Russia would defeat the USA in a war.
1. No nuclear weaponry. Just "traditional" warfare.
2. No allies, just 1 v 1, Russia vs. USA.
3. US is the aggressor (realistic considering America's aggressive war history.)
4. My opponent has the choice of arguing how/from where the US would strike.
5. Total war. No outside help, just the two countries brawling it out.
6. We will not consider future military projects, only what resources/weaponry the countries have today.
If you have any questions or want me to specify something, ask in the comment section.
Please begin your argument.
Now I will get into battle formations. Since a large portion of Russian landscape is the Siberian mountains, America could easily take many jets through the Arctic Ocean, (probably without being spotted by the Russians). They would fly over the Siberian Mountains, Far Eastern Russia, and most of the Urals where they tend to have very little to no population of mostly nomadic herders. They would probably have no possible way of contacting the Russian millitary about the invasion and would land in the Urals as close to civilization as possible. Those troups would break into six teams. One team would go into each-- Oblast, Republic, (and a Krai) to start spreaking their way across Russia with allies flying in ASAP. Then, they would take over the territories of Korma, Perm, Sverdiovsk, Tyumer, Omsk, and Tomsk. They would be driving heavy- terrain vehicles and jets would be keeping a close eye on them while in the air. Then the teams and the back up would poor into the country and start spreading further into the territories. The largest team would be targeting Moscow. and St. Peterburg. Then, the navy would be taking the islands and start surrounding Russia. America would spread in all directions (targeting Russian Millitary bases as first priority). They would soon have taken over Russia before Russia could do very much about it.
Also, hate to bring it up. Don't read this section if you don't want to because it goes against the rules. Also please don't count this section as anything relevant to the voting.
America has more allies and so the allies will either help America invade or not do anything about it. America would gain a lot of power by invading Russia, and probably gain a lot of money off of the many recources, so the allies of America would have a great trading oppurtunity with eachother.
Russia wouldn't be able to do much about any of this, so America would surely win. The odds are in our favor. The Urals, Siberia, and Far Eastern Russia really are great areas to start an invasian. They are Russias' greatest weakness.
I doubt the war would last very long.
That sums up the largest part of my argument. Thank you for your time.
America's military is not "obviously a lot stronger". Most of the money the US spends goes to the navy. Russian land forces are far superior to the US forces. Whether we're talking tanks, AFVs, artillery or MLRSs, Russian forces are superior.
Central Siberia has little to no mountains. It is a flat tundra.
"America could easily take many jets through the Arctic Ocean, (probably without being spotted by the Russians)."
We live in the 21st century. It would be impossible to take a significant force through the air unnoticed.
"with allies flying in ASAP."
It was said in the rules of the debate that there are no allies in this scenario.
"They would be driving heavy- terrain vehicles and jets would be keeping a close eye on them while in the air."
It is no easy task to transport heavily armored vehicles such long distances.
"America would gain a lot of power by invading Russia"
But would lose tons (literally) of equipment, people and money. It is no guarantee that the US would win.
"Russia wouldn't be able to do much about any of this"
Except mobilize its army.
My opponent's attack tactic mainly relies on quickly and stealthily bringing in large forces into deep into Siberia and expanding from there. In this day and age, doing this stealthily would be impossible. The planes would be detected and the Russian army mobilized. I would also like to note that even if the US manages to bring forces in as close as the Ural Mountains, that's still over a thousand miles to Moscow.
Russia has the world's largest tank force with 15, 500 tanks. This would be a very difficult obstacle for US forces in the Russian mainland. US air support would be crippled by Russian S-400 SAM and Tor-M2 systems (which is capable of destroying jets, drones and helicopters at a distance of about 44 miles). The US would only be able to bring in a small amount of troops and vehicles before the Russian "alarm" goes off. This force of invaders would quickly be destroyed.
Where would the US air-force try to land and deploy their troops and vehicles? You cannot just drop them off anywhere.
Russia also has the world's largest force of SPGs. With almost 6,000 Russian SPGs, the unfortunate US soldiers would face an onslaught of flying explosives. This would not only have an obvious physical effect by destroying troops and equipment, but it would also have a psychological effect. After being surrounded by explosions fired from an unseen target for hours, troops are suddenly not so keen to jump into battle.
Even if the US forces successfully brought in a significant force that wouldn't be wiped out within a week, the US would also have to supply them with food and fuel. This would be virtually impossible to do at the distances that my opponent proposes dropping in the forces. The planes with supplies would have to safely fly across a distance of up to 2, 500 miles (5, 000 miles since the planes have to fly back as well) to drop off their load. The US air-force would be taking enormous casualties, not only from the Russian anti-air systems such as those mentioned above, but also from the Russian air-force.
The 3, 700 Russian MLRSs (most in the world) along with 4, 600 towed artillery pieces would also be bombarding US positions. For those who don't know, an MLRS is a Multiple Launch Rocket System which is similar to an artillery piece except 1) It can "drive itself" because it's usually on the back of a truck. 2) It launches multiple (up to 6, maybe even 8) rockets at a time, creating an enormous barrage of explosives tearing the enemy lines to pieces. With a bit of luck, the Russian forces might even be able to keep the US army at bay without casualties with the sheer, combined artillery power of SPGs, MLRSs and regular towed artillery. These, of course, wouldn't all be at the same place at the same time, but once the US positions are located, a very formidable force can be brought to the battlefield in days by Russia's extensive railroad system along with airborne assistance.
I believe that the plan my opponent suggests is faulted because:
1. It would be impossible to perform it stealthily. The US forces would be detected.
2. The US would have to keep its men alive at such long distances. Difficult to do and gives easy opportunity for Russian aircraft and anti-air systems to severely damage the US air force.
Because of the above reasons, it would ,in fact, be possible to surround the pocket of US forces and choke them. After they're surrounded, it would be much easier to:
1. Destroy incoming aircraft that carry supplies.
2. Bombard US positions day and night with artillery.
3. Make sure that the US forces aren't spreading because, well, they're surrounded.
If not by bullet, then by starvation the soldiers trapped in the pocket would die.
After locating and surrounding the US land forces, the Russian navy would be mobilized as well. Russia has a navy mine-warfare force of 34 ships. These would be put to use mining the area around Russia (especially around the Kamchatka peninsula and the Sea of Okhotsk.) Doing this would effectively lock the US navy out of the Russian hemisphere. Yes the US navy could try to push through, but this would result in disaster. The mines themselves would take their toll and stall the US forces as they are trying to carefully maneuver through. They would give the Russian navy time to pull in forces such as submarines. Knowing where the minefields are, the Russian submarines could hunt the exposed US ships.
Russia has the world's largest force of Corvettes (74 ships). They are relatively small but fast and maneuverable ships while still having formidable firepower. If the US ships break through the Russian defense line, these ships could quickly be sent to the point of weakness to eliminate or damage the threat.
At this point, having the US navy effectively blocked off and the pocket of invaders surrounded, the US can still try to push through but will sustain very heavy losses. While the enemy ground forces are locked in, Russia has time to bring in more and more troops, armored vehicles and artillery.
"I doubt the war would last very long."
That's also what the Germans thought in 1941.
Apologies. I can't post my argument until tomorrow. (large amount of schoolwork).
I will post my arguement in the next section.
Please deduct this from my score.
Thank you for your time.
Yes, but the US navy is a very important part of the Millitary. That and the airforce are probably the most important.
And if the land force is a lot stronger, how do would they ever expect to take over America? Americas' population is gigantic, and there aren't many places where Russia can attack unseen. I wouldn't call the Russian weapons superior.
'The only advantage the Russian weapons have is COST. I think the battlefields have proven time and again that the Soviet era weapons are inferior, no matter how much the western press prattles on about cost over runs and under performance.
The F-15 has a zero loss air to air combat record over a period of 25 years. USAF, Saudi, Israeli
The M-1A2 will engage and destroy a T-90 before the T-90 even knows the battle has begun.
Ships subs and missles are a no contest. We have had our way with the Soviet era Naval forces for decades. How bad is classified.
USAF only feared overwhelming East Block numbers in any planned air engagement, never quality.
They really don't have any bombers to compare to the B-52H, B-1B, or B-2
Stick to NATO/ USA if you want to win. But in the Congo or Somalia, cheap is probably better since the opfor will have nothing much either.'
That statement was debateable. But this info is going to help my apponents case out a little.
Russia has always been known for building military equipment that you can hammer into the ground and still work. The Russian weapons are seen as being far simpler in design and with fewer parts on the inside. This means there is less to go wrong and when it does, it is far easier and quicker to fix. Take for example the Kalashnikov rifle – it has very few working parts. This leads to it being a very dependable weapon, even after being immersed in water, mud and so on. It is pretty much soldier-proof! Weapons used by the America, European and other “western” armies tend to be built with lots of moving parts. They look a lot fancier but tend to have a lot more bits that can go wrong.
'Central Siberia has little to no mountains. It is flat tundra' --
The flat Tundra will make it even easier for the US millitary to land. Also a lot easier to deploy troops. The surrounding mountians will also provide cover for the American millitary, while possibly making it harder of the US to get past. But still, it is safety. Also they could risk a lot by landing after the mountains have pretty much flattened out by losing their cover and making the faster.
Either way, I think the flat Tundra is something helpful, not hurtfull.
With allies flying ASAP- I meant American allies. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
If America won, they would gain a lot of power and control. You can't argue with that. IF they won, America would show a lot of growth.
'Except mobilize it's army'
They could very well mobilize the army, but they probably wouldn't be able to do it before more of the milllitary pours in.
I would also like to note that our millitary numbers are a lot greater than Russia's. We would tire their millitary before they would tire ours. Thus the invaders would not be so quickly destroyed. Even if those invaders got tired that quickly, it doesnt mean that there won't be more where that came from.
They would deploy their troups and vehicles in the plains.
Explosives for hours? Russia will need to replace all of the explosives quickly after not very long of the explodING. The American soldiers would push forward. *possibly in a line formation with dogs to search for bombs. The line formation so they don't all get blown up by walking on a single bomb. The Russians can't replace their bombs THAT quickly.
Ok, one question with the rules. If I could include allies, I could easily say that the Americans stay in allies territories and supply the troops with oil food,etc. from jets, *which would be very easy* but without including the allies it would be virtually impossible. If there were allies, the US would surely be able to do it because they are camping in allies territories. I would like to ask if that rule could be changed to not having the allies fight for them, but just being in the allie's territory. You coudl do the same.
Without the allies in this situation, there is nothing I could possibly say.
With the MLRs, how are they going to do that so easily if the Americans are in so many small groups? They can't be occupied with that many at the same time, and it would be just so hard to find every single one before the Americans do damage. It would exaust the Russian Millitary. *I need to say this, those artillary and MLRS are pretty fancy and deadly* There is no way the millitary could keep all of those small spread out groups at bay. Even if they killed most of them, there would still by a ridiculously large number that they still need to deal with.
There are a very large number of US ships.*285 active ships, info found
Exausting the Russian ships. They can not hold these numbers at bay.
Russia simply can not control the amount of small spread out groups. They will soon be exausted.
Absolutely. But because Russia is a large piece of land, Navy alone will not be able to accomplish anything. It might help a bit, but will not be a able to win the war.
"That and the airforce are probably the most important"
Definitely not. The land forces are the most important. A war cannot be won through air attacks alone (as proven by the Luftwaffe when trying to destroy Britain in WW2), or navy and air attacks combined. Land forces are absolutely necessary.
"And if the land force is a lot stronger, how do would they ever expect to take over America? Americas' population is gigantic, and there aren't many places where Russia can attack unseen."
Russia is not trying to take over America. As mentioned in the rules of the debate, the US is the aggressor and Russia is defending. Only after Russia defends successfully, the American military will be crippled to a point where Russia can successfully invade the North American continent.
"The only advantage the Russian weapons have is COST. I think the battlefields have proven time and again that the Soviet era weapons are inferior...cost over runs and under performance. "
Not necessarily. The AK-47 was not only 4 times cheaper than its American counterpart (M16) but it was made 10 years earlier and still performed the same, if not better, than the M16 (other than rate of fire). Could my opponent please provide examples of how "time and time again" Soviet weapons were shown to be inferior?
"The F-15 has a zero loss air to air combat record over a period of 25 years"
I must admit, that is very impressive, but I will note that:
1. My opponent has provided no source for this.
2. Anti-air guns and missiles exist which have taken F-15s down.
"The M-1A2 will engage and destroy a T-90 before the T-90 even knows the battle has begun."
Let's start with the gun. The T-90 is an autoloader while the Abrams needs a loader (20th century methods), meaning the Abrams is more prone to error during simply because there is a human instead of a machine. The T-90 is the only tank in the world that can fire a missile through its cannon. It can fire a laser-guided missile which has a range of 5 km. This means, in fact, that the T-90 can destroy an Abrams before the Abrams can even see its opponent because of the enormous range on the missile. Next, let's examine the suspension/engine. While the Abrams only has a max speed of 56 km/h, the T-90's top speed is 65 km/h. The T-90 is also known to have amazing suspension and can travel on virtually any terrain. The T-90 weighs less (almost 20 tons less) than the Abrams. This allows the T-90 to have an operational range of up to 700 km while the operational range of the Abrams is only 425 km. Let's take a look at protection now. The very base armor-thickness of the Abrams is 350 mm to 700 mm (depending on type of ammo being shot at the tank). This is inferior to the T-90s 800-1350 mm armor thickness. The T-90 has the Shtora-1 armor system which protects the tank from RPG shots (which destroyed many Abrams in Iraq) and laser-guided missiles. The T-90 has an anti-mine defense system as well. The T-90 is even protected against weapons of mass destruction. Not only is the M1A2 far inferior to the T-90, but the T-90 ($4.25 million) is less expensive than the Abrams ($6.21 million)
This further goes to prove my point that the Russian land forces would destroy the US ground forces.
"Ships subs and missles are a no contest. We have had our way with the Soviet era Naval forces for decades."
Ships? Yes, the US Navy ships outnumber the Russians by far. Subs? The 63 Russian subs would be able to do serious damage to the US Navy. As for missiles, Russia has a much larger arsenal of missiles than the US. These missiles would be used to destroy the US Navy's (as well as USAF's) numerical advantage over the Russian fleet. There are missiles that can destroy entire air-craft carriers. Once again, my opponent mentions "Soviet era". Russian technologies have advanced past the "Soviet era".
"They really don't have any bombers to compare to the B-52H, B-1B, or B-2"
Only 65 B-52H planes are on active duty, the numbers of B-1B bombers are drastically being cut by the US and only 21 B-2 bombers were ever built. Although their quality may be superior to that of Russian bombers, they are in such insignificant numbers that no real impact would be made.
I would also like to note that for ALL of the arguments that I refuted above, my opponent's only source was Yahoo answers.
"That statement was debateable. But this info is going to help my apponents case out a little"
Not only did my opponent make two spelling mistakes in the above sentence, but I am in no need of help.
"Either way, I think the flat Tundra is something helpful, not hurtfull."
I absolutely disagree. Although it might make landing easier, after the US soldiers have landed, they will have no cover and will be at the mercy of the Russian artillery and air force. Also, the plains are tank's main battlefield and Russia already has an advantage over the US in respect to tanks. Placing the US forces in open plains will only make it easier for the Russian tanks to maneuver and eliminate the threat.
"Even if those invaders got tired that quickly, it doesnt mean that there won't be more where that came from."
1. They wouldn't be tired, they would be dead.
2. Numbers no longer play a deciding role. Numbers haven't played a deciding role since the invention of the machine-gun.
3. The US would be the first one to exhaust it's resources because the US consumes 19 bbl and only produces 8.5 bbl. Russia, on the other hand, produces 11 bbl and only consumes 2.2 bbl. The US would run out of fuel much faster and after the fuel is gone, the US war machine would be dead.
"Russia will need to replace all of the explosives quickly after not very long of the explodING."
I am not talking about mines, I'm talking about artillery/MLRSs.
"I would like to ask if that rule could be changed to not having the allies fight for them, but just being in the allie's territory. You coudl do the same. Without the allies in this situation, there is nothing I could possibly say."
I allow. Although it really does not change your situation. Because you are landing in Siberia, there is still no closer location to where you are landing than the US. In the end, your situation does not change very much. Supplying your troops would still be almost impossible.
"Even if they killed most of them, there would still by a ridiculously large number that they still need to deal with."
Having a lot of tiny groups is pointless. As soon as the group does something, they would be located and destroyed.
"Exausting the Russian ships. They can not hold these numbers at bay"
A combo of Russian sea mines and subs would do heavy damage to US Navy. As mentioned, Russia is a large piece of land and ships can't do much out of water. The Navy would be almost useless after the first stages of the invasion.
EthicsPhilosopher forfeited this round.
I do not have much to write because I do not have any argument to refute.
Thank you for the fun debate.
EthicsPhilosopher forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|