Wargame simulations show Russia and China could defeat US

[The Black Party]

"Huh, the USA doesn't field as many tanks. I wonder why? Is it perhaps because they have discovered Tanks to be ineffective under modern battlefield conditions?"

They are not ineffective. They very reason why we still have boots on the ground. It's not always possible to force a nation into submission with simple drone-fire, nor even field a necessary amount. A presence will always be needed. Whether through robot future-soldiers, or infantrymen.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

"Huh, the USA doesn't field as many tanks. I wonder why? Is it perhaps because they have discovered Tanks to be ineffective under modern battlefield conditions?"

Ineffective against unconventional forces, plenty effective against conventional forces. This is a criticism US generals have made of US defense policy for a decade, that we're not equipped for a conventional war.

Never mind the fact that the Abrams is pretty much unchallenged. The Russians and PLA lack a proper counter to it.

[Yusseria]

Oh, look, someone who wants to pretend like the US is totally strong enough and the military doesn't need more.

The only people who think the US's military isn't well off or strong enough are ironically support it the most. Oh no, the poor US military (Read, most well funded defense force in the world bar none) can't even beat a country that relies on the USSR's and US's scraps. Quick, throw more money at it, that'll fix the issue!

Keep in mind that it's super common for higher ups in the armed forces to tell those below them to spend as inefficiently as possible, so as to keep the budget rising. But what do I know? It's not like half of my family and several of my friends were in the armed forces or anything...

Pretty sure it's been proven before that we don't actually spend more than them.

[United Muscovite Nations]

1) On a 1-1 basis and adjusted for prices, the Chinese military is funded just as well if not better than the US military.
2) The Russian and Chinese militaries are actually pretty well equipped these days. The rearmament that realists were afraid Russia would do has happened, and it's happened with stunning speed.

1. China only spends ~200 billion dollars (228 in 2018), while the US spends about ~600 billion (610 in 2018). And that's adjusted for price, inflation, and any other economic terms you're going to use as an excuse.
2. D'aww, that's cute.

1) It is absolutely not adjusted for price, the purchasing power the dollar in China is a lot greater than in the United States, and it's plainly obvious by the fact that the Chinese military is as well equipped as it is.
2) Fielding 2500 tanks equipped to the highest standards for Russia and doubling the size of its navy in a few years for China is pretty impressive. The only people who deny that Russia and China are closing the military gap are those who have domestic agendas to not spend more.

[Papalotltlan]

Ineffective against unconventional forces, plenty effective against conventional forces. This is a criticism US generals have made of US defense policy for a decade, that we're not equipped for a conventional war.

Never mind the fact that the Abrams is pretty much unchallenged. The Russians and PLA lack a proper counter to it.

Hey buddy, I'll have you know Russia has a whole 20 T-14's, which can totally beat the Abrams and totally won't just get put behind the lines because it's too expensive to lose!

[New haven america]

The only people who think the US's military isn't well off or strong enough are ironically support it the most. Oh no, the poor US military (Read, most well funded defense force in the world bar none) can't even beat a country that relies on the USSR's and US's scraps. Quick, throw more money at it, that'll fix the issue!

Keep in mind that it's super common for higher ups in the armed forces to tell those below them to spend as inefficiently as possible, so as to keep the budget rising. But what do I know? It's not like half of my family and several of my friends were in the armed forces or anything...

Pretty sure it's been proven before that we don't actually spend more than them.

The US alone spent $610 billion in 2018 while China (The next highest defense spender) spent only $228 billion.

But sure, we're lagging behind in defense spending, right.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Ineffective against unconventional forces, plenty effective against conventional forces. This is a criticism US generals have made of US defense policy for a decade, that we're not equipped for a conventional war.

Never mind the fact that the Abrams is pretty much unchallenged. The Russians and PLA lack a proper counter to it.

The newest Russian T-72 models and latest Type 99A models are every bit the match of the Abrams, and even if they weren't the Russians have enough artillery to blow the US Armored forces to hell and back.

[Grater Tovakia]

(Note: I am going to focus on the Baltics one for right now)
Issue number one: over what time period would these conflicts take place? US presence is not what it was in the 80s thus diminishing our Quick reaction capability however the NATO Response Force and allied nations could hold a line long enough for American divisions to arrive. Russia's elite units would be deployed first mainly consisting of Armored formations, NATO airpower, and anti tank missiles would cause carnage among these formations. Another massive problem with Russian forces is there reliance on AWACs and GCIs. If US/NATO Airpower were to wipe out Soviet Awacs aircraft the air war would be over quickly. And before someone starts about the S-300 and SU-57, I am going to tell you that the 57 sucks and for a long while US forces have dissected and trained against S-300s to the point where we know how to beat them.

So would the Russian be able to capture a Baltic state? Possibly depending on NATO response and how concentrated Russian forces are. But it is very unlikely that they would be able to hold it or get past NATO defensive lines.

The S-400 and the sheer number of S-300 batteries are more than enough to deal with NATO airpower, and while Russian airpower isn't much, they have a huge advantage in terms of artillery, which is both cheaper and more destructive than air strikes.

Not really, F-35 ECMs and EW plus platforms that are already in use could easily comprise those AA platforms. Plus we do not know how many of those artillery pieces are in fighting condtion, not in other parts of the country and finally artillery is useless when not being directed and with both sides in close proximity.

[Yusseria]

Pretty sure it's been proven before that we don't actually spend more than them.

The US alone spent $610 billion in 2018 while China (The next highest defense spender) spent only $228 billion.

But sure, we're lagging behind in defense spending, right.

That does not account for purchasing power. Obviously, a dollar in China is worth more.

[The Black Party]

The newest Russian T-72 models and latest Type 99A models are every bit the match of the Abrams, and even if they weren't the Russians have enough artillery to blow the US Armored forces to hell and back.

Then the American's would just deploy Finland and the Russian's would be forced into capitulation.

[Grater Tovakia]

Never mind the fact that the Abrams is pretty much unchallenged. The Russians and PLA lack a proper counter to it.

The newest Russian T-72 models and latest Type 99A models are every bit the match of the Abrams, and even if they weren't the Russians have enough artillery to blow the US Armored forces to hell and back.

Artillery is not some magic weapon, and is not overly effective against armor

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

The US alone spent $610 billion in 2018 while China (The next highest defense spender) spent only $228 billion.

But sure, we're lagging behind in defense spending, right.

China’s are army is very bare bone and the U.S. Army. They are not as well equipped individually and the Chinese government cares less for the safety of each soldier.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Never mind the fact that the Abrams is pretty much unchallenged. The Russians and PLA lack a proper counter to it.

The newest Russian T-72 models and latest Type 99A models are every bit the match of the Abrams, and even if they weren't the Russians have enough artillery to blow the US Armored forces to hell and back.

Their artillery isn't going to count for much when it's reduced to shrapnel-laden craters after the Russian Air Force is crushed in a completely one-sided aerial conflict with the USAF.

But okay.

Never mind that's not how artillery works.

[Grater Tovakia]

Never mind the fact that the Abrams is pretty much unchallenged. The Russians and PLA lack a proper counter to it.

Hey buddy, I'll have you know Russia has a whole 20 T-14's, which can totally beat the Abrams and totally won't just get put behind the lines because it's too expensive to lose!

Oh scary, Airpower and anti tank missles would cook those suckers. The best option is a lot of T-80s.

[Papalotltlan]

Never mind the fact that the Abrams is pretty much unchallenged. The Russians and PLA lack a proper counter to it.

The newest Russian T-72 models and latest Type 99A models are every bit the match of the Abrams, and even if they weren't the Russians have enough artillery to blow the US Armored forces to hell and back.

Yeah, Saddam said the same thing about the then latest T-72's in Iraq. Also, the US Air Force will blow the Russian artillery forces to hell before they can blow the US armored forces there.

[Loben]

Hey buddy, I'll have you know Russia has a whole 20 T-14's, which can totally beat the Abrams and totally won't just get put behind the lines because it's too expensive to lose!

Oh scary, Airpower and anti tank missles would cook those suckers. The best option is a lot of T-80s.

lost most of the T-90s in syria....hmmmm

[United Muscovite Nations]

The newest Russian T-72 models and latest Type 99A models are every bit the match of the Abrams, and even if they weren't the Russians have enough artillery to blow the US Armored forces to hell and back.

Their artillery isn't going to count for much when it's reduced to shrapnel-laden craters after the Russian Air Force is crushed in a completely one-sided aerial conflict with the USAF.

But okay.

Never mind that's not how artillery works.

They can shoot down planes, the US Air Force hasn't fought an enemy capable of shooting back with up to date weapons in 5 decades lmao

[New haven america]

Oh look, a projection used to justify giving the US' armed forces even more money.

Shocking.

Until all branches of the Military get air conditioning (yes, including the Coast Guard), we should continue to slice NASA's budget and siphon it to the military.

Nah, NASA's pretty much been drained.

You know what hasn't though? Education.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The newest Russian T-72 models and latest Type 99A models are every bit the match of the Abrams, and even if they weren't the Russians have enough artillery to blow the US Armored forces to hell and back.

Yeah, Saddam said the same thing about the then latest T-72's in Iraq. Also, the US Air Force will blow the Russian artillery forces to hell before they can blow the US armored forces there.

Saddam didn't have the latest T-72's, and his forces were hampered by environmental conditions, low morale, and lacked the ability to retaliate effectively against air power.

[New Rogernomics]

It doesn't surprise me that NATO would be trounced conventionally in Europe. This has always been the case. Effectively tactical nuclear weapons would have to be a first response.

The China situation is more complex though, as it depends who gets involved. China would lose in a wider regional conflict as it would be attacked by all its neighbors, which it has territorial claims on.

Though I'd call this fear mongering for weapons sales more than anything. It assumes the worst case, and assumes the US wouldn't launch nuclear armageddon in a catastrophic military collapse.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The newest Russian T-72 models and latest Type 99A models are every bit the match of the Abrams, and even if they weren't the Russians have enough artillery to blow the US Armored forces to hell and back.

Artillery is not some magic weapon, and is not overly effective against armor

Artillery is plenty effective against armor.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Their artillery isn't going to count for much when it's reduced to shrapnel-laden craters after the Russian Air Force is crushed in a completely one-sided aerial conflict with the USAF.

But okay.

Never mind that's not how artillery works.

They can shoot down planes, the US Air Force hasn't fought an enemy capable of shooting back with up to date weapons in 5 decades lmao

Have you seen Russia's arsenal? They're not exactly "up-to-date" either.

[United Muscovite Nations]

They can shoot down planes, the US Air Force hasn't fought an enemy capable of shooting back with up to date weapons in 5 decades lmao

Have you seen Russia's arsenal? They're not exactly "up-to-date" either.

Yes they are actually, Russia has better air-defense than any other country in the world and the best artillery in the world. Russia's been spending a disproportionate amount of its government spending on bringing its military capabilities up to date, and this spending has been effective.

[Grater Tovakia]

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1629.html

I give Russia two weeks to capture the country in question. Then they would scramble for a peace deal

[Grater Tovakia]

Have you seen Russia's arsenal? They're not exactly "up-to-date" either.

Yes they are actually, Russia has better air-defense than any other country in the world and the best artillery in the world. Russia's been spending a disproportionate amount of its government spending on bringing its military capabilities up to date, and this spending has been effective.

"Best Air Defense" not sure about that one mate.