Russian army as good as the US army?????
 

according to this site (nuclear capabilities not taken into account):
http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

Yet, the Russian defense budget is 10 times smaller, is this for real? I guess it really depends on the factors that they take in to account, but still the indices are almost identical.

To be fair, they probably spend less time making 'whoop' noises and giving each other 'high fives'.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lp...nwiro1_500.gif

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ln...2lrlo1_500.gif

http://cdn.wl.uproxx.com/wp-content/...eve-Carell.gif

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb...n9k9o1_500.gif

I could see it being possible for the army branch of the military , but only army

Hungary is not on the list, I think we might be stronger than Tuvalu but not sure :pimp

so,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borei-class_submarine

this is the russian new sub, costs 800 million to build

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine

this is the american equivalent, priced out for '97 prices, at 2 billion

it does far less, has far less, and yet.. costs a lot more

you tell me who has the better military.

then, you get into 'top and bottom'

so, for the us, you have air craft carriers sailing around like they own the place

and then you have the 'bottoms', who just have to design something that takes out those carriers:

http://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordp...ican-hegemony/

these have been in theater for years.. it's amusing reading about how they 'negate' these missiles

the missiles costs are in the thousands, and they go so fast the only defense is sorties spot the supersonic missile, and your anti-missile systems shoot em down.. and that's extremely difficult to do, as they're programmed to just deal with US carriers

good information i think i learned something.

24 Trident missiles per boat, versus only 16 missiles for the Borei

yeah, far less huh.

and fyi, we won the cold war with that boat.

...

you can have 3 subs, at a total of 48 silos, at the same cost of 1 sub, with 24 silos

btw, does the US version come with a silent drive?

that's important stuff.

i hope it's not anything from richard's post here. :1orglaugh but srsly. no.

we have fuzzy dice on the rearview mirror of ours richard, with an fat exhaust can because, umm, again, we won the cold war with that boat richard. you can believe your own bs or history. i'm not gloating. just pointing out history.

what in the world would you have to gloat about?

you disputed the facts, and once basic math was introduced, you reverted to insulting me

now now.. before you post another 6 responses, i don't care.

who gives a shit when both parties have enough nuclear bombs to erase the whole planet 10 times over?

1/2 of 1 of those ohio class boats could do that. ugh. it's beyond stupid

i provided facts richard, you went off on the ohio class like you are a jane's author, the difference being jane's gets it right. you yapped about the awesomeness of the borei

basic math, scmath the funniest part about you acting like you know wtf you are talking abuot is there is only 1 fucking borei in the russian fleet

we have 18 ohio class subs


now do the basic math on that.

18 subs.. how many aircraft carriers?

ga no, go find someone else to agree with

richard i am not trying to get you to agree with me. i haven't even provided my opinion on the op. i've provided a few facts to counter your opinion.

Not sure exactly how you know what either sub does as a lot of the features/capabilities are classified.

Also a few replies down you say that you could build 3 subs that cost $800 million for the price of one $2 billion dollar sub :error

2 billion price tag quotes a 1997 pricing sheet.. so looking at price increases for planes, missiles, etc.. the sub isn't 2 billion

the 'classified' shit i was reading pegged the sub at 2.85 billion, etc.

its a shame it doesn't list the quality of training, that would shake up the chart a bit!

Kewl. What did we win?

the chance at paying for all of Russia' aging nuclear fleet to be disassembled.. in europe?

no that's crazy.. we'd never agree to that :upsidedow

The cold war? cha-ching. :1orglaugh

in war its not who has the most but who can do with the least...

:winkwink:

those who ignore history and all that

not even a nice try to *gotcha*

that's why i included the not gloating part in a previous reply. i noticed you conventiently skipped over that. like richard did.

keep trying, i know you think you are super troll, so keep it up. enjoy yourself. i am. :)

richard, you're way past your 6 posts = trolling bullshit huh, apply your rule to yourself this time eh.


:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh



:1orglaugh

Does this answer your question? more here

http://englishrussia.com/images/kursk_submarine/1.jpg

:thumbsup
wow. great pics there! we just recently watched a couple docs on the kursk

have you figured out yet what the winner of the arms race won? hint....arms race.....

You're the one saying we won. Why aren't you able to say what we won?

it's still on in a different form, you just won round one...

The article says the United States has the most powerful military force, not that Russia is "as good as".

All of us armchair warriors can sit here and debate who has the most powerful military, and we are all wrong. It's not really about how has the "biggest" or the "best" or the "most powerful". The US was defeated in Vietnam, The Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan, and China and India haven't really fought a real wear in the past fifty years. It has little to do with "most powerful" and everything to do with the determination of the government, support of the general public, geography, supply, fiances, and technology - or perhaps even the lack of technology.

At the very same time, it's hard to compare defense budgets. If I understand correctly, the lowest ranking position in the Russian army pays about $30 USD, while the lowest rank in the US army makes $1500 USD. (Someone please correct me if I am wrong, I might be totally off here.) The Russian defense budget might be 10 times smaller than the US, but that same amount buys 100 times as much.

http://img.ntv.ru/home/news/20121220/army.jpg

http://novostink.ru/uploads/posts/20...98_armiya2.jpg

http://www.novostimira.com.ua/userfi..._croper_ru.jpg

http://tvas.ru/wp-content/uploads/20...603_567473.jpg

http://imgdiscover.ru/i/2013-02/5766-1361604220-1.jpg

http://iluki.ru/uploads/gallery/222d...5a437904bc.jpg

http://savepic.ru/3648355.jpg

http://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2013-...henshini-1.jpg

http://sitv.ru/upload/information_sy...tems_53517.jpg

http://smaylik.ru/uploads/posts/2012...rr-366868.jpeg

http://firovo-city.ru/uploads/posts/...8897_12345.jpg

http://banana.by/uploads/posts/12206...0559856_24.jpg

http://img.bibo.kz/4407/4407646.JPG

http://www.megansk.ru/files/Node/422...0411110208.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i3...USOLD/girl.jpg

The budget size doesn't really matter actually. Just compare how much one private cost to the US and to Russia. Soldiers in the USA get paid for their service, in Russia they serve for free. Food, infrastructure, equipment and weapon is also much more expensive for the US military budget. However it doesn't mean that expensive M16 is better than cheap AK. The same applies to aircrafts, tanks, missile defense systems etc.

What do you mean on "won"? It's just ended by the mutual agreement of the USSR and the USA. As you remember, Gorbachev has allowed to break the Berlin Wall and the clod war was stropped.

Personally I think that Berlin Wall was a real shame and I really wonder why it hasn't been destroyed by the USSR right after Stalin's death.

Because it wasn't built when Stalin died. (I'm tired, so apologies if I missing an irony in that comment somewhere.)

Where do you get that information? What do you mean on defeated? Haven't the USSR controlled the biggest part of Afghanistan when Gorbachev has agreed to stop this useless war? Do you know how long the Afghanistan government formed by the USSR has been able to hold out without ANY help (even financial) from Soviets? Dig the facts please and you will be surprised. The Amin's government has been overthrown. Najibullah took power in Afghanistan. Soviet army has controlled almost the whole country (not even comparable with the current USA situation there). Soviets were able to continue controlling the country and supporting Najibullah as long as they consider it necessary.

Goals have changed. Army was withdrawn. Mission accomplished.

because i like letting you think you are mad gfy troller.

kewl.

i understand that, you might want to reply to the op then, you sound like you might have some info along those lines.

i mean the ussr collapsed as a result of over spending on military and not being able to continue funding its nuclear program, umm, you know that right?

i'm sure i am not the only one on gfy who knows this.

You're the only one saying I'm trolling (so you can try to evade the question).

You said we won the cold war. So quit evading. Either explain what you think we won, or admit you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Sorry my bad. Course I mean Brezhnev. No even Khrushchev, because he was the same sort as Stalin. Till 1982 (actually till 1980-1981) Brezhnev was the one who has tried to leave the things as they are and don't change anything. After his death there were no real hindrance to destroy the Wall.

Something you guys always over look when trying to compare the US to other armies..

The US has been well practiced with 2 wars over the last 10 years and we have special ops doing things all over the world.

What has Russia or China for that matter done in the last 10 years other than drills? What was the last "real" war for the Russians, Afghanistan where they pretty much dissolved the USSR. Chechen War is about all they have really done in the last 20+ years and that was really not a straight up fight.

China.. what have they done since WW2? Tossed a bit of support in Vietnam and shot some Tibetan monks?

Actual combat experience goes a long way, something the US has had lots of recent experience with... :2 cents:

i don't have to explain jackshit. do your own research, lolz.. lazy bastard.

Course not. It has collapsed due to many factors. The military overspending was far not the worst one. First of all, all the Soviet economics was rotten and it wasn't able to exist in the modern world. The people were not agree to live this way and the government too (that's why Gorbachev has started his reforms). And the final nail into the Soviet coffin was serious drop in oil price.

So the military overspending was of of the factors, but it was definitely not enough to collapse the USSR.

P.S. The USSR has collapsed when Cold War was already over.

you disagree because you're russian, that's cool, this isn't my opinion it's the view of a large # of cold war historians. i understand your view, the ussr collapse was merely a coincendence that it collapsed when it did (right after being spent into oblivion facing the SDI as well :-)) and that very well may be a mind-blowing coincidence eh

wouldn't that be something!