China vs Russia (2017)

[beijingwalker]

China has seen economic power work way better than military adventures and will stick to competing against anyone economically.

 

[gulli]

why China and Russia needs to have war against each other??

Russia has its western front and Ukraine to deal with; China has its Taiwan issue, and also the South China Sea to protect. Why the two countries need to have a war?

Some of your cheerleaders wants you to do so, else everything is peaceful right now.

 

[ptldM3]

What advantage US held on the ground against Germany in WW2?
What advantage US held on the ground against Japan in WW2?
What advantage US held on the ground against Iraq in 1991?

Yet, US soundly defeated all of them in a major confrontation.

Most of your points are nothing but layman claims with zero logic or figures or states. What about the US defeating Japan in ww2, and Iraq in 1991? What is your point about the US defeating Germans in some battles in WW2?


90% of German losses were due to the Soviet Union. The biggest land defeats the Japanese suffered was from the Soviet Union and not the US. Iraq couldn't even make headway against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. Shall we talk about the US in Vietnam or Korea or now in Afghanistan? You have no solid arguments at all.

American tactical ingenuity notwithstanding, American AIR and NAVAL forces are too vast (and capable) to overcome. Russia is incredibly weak in these two crucial sectors in comparison to the US and this FACT doesn't bodes well for Russian armed forces in a major clash against American war-machine.

You are very ill informed. The US lost, what over 3,000 aircraft in Vietnam? You have been watching too much Captain America. The US and its coalition had even lost considerable aircraft to ancient Iraqi air defences. In a conflict with Russia, air support and naval strengths would mean little; however, Russia is more then capable of hitting US bases with cruise missiles and ground-to ground ballistic missiles. Russia is more then capable of shooting down US aircraft with thousands of air defenses as well as aircraft. In the real world, not many countries would allow the US to launch aircraft from its territory or even use its airspace due Russia attacking. This would limit the US to using aircraft carriers which would be very vulnerable. Despite your claim Russia has many new submarines, frigates and corvettes coupled with anti submarine aircraft and aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles to give the US a bad time. The US would take heavy losses in the air and in the sea. No serious military planner thinks the US would have an easy time fighting Russia.

Americans also have significant advantage in the spectrum of surveillance, precision-strikes and training.

You can learn a thing or two about American surveillance capability from this excellent piece: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ica-keeps-watch-over-north-korea-from-the-sky

The US has zero advantage in precision strikes besides that they have armed drones while Russia has some under development. There is dozens of videos from the Russian MOD of cruise missiles hitting targets in Syria from thousands of km away. Dozens videos of Russian airstrikes targeting tanks and other vehicles with precision. Russia has everything the US has, GPS guided, laser guided, anti ship, anti radiation, bunker buster bombes, and cruise missiles.

This is just another one of your stale arrogant statements.

And Russia haven't mass-produced its latest military vehicles because Russian economy is not doing well. The bulk of Russian equipment is outdated per American standards and assessments.

More arrogant rubbish. Russia already purchased much equipment from the 700+ billion dollar program it alocated for modernization.These are just some of the modern weapons Russia produces and most in mass:

Kaliber cruise missile
Kamaz Typhoon
Forpost UAV
Orlan 10 UAV
Ural Typhoon
Bulat
Iveco LMV
Krasukha-4
Krasukha-1
Tos-1
Iskander
S-400
Tigre (various models)
Pantsir (various models)
KA-52
MI-28 (various models)
SU-30SM
SU-35
Ural-9
Ural-14

and various submarines, destroyers, frigates, ect. You clearly know zero about what is happening in Russia in terms of military.

Why do you think Russia retains a vast nuclear capability? Because Russian experts and military planners have acknowledged significant disparity between the military capability of Russian and American armed forces and believe that Russian nuclear arsenal is the only platform that can offset this disparity:-

So because the US also retains vast nuclear capabilities means it can be easily defeated? Think about what you say.....moving on, a a leading US research think tank and generals agree it would take Russia just 60 hours to over run the Baltics. US and British trained Georgian forces were swiftly defeated by Russia also.

Russia has over 65,000+ tanks, IFV's, howitzers, artillery, MLRS's, plus millions of ATGMs, mines, mortars and SAMs.

The US has about 51,000 and China has about 18,000.


Now is it clear how ridiculous your claims are? Do you have any idea how much soldiers and equipment the US would have to bring to Russia in order to hopefully defeat the Russian military? (only to suffer an insurgency war 100 times worse then Iraq and Afghanistan). Not many countries will ever allow the US to use its soil to help bring over that kind of equipment. Russia would bleed the enemy into submission even if it didn't have tanks, IFV and aircraft.

Russia also has very experienced soldiers and generals and tens of million ATGMs, mines, mortars, machines guns and soldiers. No enemy would advances very far in Russia. Look at what Hezbollah did to Israeli armor in 2006 and what isis did to Turkish armor in Syria with limited manpower, AK-47s and ATGM.

In Syria 16 Russian special forces engaged 300 jihadists that were armed with tanks, ATGMs, mortars, grads, armored bulldozers, and truck mounted machine guns and the Russians suffered 0 losses. Interest part is that the jihadists were armed with some US and Israeli weapons, which means they probably got trained by them too. You can imagine what would happen to invading armies if they faced even a brigade of spetsnaz. Even 39 Soviet paratroopers humiliated hundreds of Pakistani special forces in Afghanistan. Some estimates put the number of Pakistan special forces and "mujahadeen" at over 600. You're underestimating how well trained and disciplined Russian soldiers are. Any invading force would be cut down in Russia.

On October 26, 2009 President Medvedev recognized the technological backwardness of the Russian armed forces and defence industry. “Large financial assets are allocated for development and manufacturing of the most modern arms” he said to the bosses of the Russian military-industrial complex. Yet “money is being spent for modernization of armaments that are already morally obsolete or will become outdated in a few years. Research and development lasts for years, and decades sometimes…This is inadmissible.” A major initiative of the Medvedev Administration, a technological breakthrough project, often called “Russia’s modernization,” emerged basically from deep concerns about country continually lagging behind advanced nations in military technologies. In this context nuclear weapons are considered by Russian political and military leadership as the most important means of assuring military security simply because Russian non-nuclear forces are not seen as effective enough and degrade further.

Source: http://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/event/symposium/pdf/2009/e_04.pdf

Nice try but your article is from 2009, before Russia had a military reform and before Russia started purchasing and producing new equipment.

Have you looked at the map of Europe?

US can deploy a massive military force in Europe and move it towards the Russian front, and this force is expected to move under the cover of American ABCM systems and USAF.

Yes, i have seen a map of Europe and i'm intelligent enough to know that most countries will not allow the US to use its bases to attack Russia (they even said they would retaliate against the US if it imposed further sanctions on Russia) and i am more then intelligent to know that the US can never mach Russian forces in Europe. Again let me remind you Russia has over 65,000 tanks, IFV's, howitzers, artillery, ect and tens of thousands of support vehicles, millions of mines, ATGMs, ect. The US had about 51,000 comparable vehicles and it can never move all of that into Europe let alone Russia. Russia can also freely move mass armor in Russia while the US or any other enemy would have to fly or ferry it in by ships; moreover, the Russians would clearly see where the buildup would happen and quickly send in armor and soldier to great the invaders. Any way you look at it, the situation is bleak for the invading army.

Any US tanks would be met with Kornet missiles that have blown Abrams, Merkava and Leopards tanks to scrap metal in the middle east. It blows my mind that you think any invading force can succeed in Russia. Logistically no country can move enough men and machines into Russia to defeat it, no country can afford the cost economically and no country would tolerate the cost in lives.

Unlike your fantasies, USAF and USN will make short work of Russian AIR and NAVAL assets in the theater.

Yea, like they did in Vietnam by losing thousands of aircraft? No serious military planner or think tanks thinks the US can defeat Russia on their own soil. No one thinks that the US will fly or sail into Russian waters and not take heavy losses.

And this: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/how-f-22-is-deconflicting-u-s-russia-operations-over-syria.503754/


US soundly defeated the Spanish Empire, Germany, Japan, North Korea* and Iraq.

*China saved North Korea from humiliating subjugation.

What will US gain by beating the crap out of a dead horse in Afghanistan? No point in wasting resources on reforming cave-dwellers. US came to Afghanistan to dismantle Al-Qaeda Network and succeeded in this mission.

If extermination was the objective, Afghanistan would have seized to exist in a span of few hours.

The Soviet Union defeated Germany. The Japanese lost to the Soviets in Khalikin Gol in 1939 and lost badly to the Soviets in 1945 where 700,000+ japanese solders supported by thousands of aircraft tanks and artillery were swiftly defeated, so what is your point? Do you even have a point? All i see is layman arguments were you're running in circles.

Your ignorance continues to surprise me. American military forces conduct drills in diverse environments across the world in order to prepare for any eventuality.

Here is an example of American forces conducting a drill in Norway:-

A limited amount of US soldier are trained in cold weather conditions. Every Russian solder has to serve in subzero temperatures. So the only ignorance i see is from you. Russian forces are more prepared and equipped to fight in artic conditions then American soldiers.

Equally important is the fact that American military hardware performs well in cold-weather conditions.

Some equipment just cant operate in -40 degrees. While some American equipment can perforce adequately in cold temperatures, much would not. The Germans had to light fires underneath vehicles because the engine would freeze.

US can choose to level entire towns and cities where ISIS militants have taken shelter but what about loss of infrastructure and civilian casualties on a massive scale? Who will rebuild those cities? Who will be responsible for slaughtering innocent people on such a scale? Best course of action is to mobilize local forces against them like US is doing in Syria and Iraq but this strategy will take time to bear fruit. ISIS is on retreat virtually everywhere and will meet its end one day much like Al-Qaeda network.

The US has bombed mosul and Raqqa into rubble. ISIS controls much of the dessert and thousands of small villages. Again the US despite dropping thousand of bombs on ISIS and destroying probably hundreds of tanks, and other vehicles are still having trouble in taking ISIS controlled areas. Once again it just illustrates that the US air force would have little impact in Russia. There is simply too much area, too much vegitation for soldiers and armor to hid, too much natural obsticles and poor weather conditions to make any serious gains.

FYI:-

1. US has extensive knowledge of Russian defensive positions across its mainland.
2. USAF has excellent mid-air refueling capabilities.
3. No region is safe from American long-range bombers in particular.
4. US surveillance network spans across the world.

1. Russia has extensive knowledge of Offensive NATO plans.
2. US air refueling aircraft would be vulnerable.
3. No country is safe from attacking Russia.
4. Russian surveillance spans across the world and has infiltrated all forms of US government and military.

Excuse me? I am referring to this part of history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Rus'

My point is that Mongols soundly defeated Russian forces with combination of tactical ingenuity and mobility - both qualities that American war-machine possess and then some.

Facepalm: and you're excussed, the mongols were defeated and this happned in the 13th century were there was no Russia. The land that Slavic tribes controlled was small, the mongols faced zero resistance in what is now present day Russia because there were no Russians there to fight the Mongols. And are you actually serious? You're comparing ancient Slavs to Mongols and drawing a parallel to The US and Russia? Russia defeated Turks dozens of times, they defeated the Germans, Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, Polish, Japanese, French, ect.......but.......but the Mongols

Soviet Union was much bigger than modern-era Russia and a huge chunk of Wehrmacht was invested in Europe and Africa. If the Wehrmacht had only concentrated on the Soviet Union, it would have succeeded.

Not to forget the impact of Allied lend-lease program: http://www.historynet.com/did-russi...ase-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

The German army, air force and Navy was fighting for life on the eastern front. The majority of the fighting was done on the eastern front and the Germans lost in Stalingrad, Moscow, Kursk, Kiev and dozens of other battles......but....but the Mongols...the Mongols and Team America!

Modern-era Russia will run out of manpower.

Literally no one except you thinks that Its beyond moronic.

By your logic Israel should have ran out of manpower long ago. How on earth did Israel survive being attacked by 6 countries at the same time? The only way Russia would run out of manpower is if Russians decide to not fight and they would let the enemy execute 143 million Russians which would be a genocide and take decades to achieve.

 

[Cell_DbZ]

First of all, a war between the 2 is unlikely, but it is still fun to speculate about it.

China would probably win in the long run due to way larger GDP

Would a larger economy be the sole deciding factor in case of a war? If a war between the 2 countries would break out, then China would most likely be the agressor, thus resulting in international pressure (sanctions), weakening China. Russian economical weakness lies more with dealing externally than dealing internally.
Both nations would turn their country in a war machine, the Russians have experience with this. It is true that Chinese economy would be a big advantage and they would have the upper hand initially, but it depends on how well you could mobilize.

Chinese cities being close to the front is a double edged sword, on one side they have a easier time with logistics on the other hand, Russia could strike Chinese cities and do damage.

Russian cities being so far away is also a double edged sword, difficult logistics, but relative safety, if Russia could solve the logistics issue, they would have an advantage

The Soviets had the weakest economy of all big powers around ww2 and the Germans, British were one of the most powerfull ones. The Soviets eventually came out on top, while the British needed the Usa.

More importatly, what would China gain out of invading Russia? A few cities and that's it as the oil is unreachale, going for those oil fields is quasi impossible

So yes, regionally, the Chinese would win and perhaps take some cities, but would it be worth it, would the Russians give up on those cities

This is without nuclear weapons in consideration

 

[ptldM3]

First of all, a war between the 2 is unlikely, but it is still fun to speculate about it.


Would a larger economy be the sole deciding factor in case of a war? If a war between the 2 countries would break out, then China would most likely be the agressor, thus resulting in international pressure (sanctions), weakening China. Russian economical weakness lies more with dealing externally than dealing internally.
Both nations would turn their country in a war machine, the Russians have experience with this. It is true that Chinese economy would be a big advantage and they would have the upper hand initially, but it depends on how well you could mobilize.

Chinese cities being close to the front is a double edged sword, on one side they have a easier time with logistics on the other hand, Russia could strike Chinese cities and do damage.

Russian cities being so far away is also a double edged sword, difficult logistics, but relative safety, if Russia could solve the logistics issue, they would have an advantage

The Soviets had the weakest economy of all big powers around ww2 and the Germans, British were one of the most powerfull ones. The Soviets eventually came out on top, while the British needed the Usa.

More importatly, what would China gain out of invading Russia? A few cities and that's it as the oil is unreachale, going for those oil fields is quasi impossible

So yes, regionally, the Chinese would win and perhaps take some cities, but would it be worth it, would the Russians give up on those cities

This is without nuclear weapons in consideration

You are wrong about the legistics part. Russia actually has a large city near the Chinese border and extensive railway coverage as well as over 1200 airports and a large fleet of transport aircraft. Russia can also move troops inside Russia faster then NATO can inside NATO countries (according to NATO) Russia also has extensive experience in deploying large troops and armored around the world. China lacks this experience, Russia also has extensive battfield experience in ww2, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia and Syria. China has no battlefield experience since their war with Vietnam in the 1970s. Experience is a major factor in war.

The Russian military is also vastly larger. Russia has over 65,000 tanks, howitzers, MLRSs and IFVs compared to about 21,000 from China. Russia also has the fuel to sustain a long war. No one is beating Russia on Russia's turf, Just like I don't expect Russia to invade and beat China either.

 

[Cell_DbZ]

You are wrong about the legistics part. Russia actually has a large city near the Chinese border and extensive railway coverage as well as over 1200 airports and a large fleet of transport aircraft.

But that railway network is relatively close to the Chinese border, wouldn't it be vunerable to Chinese attack? I think Russia would struggle keeping it's railways active and have airlifters bring in weapons, it would take a while before the Russians could bring in big parts of it's army, considering the vast majority is hanging out in Europe

Russia faster then NATO can inside NATO countries (according to NATO) Russia also has extensive experience in deploying large troops and armored around the world. China lacks this experience, Russia also has extensive battfield experience in ww2, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia and Syria. China has no battlefield experience since their war with Vietnam in the 1970s. Experience is a major factor in war.

That's true, but the fact still stands that China has a large part of it's military close to the front, so less logistics would be required.

The Russian military is also vastly larger. Russia has over 65,000 tanks, howitzers, MLRSs and IFVs compared to about 21,000 from China. Russia also has the fuel to sustain a long war. No one is beating Russia on Russia's turf,

When manpower is considered, the Chinese have a big advantage and thus are probably able to man it's armor quicker, Russia might have more armor, but I think Russia would have a harder time manning them (main battle tanks need 4 men, russia has about 10.000 t-72's and t-80's in storage and probably more t-64's, t-62's, t-55's, thus Russia needs 40.000 men to just man the tanks, IFV's and APC's not counted here), then there's the condition of stored vehicles, Russia has the advantage that their armor is relatively easy to maintain/repair, but I still think that it would take some time to get big numbers out.
Also, the Russian surface fleet of the Pacific is chanceless against the surface fleets of China, the only real advantage Russia are it's better nuclear submarines and most of it's nuclear submarines are located in the Northern fleet (Russia has 5 SSBN, 4 SSGN and 4 SSN and another 4 SSK (covention powered) in the Pacific).

It would take a while before other Russian fleets can reinforce the Pacific in numbers and even then China has the advantage when surface ships are considered and they would have an easier time replacing their lost ships. Russian submarines are going to do a lot of damage, however.

I would say that the airforces are roughly equal and Russia has an advantage in SAM systems (again majority of it located on the European front)

No one is beating Russia on Russia's turf, Just like I don't expect Russia to invade and beat China either.

Russia could win the war eventually, but it will definitely be on the defensive for a while, like ww2. I see China struggling with resources the longer the war goes on, as not too many countries would be jumping in aiding them with resources like oil (Venezuela, Azerbaijan), combine this with international pressure too.