German bombing of London did less for the German war effort than it didto unite the Brits and steel them to defend themselves. Russian bombing ofAmerican cities would create cosmetic damage but, wouldn’t hurt our industrialmight. American bombing of Russian cities would make for a miserable winter forsome Russians but, it wouldn’t break the country.
At the end of World War 2, when we had 12 million men in uniform, whenPatton wanted to invade them, when our defense industries were running at topspeed we might have had a chance but, only a chance. We’d have been able tofield 2 men per square mile of Russia.
But, in spite of terrible losses, the Russians still had a large, veryexperienced army. They’d just beaten the Germans and occupied half of Europe. Ihonestly don’t think we could have done it, even then. Russia is just too big.
For both of us, nuclear war is mutually assured destruction but, in thesame sense for both of us, conventional war is mutually assured failure. We'dgrind away at each other to no gain. We’d both lose and we’d end up with 2million Russian defectors living in Brighton Beach and Miami.
Sorry, it just ain't gonna happen.


Carl Wimmer
Depends where.
On the oceans the Americans would sweep the Russians in 12 hours, withnot one sip or boat left.
In the sky, depending on where (the closer to established support, thebetter the Russians are), it would take longer.
On the ground … well, if the contest were in Arizona and the Russianscould manage a supply line to there from Minsk (remember no ships and noplanes), it would take a few hours to sweep them away.
Now … the more serious question is on the eastern front. Yes, I usedthat term “eastern front”, meaning from St Pete to Sebastopol. Here, theRussians are fighting in their own backyard (no one in earth is more brave thana Russian fighting on his own soil), close to support, close to replenishment.
The trouble for the Russians is that modern warfare does not depend onbravery and massed firepower. A previous article today on Quora said that 10%of Allied bombing hit the target, a lot went to another town. Remember inVietnam, how the USAF tried for months and months to hit one bridge in NorthVietnam - and couldn’t.
That is the very opposite of what happens now. The bridge in NorthVietnam lasted 2 minutes after the USAF attached a camera to a bomb and tookout the bridge. That is what will happen , on a massive scale, in any war todaybetween first level protagonists.
The offensive capability would strike at the key of points, Railheads,rail bridges (armour still travels by rail), in fact all bridges, POL depots,refineries, pipelines, power lines (not power stations, you need thoseafterwards to restart the conquered country), roads, food supply chains, etc.
All of this is already mapped out in every country through years ofsatellite imaging. A lot of countries know how and where every slice of breadmoves.
The trick in a first strike (conventional weapons are better than nukesat this) is to immobilize enemy forces in place. You do this by removing anyescape routes, fuel supplies to move forward or backward, etc. You turn them intoentrenched infantry. You also cut off any chance of cross support and crosssupply between the immobilized groups.
The disposition of vast entrenched forces, cut off from other suchgroups, is pure butchers work.
Actually, that butcher’s work will probably never come about. Theopposing generals are not stupid. They are not suicidal.


Dima Chebotarev, Principal Founder (2014-present)
I understand that many Americans have math problems, but I'll show youhow it works.
US Transportation Warplanes:
1.Lockheed C-5 Galaxy -55
-It is capable of transporting six AH-64 Apache helicopters, four B2M2 BMPs, six M1126 / M1135 Stryker BTRs, two M1 Abrams tanks or upto 345 soldiers and officers. 345 x 55= 18975 people.
2. Boeing C-17 Globemaster III -222
Load options:
102 armed servicemen
48 stretcher with the wounded
3 helicopters AH-64 Apache
landing platforms with equipment
222 x 102= 22644
3. C-130H-261
Passenger capacity: 72 soldiers or 64 paratroopers or 74 wounded onstretchers with two accompanying/
381 x 72= 27432
Thus, all military transport planes will be able to transport 69051people at a time. Very little for the war with Russia)) By this time, Russianintelligence will notice the rotation of US troops to the borders of Russia.All air defense facilities will be put on alx. The Russian army will begin todraw to the Russian border. By this time on the border of Russia there will be800 thousand soldiers of the Russian army. The American fleet is suitable forwar with Iraq or Libya. Even in Vietnam he did not help. In the war withRussia, he will not help. Anti-shipborne ground-based complexes have a hugeadvantage over the fleet. What to say about the ground-based radar that willgive the US Navy come unseen to the shores of Russia. Similarly, aviation,ground-based aviation is much stronger than sea-based aviation. Assuming thatthe US will be used by NATO airfields. This is not a problem Russian Kalibr NKwill get any airfield in Europe. You can write about this for a long time, butbelieve me, the US Army will be shattered. For the sake of justice I want tonote that the Russian army will not be able to invade the United States forprecisely the same reasons
In 2017, the list size of the US Army was 460,000 soldiers in theranks, 335,000 in the National Guard and 195,000 in the reserve of the armed forces
According to the last published decree, which entered into force onMarch 28, 2017, the total authorized strength of the Armed Forces of theRussian Federation from July 1, 2017 will be 1,903,000 people, and the numberof military personnel is 1,013,000.
2 500 000 people.
It is the US that can only impose sanctions and call on Europeans. Morethan the United States can not do anything to Russia)). By the way, I did notmention nuclear weapons, but another story.