Can the US beat Russia in a conventional war?

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Russia is unbeatable

 

[zzzz]

So funny thread really. So we have a US-Russia war here, Europe is not involved and their territory is not used.
I just imagined how US tank brigades with a hope of quick ruble fall go all the way from Alaska to Moscow through 15000 km of permantly frozen tundra without roads and their C-17s accompanied with refuelers paradropping them toilet paper supplies while trying to evade S-400 missile in process

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

This whole premise is a bit silly. Why would the US roll tanks into Russia? What military purpose would it serve?

If the US somehow got tanks into the northern Ukraine by driving 500 miles from the East side of Poland..they'd still be 300 miles from Moscow.

 

[ashok mourya]

If the Battle is fought in Russia, then America can't win. No way.

Look at what happened to Nazi Germany when they thought they could fight Russia on their own land.

Agree, Russia cannot be defeated in conventional, nuclear, economical war....its a huge nation with huge military....rRussian ssubmarines and rRussianmissiles can easily penetrate USA missile defence...Russia has the capacity to bomb USAbby itsbombers...iIt may use its space station for space war or may destroy Americanssatellite system n Russians may use Chinese gps system.... Russian can sustain after war economically but America may not sustain...If it'cities big industries , economical hubs being damaged....Instead of Russia America has to change the conventional war to nuclear war in its last option...

 

[Reem]

If US and Russia ever get to the point to fight, it won't be just US and Russia, So I hope and pray they will resolve conflict diplomatically, or keep warming themselves with the cold war...

"I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth — rocks! "~ Albert Einstein

 

[Azeri440]

for those who are chanting for US , that they can beat any country on their homeland, Vietnam is Example ... let alone beating Russians on their soil ...

even if US win , it wont be easy win ...

people keep using this as an example
have you actually checked the losses for Vietnam's side?
yes it was heavy for US but have you seen the massive losses on other side?

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

No point in conventional war, fire nuke you are done winning war 90% just need to seek out odd submarines and carriers in sea and you are done

 

[jhungary]

for those who are chanting for US , that they can beat any country on their homeland, Vietnam is Example ... let alone beating Russians on their soil ...

even if US win , it wont be easy win ...

The OP is asking if the US beat Russia in a conventional war?

Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT conventional war. Vietnam is guerrilla war, while Iraq (From June 2003 onward and Afghanistan) are insurgence war. And both Insurgency and Guerrilla warfare are belong to irregular warfare

We won the conventional war part of the Iraqi campaign in 3 month, then they retreated to their cave and wait for us to go and launch the ISIS attack....

The last conventional war US fought (not counting the war on Iraq in 2003) is the first gulf war.

IF a conventional war broke out between US and Russia, US will win even if US are fighting with in Russia. But it will be like you said, US will pay a high price .And most likely the day that that war is over, China will be on the top of the world.

 

[LaBong]

Russia is unbeatable

The polish hussars did conquer Moscow and instil a puppet czar and Napoleon did burn it to ground.

Although later didnt quite make it to France with his army.

 

[jhungary]

So funny thread really. So we have a US-Russia war here, Europe is not involved and their territory is not used.
I just imagined how US tank brigades with a hope of quick ruble fall go all the way from Alaska to Moscow through 15000 km of permantly frozen tundra without roads and their C-17s accompanied with refuelers paradropping them toilet paper supplies while trying to evade S-400 missile in process

To say this means you have no, zero, military science knowledge.

The Alaska crossing is for resupply, not to roll tank into it. The Alaska crossing mean if US would start a war in the western Siberia part of Russia, the US can resupply their force using port in Kodiak. which would mean a minimal transit time.

To fight a war, there are two things you need to consider. One being how to put your troop on enemy land, and the other being how you can resupply your troop. The second one is Almost Always Much MUCH more important than the first one.

Think of it like this, even if I land 3000 tanks unopposed, without a constant rolling in of fuel and ammunition, the 3000 tanks would used up what they bring in a few days without resupply, then they would be useless. In the overall planning phase of Military Action. It is A LOT MORE IMPORTANT to plan resupply than to plan how you land troop on an area.

In this case, if a conventional war would be fought between US and Russia. US would generally launch a ground offensive via land border with Russia (Georgia and Ukraine) and a amphibious armour assault via Alaska and Japan.

Using airbases in Alaska , Eastern Europe and Japan to provide air superiority and ground support mission. Also US would use their carrier group (8 of them a account for almost half of Russian total 1200 planes offensive power....)

US will win if US decided to put more than 60% of their own Military Strength in it, but the point actually not if they will win, but rather, why we need to fight. The last time we mobilised more than 60% of our force is during WW2. It would be pointless if we don't do that over a vastly stronger Soviet Union back in cold war. Why would we do that for a Ryskland that even less than half powerful than the Soviet Union??

 

[SBD-3]

I don't think so because Russia has like twice the number of tanks the US has, plus Russia has hundreds of thousands of anti tank guided missiles.

And how would you run tanks on pacific? If US only smashes financial sanctions on Russia, it will devastate Russian economy. Just like recently Saudis refused to cut the oil supply leaving Russia, Venezuela and Iran to produce at loss.

 

[pher]

US only capable of bullying small countries.

 

[zzzz]

To say this means you have no, zero, military science knowledge.

The Alaska crossing is for resupply, not to roll tank into it. The Alaska crossing mean if US would start a war in the western Siberia part of Russia, the US can resupply their force using port in Kodiak. which would mean a minimal transit time.

To fight a war, there are two things you need to consider. One being how to put your troop on enemy land, and the other being how you can resupply your troop. The second one is Almost Always Much MUCH more important than the first one.

Think of it like this, even if I land 3000 tanks unopposed, without a constant rolling in of fuel and ammunition, the 3000 tanks would used up what they bring in a few days without resupply, then they would be useless. In the overall planning phase of Military Action. It is A LOT MORE IMPORTANT to plan resupply than to plan how you land troop on an area.

In this case, if a conventional war would be fought between US and Russia. US would generally launch a ground offensive via land border with Russia (Georgia and Ukraine) and a amphibious armour assault via Alaska and Japan.

Using airbases in Alaska , Eastern Europe and Japan to provide air superiority and ground support mission. Also US would use their carrier group (8 of them a account for almost half of Russian total 1200 planes offensive power....)

US will win if US decided to put more than 60% of their own Military Strength in it, but the point actually not if they will win, but rather, why we need to fight. The last time we mobilised more than 60% of our force is during WW2. It would be pointless if we don't do that over a vastly stronger Soviet Union back in cold war. Why would we do that for a Ryskland that even less than half powerful than the Soviet Union??

Yeah thanks for your detailed analyze. Im sure if such military expert like you will prepare a plan of invasion US will definiantly win using 60% of its military within 30 days. The ground forces from Ukraine and Georgia with big stocks of supplied in advance toilet paper will take Moscow then move toward central Russia while elite Navy Seal group in amphibious armor assault take Vladivostok and then establish complete operational control over Siberia. In the end two groups meets! This is Blitzkrieg!

 

[deepak.chauhan2312]

Will US fight alone or with its whole group

 

[deepak.chauhan2312]

US only capable of bullying small countries.

I think US still have high support from Europe thats why It will surely win over Russia in conventional war