Could Russia win a war against NATO?

"Which is exactly why we wouldn't fight a T-90 with an M1. We'd fight a T-90 with an AH-64. America never had the best of everything at any point. We do in some categories but we don't in others. The difference is that the US has the doctrine and air superiority and the ability to get away with not having the best tanks, or the best attack helo's etc because we have the numbers and the ability to control the sky and the sea."

Everyone, well most, underestimate the Russians. Their portable SAMs rock. The US is very afraid of these things. That's why in Libya they tried to have the rebels quickly capture and lock away any of the portable SAMs that they come across. They were Russian made. The US refuses to give these to the rebels in Syria, as they don't want Al-Qaeda coming across these things, although they need these badly. We have seen the rebels use these in Ukraine with devastating efficency, those things are very good. and they get them from none other than Russia. These things shot down a F-16 in Bosnia. The Russian armed forces have a lot of these, and would counter the US Air Forces amazing ability. The US airforce is outstanding. By the way, their tanks have specialy made rounds designed to explode fragmention at specific range, which is devastating against infantry and helicopters. It also has an anti-aircraft gun on it.

"We are going to take out the airfields before the Su's and MiG's get in the air. And those who do get in the air will be met with overwhelming numbers from our side even if our hardware isn't as advanced. Dogfighting is a thing of the past. An AMRAAM missile doesn't care how many cool cartwheels and loopy loops an Su-35 can do in an airshow. Just like a Hellfire missile from an Apache doesn't care what the range of the T-90 main gun is."

Wars now in days, and especially given how good Russia's intellegence service is, come with warning. There will have to be a major event to set it off, and it will come with that even before war hieghtend security and readiness on both sides. "Shock and awe" will come with the Russians at high alert. There has to be a lot of theatricality before these events. The Russian airforce is large, though to be fair the US air force is larger. However, a lot of our air craft go to the Middle East, japan, and South Korea. The Russian air force though will be out numbered, as Russia's airforce is extended along Russia's vast frontier. Air-superiority will be achieved, but it'll take awhile and deffinitely be delayed with the portable SAMS. Russia would be smart in only using their best in the Eastern Europe, and fighting defensively with their airforce inside of Russia, where S-400 and S-300 missles keep their airbases safe. Only use strike aircraft with escorting Su-35, MiG-29, Su-27, and Su-30's, for essential bombing aircraft. Their SAMs like I said will wreck havack on NATA for a while, but eventually, the Russian air-force will be destroyed, if they go all out for too long away for their S-300s and S-400s. Though, NATO will have a very hard time bombing Russian military instalations in Russia, a very hard time, they may not even do it.

"That Russian Havoc attack helo is badass. So is their Black Shark. They are both on par if not better than our Apache. They would be hell on our ground forces if they ever came into conflict with them. But they would never get that close. We would make sure of it. If we ever actually got into a conventional war with Russia or anybody who uses their advanced hardware we would be making damn sure that the first thing we target in the opening minutes of the conflict are the airfields and supply depots and any means they have to get their hardware on the battlefield and/or keep it operational. The US isn't stupid we know that going 1 on 1 with some of Russia's top hardware would be dangerous. We are going to make sure we don't have to."

Expect Russian EMP weapons to be used, which level the playing field.

 

Taxcutter says:
Looks like they can't drive a tank.

 

Taxcutter says:
With seventy years' hindsight that is easy enough to say. In 1940 the British (on a losing streak) were petrified at the thought.

After Dunkerque, the RN was working without a net. If the RN failed, Britain was helpless. That rather concentrates your thoughts.

 

"I am no expert on everything military by any means. I am also going to hold a biased opinion of course due to me being in the US military. I know a little bit about Russian military capabilities and doctrine etc but not nearly as much as I know about ours of course."

Everyone on this planet, to a slight degree, has bias towards something. I'm biased too, I would want Russia to win, as I kind of dislike America. There's a difference between what someone wants to see, and what will happen. In real life, I know Russia would not, in an all out non-nuclear war with the US, destroy NATO. Maybe quickly advance into the Ukraine in the opening stages and small Europearean countries, but they would not get into Poland, and Germany would likely stop them to an extent, until France, the UK, and Italy, and the US got involved. Commonwealth forces from Canada and Australia would probabily get involved. The Russians would consolidate their hold, and get support from Syria, the US's frenemy China, and Iran, to an extent. The US, even their F-22's, airforce would not be able to bomb too much or destroy much with Russia's S-300 and 400 missles. The Patriot missle system is not that good anyway, and can be defeated with Russia's newer missles. Their MiG-35's, Su-35's and others are quite great. Until America brought more aircraft carriers to the region, and it's airforce, Russia would be roughly equal with us. Once they enter Europe, it'll go down hill.

"I honestly don't think Russia would fare as well as you believe against the US. Operation Desert Storm happened partly because the US wanted to show the entire world what happens when we take our gloves off and go after somebody. After decades of Cold War nobody really knew what neither the US nor Russia could actually do except on paper. We brought the 3rd largest army in the world to its knees in days to the shock of the world and even to ourselves. Even we didn't know we would destroy Iraq that badly that quickly and with that few casualties.

Russia invaded the Ukraine, who were too cowardly to fight back. In Iraq they fought back, in the Ukraine, they were too scared. Despite the US and John Mccain saying the Ukrainians were bravely standing up, they weren't, how were they? It makes no sense? Russia could of taken over Georgia in a hour, back in 06, if they went all out. The Iraqis' airforce was obsolute mostly, and using old aircraft. The T-72's were years out of date. It wasn't the 3rd largest, by the way, the sixth I believe, and size has little to do with capability. The reson they had so few casulites by the way, is because of deception, not superior combat capability. Desert Storm was a fient, they manipulated the Iraqis to believing that we would do a Marine invasion through Kuwait, instead, we outflanked them. It was tactical ability, not combat ability.

"The world hasn't seen the US do that since. OIF wasn't the same as Desert Storm. Again I am no expert on our military by any means but I do know a little bit and I can honestly say that in a no holds barred conflict where the US uncuffed our hands and took our gloves off it would take a coalition of a few different nations coming together as one to stop whatever we were doing."

It would. No country in the world could invade us, successfully. China, Russia, and North Korea combined couldn't do it. I would combine to stop this if I could. I'm pro-counstitution and orginal foundation of America, but I'm angry at the American people. They lack global capabilities anyway. Remember though that Al-Qaeda almost brought the US to it's knees with 9/11. Al-Qaeda brags about how they spent 500K on 9/11, but the US over a trillion. It hurt the US economy, and damaged us internationally. It caused the death of over 4,000 NATO soldiers. In 2010-11 the ISIF commander in Afghanstain said that American forces were losing ground to the Taliban. We spend more than the entire countries of the world combined on our military, and the Taliban was defeating you? You're in the armed forces, and you were losing to them? Granted, you killed Bin Laden, and now we're winning. That was a little force. How can you say that the US is invincible then? Al-Qaeda and other groups defeated the Soviet Union, the biggest or near biggest empire in history. Yeah you invaded Iraq, but it's a failed state now? Our military didn't accomplish much with OIF other maybe invading an innocent country on false grounds, killing completely innocent men, women, and children, and then leaving the country to terroists who took it over after we destroyed the country.

"If we got into an actual war with Russia in todays age I would honestly foresee Russia resorting to throwing nukes to save their lives after a few weeks. I could be wrong...but the world saw what we can do if we give politics and "hearts and minds" the middle finger and let loose. I don't think anybody on this planet wants to see us do that again."

That would pull us into a wider, global conflict if it lasted long enough. Syria and Iran, China and a few others would support Russia ethier at the UN or elsewhere. Russia's EMPs, T-90's, PAK FA T-50's, Su-30s, Su-35's, and MiG-35s would lead the way. I feel it would be a statelmate it lasted short to medium term, with higher Russian loses, and a total Russian defeat if it lasted long-term. A nuclear exchange would mean no winners, except for the surviours on islands like Greenland and in the Amazon Rain Forest.

 

It is an article of faith among military men, cops, and badasses in general that: "If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck."

Sun Tzu said it in his more poetic way but it's the same message.

No general wants to fight fair. They are paid good money to assure their troops they are fighting so they can't lose.

 

If the Germans have their Fallschirm divisions and JU-52's attacking Malta, then any British analyst and officer worth his salt will know that they can't use them to invade Kent.

 

Taxcutter says:
The Germans would not have needed the whole fallschirmjaeger division to take Malta. A battalion would have done nicely in the summer of 1940.
Once Hal Far was in Axis hands, JU-52 transports would have brought in infantry and combat assault engineers.

Of all the British forts on Malta only one (Fort Tigne) had landward defenses, and it did not cover the entrance to the Grand Harbor. Fort Tigne had only enough ammunition to supply its skeleton garrison for three days.

Ever read Churchill's history of the Second World War? In late June of 1940, the British had written off Malta and knew Alex was not tenable without Malta. Churchill (who certainly was in the know) was amazed that Hitler and Mussolini made no effort against Malta beyond a few half-hearted Italian bombers that long summer and fall.

But Hitler/Mussolini diddy-wopped around and let the British run in convoys reinforcing and resupplying the garrison. By January of 1941, Malta was impregnable.

And none of that changes the fact that Russia can run roughshod over NATO since the US has gone isolationist.

 

How exactly has the US "gone isolationist"?

 

Taxcutter says:
A massive reduction in preparedness.
A 40% reduction is the Army and only 10 battalions are combat-ready. Two Nimitz-class carriers alongside in Norfolk indefinitely awaiting refueling. Air superiority fighters going out of service without being replaced. F-22 construction was stopped at one-third of the necessary numbers. Submarines being retired at four times the replacement rate.

Every day, the most precious commodity in the defense biz - combat experience - walks out the door. Soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen - enlisted, non-coms and commissioned officers are being RIFed.

When your armed forces are unprepared, interventionism becomes completely impossible and isolationism is the only possible course of action.

If Hussein Obama were merely a fool he might send unprepared forces out to meet a threat - and get slaughtered.
Fortunately for our people in uniform, Hussein Obama is not only a fool but a coward to boot.

 

The current administration is shriking the military to pre-WW2 levels, while foreign policy remains on an isolationist trend.

It is the classic economic model of guns or butter. With 1 in 5 households receiving supplemental food aid, with and increase in those working involuntary part-time, with a looming social security crisis in the form of aging baby boomers joining the ranks of government dependents...a strong national defense has been put on the back burner, America's geo-political sphere of influence is shrinking.

I don't know why people are surprised. The administration has fulfilled it's promise to knock America off of it's pedestal as the World's sole super-power and into the realm of mediocrity. President Obama was rated as the most liberal Senator while a Congressman. He ran on an isolationist campaign, and he's delivering.

America has embraced mediocrity. America's bond rating diminished, America's armed forces has diminished; America's economy has remained sluggish; all the while national debt has reached and exceeded $17 trillion dollars.

We are Greece
We are Detroit

We are President Obama's dream for a 2nd rate country...and this is what the citizenry wanted.

 

Taxcutter says:
I agree 100%.

 

Well they are getting it. I would put that down in Obama's corner as a promise kept.

 

The U.S. economy has been hollowed out by decades of off-shoring; it was only a matter of time before the domestic tax base deteriorated to the point of being unable to sustain basic services, much less maintain a significant presence overseas. It didn't start with Obama, and there are plenty of 'conservatives' who prefer to stuff their pockets with gains from overseas labor racketeering. But apparently there are many who think the stock market is some sort of measure of how well the U.S. is doing, so it's all good, according to the 'globalists'. We're going to see larger wars, and more of them, breaking out as the U.S. goes bankrupt and can no longer project enough force to prevent a free for all, and then we'll be sucked in to larger, deadlier, and more expensive wars later on, just as WW I and WW II proved that the world was a smaller place and isolationism and neutrality was impossible. If people think the military is expensive now, they'll get some real eye openers later on.

 

Taxcutter says:
...driven by decades of excessive taxation, excessive regulation, and rapacious litigation like nowhere else in the world.

You are right. it didn't start with Hussein Obama. It started with LBJ, and accelerated under Carter and the Impeached One. Hussein Obama hit the afterburner.

Scaling back regulation and tort reform would cost the taxpayers nearly nothing.

 

There is a big factor and its IN the US Constitution thanks to the 2nd Amendment there are enough private firearms in the hands of Americans or could be in the hands of Americans it makes invasion damned undesirable as well as the size of the United States and its geography, to win a war Russia would need to dictate terms in a broken USA. Good luck we have never lost a defensive war when the nation was invaded.

 

Sounds look like America was attacked many times I know only one big case - the United Kingdom, hundreds years ago...

 

The war of 1812?
Well it wasn't a win or a loss and it's one of the few times that the US has actually been invaded.

I suppose in terms of damage then I'd say the US suffered a little more and in the long term actually forced the US to build a proper army.

However in keeping with the thread; I don't think Russia could win a war with NATO or at least not a victory that is lasting.
This is mainly due to the fact that Russia has actually downsized and modernised it's forces rather than focusing on sheer numbers as was the strategy during the cold war.
Their strengths lie in the air and with their armour.
NATO does invest in quality rather than quantity and in a defensive war can be more than a match for Russian forces.

In all seriousness though I don't think that there is going to be war with Russia in the near future.

 

The war of 1812 saw the American capital burned and ocupied by the British, and much of the US mainland as well. We declared war, were unable to gain anything, and settled for a peace on "status quo ante bellum".

Most Europerean, indeed even asian countries, have been invaded several of times. The US is realitvely new to the world stage, and it's isolation polices towards Europe kept them away from the chaos of non-stop war for several hundrend years there.

UK;
Roman Invasion
Saxon Invasion
Norman Invasion
Zulu rebellion (territory of the UK)
Other terratorial rebellions

France;
Roman Invasion
English Invasion
Moor Invasion
Spainish Invasion
1st German invasion 1870s
2cd German invasion 1910s
3rd German invasion 1940

Germany;
Roman invasion
Swedish Invasion
Napoleon
2cd World War

Denmark;
multiple times

 

As posted, the US thinks it's all big and bad, much rightfully so but also out of over-nationalism. Europe was in non stop war just about for hundrends of years. I agree, Russia could not defeat NATO overall, but I do beleive in their sphere of influence they have a good chance, meaning in countires that immediately border Russia like the Ukraine, maybe the smaller Batalic states too. The farther away the less likely it is.

Russia could never defeat NATO with the US on any large scale or decisively. List of defensive wars fought by other countries... as posted to someone else.

UK;
Roman Invasion
Saxon Invasion
Norman Invasion
Zulu rebellion (territory of the UK)
Other terratorial rebellions
Others

France;
Roman Invasion
English Invasion
Moor Invasion
Spainish Invasion
1st German invasion 1870s
2cd German invasion 1910s
3rd German invasion 1940

Germany;
Roman invasion
Swedish Invasion
Napoleon
2cd World War

Denmark;
multiple times

 

Thanks for information, will be time, I will try to study...

 

I can't say that I know enough about US culture to comment.

Well I wouldn't say that it was non-stop but every generation did have it's war whether it was at home or overseas.
Britain is a bit different because of what we don't share with the continent and historically have acted as sort of counter weight.

Well when it comes to their influence or friendships in Eastern Europe then I'd say that only Belarus is favourable to Russia.
The Baltic states are also NATO members and are EU members as well.
And the Ukraine crisis has really highlighted their discontent towards Russia although the Eastern Ukraine seems divided over that.

Well I don't underestimate Russian military power but I do think that in the event of a full scale war then the best possible outcome for Russia would be a pyrrhic victory.

UK;

Well these were some time ago.

The Anglo-Zulu war was actually an invasion by Britain which wasn't initially sanctioned.

 

"I can't say that I know enough about US culture to comment".

America fought against the worlds largest power twice and came out victorious the first time and not defeated the 2cd time. The War of 1812 was started by the US, in part due to sea trading desputes but also because they wanted to annex Canada, as well in genral unfriendly ties. Something to be proud of. They won the civil war, something to be proud of. Won the Spanish-American war, Spain being a big international player. Helped win WWI and II, stalemated NKDPR and China in the Korean War, backed by the USSR, lost Vietnam, won the Gulf War and the 2cd US invasion of Iraq. Overthrew the Taliban, who, in 2010-11, despite having no tanks, armoured personel carriers, no F-15's, 16's, laser guided or GPS bombs, no West Point, no large multi-millon dollar bases, no artillery guns, no body armour or helmets, no gear, no night-vison goggles, were gainning ground against the ISIF forces and NATO. Killed Bin Laden and it started to change. Americans are the most nationalistic country in the world, almost North Korea level. Sometimes, they look down on other countries, thinking they're the best in the world. They have the highest incaration rate in the worl, a high crime rate, other problems, but they've done a lot, it has a good consituition. Ethier way, like Gorbachev said, "The Americans have a desiese, it's worse than AIDs, it's called the winners complex."

"Well I wouldn't say that it was non-stop but every generation did have it's war whether it was at home or overseas.
Britain is a bit different because of what we don't share with the continent and historically have acted as sort of counter weight."

At some level or another, be it minor or large, at least one part of Europe has been in non-stop war be it at home or abroad, between 1000- just about present.

"Well when it comes to their influence or friendships in Eastern Europe then I'd say that only Belarus is favourable to Russia.
The Baltic states are also NATO members and are EU members as well.
And the Ukraine crisis has really highlighted their discontent towards Russia although the Eastern Ukraine seems divided over that."

My friend worked as computer technician for the United States Army. He dealt daily with cyber attacks coming from the Chinese government. China is rising as a power, economically and militarily, and with the clashes with Japan and recently Vietnam, China is becoming more bossy, with the feeling of invinceabilty. It's economy will surpass the US's it's expected by 2020, or six years. We, America, owe them debt. American intellegence services know about this, but they keep it secret, even though they've attacked large government websites, as they don't want the public to make things worse. What their problem is I don't know, other than maybe they're planning to own the world or something. Expect China to give Russia a boost to some extent with that crisis. Yes Belarus is just about their only friend over there.

"Well these were some time ago"

As was Americas. I forgot the Viking harrasment and Scottish. Didn't the Celts from Ireland do some crazy stuff to you guys?

"The Anglo-Zulu war was actually an invasion by Britain which wasn't initially sanctioned."

Good knowledge.

 

I see.
So all this is the basis for US national pride even if it's not on steady ground?

One could say the same about the entire world.

From my perspective the Chinese seem to be trying to be the regional policeman although they don't seem to be trying very hard so maybe they're not so sure about their interests.
But it is clear that China is a rising power.
And although China and Russia do seem to be warming up. I don't think that they will ever have a partnership that they had before the Sino-Soviet split nor do I think that they are interested in the Ukraine.

To be honest my dark age history isn't that great but it wouldn't surprise me if the Irish Celts did invade.
And the Vikings didn't just harass but they also settled here as well. In fact Yorkshire still has quite a bit of Viking history attached to it.
But realistically Britain hasn't been invaded by a foreign power since the 16th century although one could argue that the Scottish covenanter's during the English civil war was an invasion of sorts.

Thank you. Much appreciated