A Russian Reacts to US Army vs Russian Army Power
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Here is me reacting to a comparison in numbers between the Russian Army and the American Army. This video carries exceptionally educational purposes and is not meant to be a subject of argument, it is just purely for entertainment.
Join my Telegram channel - t.me/oldboyhimself
The video was borrowed from here - • USA vs Russia Military...
I love your comments 😊😊😊 with respect to the Americans, i will always side with Russia 🇷🇺 ❤
Thanks, Vanessa (if that's your real name)! Haven't seen your comments in a couple days, started to worry about you. Hope your doing great😁 As always thank you for your feedback 😊
@@oldb0y79 😊 yes that is my name 😊 i was a bit busy these last few days, but when i have time im going to check your other videos and leave a comment 😊 thank you so much for the videos 🥰 you keep me enthusiastic about the next one 😊 take care you too 🙏
Interestingly you have a very very different view of the Russian military and the competence of the Russian forces than we do. Never in my life have I heard somebody refer to Russian pilots as skilled for example.
Lack of training, unmotivated conscripts from poor and uneducated backgrounds, lack of competent officers, lack of maintenance, lack of modern gear, lack of initiative, lack of tactical ability and insane level of corruption that has destroyed much of what is left. That is the image we have of the Russian armed forces.
As for what we think the Russian military is good at... Massed artillery barrages and massed armored assaults. Brute force warfare with little finesse. A lot of very low tech but functional equipment. Attritional warfare.
It has probably improved a little since 2022 because it has been necessary to do so, but I doubt there's been anything revolutionary.
Partially true. Yes, the competence of officers is questionable, but not much more than in any other country. Yes, the gear is not that modern (however in the last couple years it has changed noticably). But as for the skill... well, let me put it this way - as long as our pilots have to use obsolete aircrafts and are still able to perform incredibly, imagine what they could do with all these hi-tech computer assisted jets, like F35 or something like that. They would colonize Mars in a week, regardless of whether or not it is technically possible.
@@oldb0y79 I think about half of the criticisms I mentioned against the Russian armed forces comes down to the Soviet era doctrine of leadership, where higher rank officers need to be directly consulted on every move in the field. There's a severe lack of NCOs, which makes the military cumbersome and slow to react and respond to changing conditions.
As for your pilots, I think they're competent enough, but I am obviously comparing them to peer nations and not weaker powers like the middle east or africa.
The main problem your pilots have (in my opinion) isn't their tools, which are fine, but a lack of training. Russian pilots fly way less hours than pilots elsewhere. It's difficult to get more than the basic proficiency if you don't practice your trade.
Some of my criticisms are also outdated, I talked to some ex-Russian conscripts that served in the 2000s and 2010s and their stories were shocking, for example one of them was never issued a rifle and never fired a single bullet in practice during his entire service in the Russian army.
Russia's current enemy - Ukraine, has the exact same problems and the same doctrines of the past but much less resources and equipment. That's why the flaws haven't punished Russia as much as they could, even though Ukraine has been trying to modernize, that's process of decades at best.
@@jm-holm that's an interesting information about the people who served without shooting a single bullet. I'm not saying it's not true, as far as it's a real experience of a real person (and we did have a joke around early 2000, that goes like "during our pledge we were handed in several grenade launchers, those who didn't get the launchers, got rifles, those who were less lucky got some tactical shovel, the rest were just told to make fearsome faces"). But when I was trained (I never served though), I shot every week dozens and dozens of rounds.
@@oldb0y79 I would assume that it depended on what type of training you got as a conscript. In our system the basic training is the same for everyone regardless of where you serve or what your future position will be but maybe it's different there. Or was.
I don't think it's the case that it's as bad as it used to be, I'm told there just wasn't any funding or any motivation to do anything back then.
Conscripts were used as free labor by officers and doing menial tasks instead of training.
These days training should have a slightly higher standard, but a large part of the Russian reserve still consists of troops that received training that can hardly even be regarded as military.
@@jm-holm True. Many of older guys told me all they learned in the army was construction techniques for building general's country house. And it not a joke. I believe now it is still like that in some places, or at least used to be before the Ukrainian campaign.
The number of LGBTQ people in the US Military are extremely small, at approximately 07%. I would also consider the fact that the US military have the most high-tech & advanced technology in the world. I fail to understand the complexity of war, especially in these modern times. Russia, EU, & USA are very closely related. I just pray for peace for every person on earth.
Bro I’m from USA. More important than military might (no joke) is God Almighty. He decides winners and losers (He already knows who will win every war and has always known. Seek Him with everything you have while you can. I don’t want to go to war with you brother.
You have more ships like China has more ships than the US, but your ships are much more smaller than the US. Russian navy shouldn't be considered a Blue Water Navy. All of the 472 ships the US has are ocean going ships, most of the Russian ships are coastal going. North Korea has like 900 ships in their Navy but they're tiny little boats. Numbers don't matter what matters is the capabilities of the ships. The US navy is the largest in terms of tonnages and we're like 6 or 7 times bigger than than the Russian navy and if you combined the Chinese navy and the Russian navy we're twice the size if not three times the size in terms of tonnages
The drones you guys use are small and the ones the US uses are big and can do long range missions. Russia doesn't have 5,000 UAVs like the US has. They maybe have like 80 or 90, but if you count all the little drones they use they have 5000
Well, as the recent practice shows, smaller drones had proven to be as effective as any bigger ones. Besides, I believe that in the last couple years Russia had noticably increased the quantity of those units.
@@oldb0y79 Having smaller drones are good for your soldiers, but Russia needs more drones like the Reaper which they don't have. Those kinds of drones are the size of a plane. I would say both Ukraine and Russia are have more smaller drones like personnel size ones than any military on earth because of how the war is shaping out to be. This is a new concept of warfare that both side accidentally figured out.
@@The_Sau642 Exactly what I wanted to say. Sure, bigger drones could serve their purpose better. But as you said, both sides had figured out that smaller units can also be handy for other specific needs.
strategic means ones that can destroy a whole city whilst tactical varies but normally ones that can destroy a city block(though technically also cover little ones that are less powerful then some regular bombs), gdp is gross domestic product which refers to the amount in currency terms of goods or services produced in the last year, gdp per capita is that amount divided by the number of residents and is meant to show average economic activity per person but the values per capita can get thrown off by the disproportional wealth of the rich which can make the amount per person far higher then most people actually see in reality, ppp is purchasing power parity and it tries to express gdb and gdp per capita in terms of what can be achieved with that money taking into account the relative prices of goods and services available to the local population.
Which is why the ppp gdp per capita of russia was nearly 3x the regular gdp per capita and so basically roughly shows the equivalent earnings, as in if a russian earned the same pay but was in america the ppp per capita shows the equivellent of what they're spending power in america would be taking into account the relative difference in goods and services to a fair degree, for instance china's national gdp in ppp terms (not per capita but for whole country) (whilst far lower in regular gdp terms) overtook the usa a few years back.
Indeed thats what largely led to the americans taking a more hostile attitude to china and trying to block them technologically (a strategy which is has basically failed for obvious reasons), indeed americas sudden hostility to free trade deals which they use to be in favour of and frankly a great deal of the increased unrest in the world the fallout of this caused is indeed largely attributed to the american saltyness on loosing the no1 spot on gdp ppp (which actually started years before they lost the no1 spot when them loosing it became increasingly likely), they thought they could sanction their way back to no1 and basically reverse history on the scientific method to keep usa no1 lol(everyone should be most appreciative that british didnt do this way back when xD), not a bright strategy, especially when competing with a country with a population greater then Europe, america and russia (the bit out of europe to) , japan & korea combined with plenty spare but well they're politicians not known for their high iq xD
Reconnaissance aircraft are scouts ie sneaky ones with high speed and armed with cameras rather then weapons, awacs that russia has more of are command and control that coordinate operations ground sea and air but they also fitted with long range sensors and double as mobile watchdogs to prevent being caught unaware of incoming anything.
Tbh even a little girl with a gun can be equally lethal as the strongest man so not sure it matters to much the inclusion, wars are fought at gun range not melee so it would only matter in modern warfare in terms of endurance but soldiers are ferried around in vehicles nowadays anyhow, alas the era of might being about whos stronger ended with the proliferation of guns, in a few decades there will be no soldiers period, all going to be replaced by robots once theyre capable and cheap enough, tbh the robots not a bad thing, but it will be and end of an era like the spread(proliferation) of guns in first place, alas probably going to lead to more war not less as without human losses im betting wars will become more popular.
Planes are expensive and people are far cheaper, the american strategy is also to fight at range but they prefer air power to artillery, the focus is clear by the relative numbers of training aircraft, but each of those f35s cost 80 million each pilot costs millions to train and only work for so many years before their to old and have to be replaced and ongoing maintenance of aircraft costs more over their lifetime of service then the purchase cost much more if you include munition prices which are all ridiculously expensive vs a soldiers munition, so militarily it has to be justified in terms of capability that that 1 plane is more lethal then all the soldiers that the money spent on it could afford combined, but basically america has more money so can afford to use planes rather than artillery, the f35 programs cost over its expected lifetime is over 3.5 trillion dollars, such a strategy is unrealistic for russia given economic reality, and the reason america has so many tankers which refuel other aircraft is america operates worldwide, whilst russia (mostly) sticks around russia so remain in range of russian airbases so why use tanker aircraft.
Drones well everyone making more of them military and civilian atm, theyre cheap and effective, who wouldnt want more, hell amazon in america making em to deliver goods to peoples back gardens and small drones so cheap some kids go to school with them in their backpack but military numbers way of more like 30000 plus per then 5000.
Corvettes are small but fast and basically are for costal defence and light attack, russia has lots as has allot of coast, frigates are normally but not always bigger but normally focus anti air or anti submarine, modern destroyers are basically bigger and heavier then ww2 cruisers but as cruisers became synominous with high costs no poltician wants to authorize a program to make new cruisers so destroyers just kept getting bigger, its destroyers that are main surface combatants ie anti ship, the americans currently dont have frigates but they have lcs instead but lcs turned out poorly cos of bad design so they now have a huge new shipbuilding program called constellation to build a fleet of new frigates, but theyre not far of the size of ww2 cruisers either
Russias carrier is allot smaller then the american ones in terms of air complement and scale but its also a battlecruiser and highly armed, but aircraft carriers most expensive type to operate, each new us carrier costs 12 billion usd which they currently replacing with new set of latest class (same size and hull just modern they retiring one old one for each new brought into active service), america has a set of cruisers(cruisers meant to be bigger and tougher destroyers and battlecruisers bigger still) still but not got replacement program so they being retired soon theyre latest destroyer not far off their size anyhow.
Russia has couple of battlecruisers last time i checked and since america retired theyre battleships and with the failure of the zumwilt class meant to replace america has no surface combatants comparable to a battlecruiser not that it helps to much as america can overwhelm with numbers of large surface combatants, basically whilst numbers appear similar on paper in terms of might american navy far overwhelms russia in terms of large surface combatant might again this is about focus america operates worldwide whilst russian navy is just meant to defend russia, americas supercarriers are americas primary means of projecting might worldwide and each can pack 100 fighter jets or 60 or so and lots of other aircraft and are basically floating airbases theyre 333 meters long and displace 100,000 long tons, as for russian helicopters lpts or landing platform docks are the primary way russia can shift helis not mentioned in vid.
As for numbers accuracy basically for small items especially on the russian side which is less public with data but also on american side which are known for secret programs prob close but not super accurate, for ships however very accurate cos well ships big and hard to hide and planes to well watched to hide either but tanks, drones and helis harder to guage.
Thanks a lot for the explanation! You've certainly spent a deal of time to type all that. I appreciate it! 👏
I am a US Army veteran who served during the Cold War. All those years we were taught that the Soviet Union was evil and wanted to take over the world. Since then, I have learned how to speak Russian (I taught myself) and I have many Russian friends. I will be visiting Moscow in two months. I was stationed at the Supreme Headquarters European Powers (SHAPE) in 1990 when the Berlin Wall fell and glasnost was everywhere in the news. Reagan and Gorbechov were close friends. I actually witnessed Russian Generals shake hands with the American Commanding General (SACEUR). It was very surreal to me, because of the way I was trained. But today, I love and respect the Russians very much. And I especially love the Russian Army. We are all brothers and should love each other.
I appreciate what you said, sir. Thank you for your service. Though I am a different nationality, a "potential enemy", I respect any man who gave, as I believe, some of the best years of his life to his country. I agree, we are no enemies, it's all in the heads of those who move figures on the board. On a people-level we are same, at least not much different.
Have a good trip to Moscow, sir. I hope you enjoy it. Moscow these days is as good as it can ever be.
@@oldb0y79 большое тебе спасибо за добрые комментарии, мой друг!
@@hawkmaster381 impressive language skill 👏 keep on learning 👍
I gotta give Russia this, on some military equipment Russia makes some that can be manufactured quickly, while the US military equipment manufacturers tend to make equipment that's more complicated, and takes longer to produce. As far as soldiers, the US "leadership" instead of showing that they care, they prefer social experiments.
True, a very good perspective👍 Simplicity is the key. As for the soldiers - well, it's universal, for most commanders, even native soldiers are nothing more than just a tactical resource. In all times in all armies nomatter how loud they yell of "care" for simple Joes and Ivans.
Вы высказываете свое мнение о вещах, которых не понимаете.
Никаких знаний в общей экономике и военном деле.
Вы говорите, что ваши пилоты признаны во всем мире, если мы вам скажем, что это печально, они такие же средние, как и ваши самолеты, доказательство того, что у вас нет даже превосходства в воздухе в Украине. Ваши Миги и Суки значительно ниже американских, немецких, французских самолетов...
Вы говорите, что у вас есть артиллерия, чтобы не тратить солдат зря, в то время как вы посылаете солдат без малейшей поддержки или поддержки, чтобы убивать, чтобы захватить только несколько улиц, у вас есть количество, но вы используете его очень плохо, и тогда большинство ваших бойцов необучены .
Ваши современные танки были хороши до того, как их уничтожили на Украине, сегодня вы используете танки советской эпохи, цифры не соответствуют качеству.
Ваши системы С-400 неработоспособны и уничтожены неразумной базовой артиллерией.
Количество ядерных бомб не показатель, с момента взрыва бомбы - это конец человечества.
Столько невежественного идиотизма было сказано за такое короткое время.
Вы попали в продажу оружия, потому что все понимали, что ваше оружие очень плохого качества для боевых действий.
Китай отворачивается, Индия отворачивается, Алжир отворачивается, Венесуэла отворачивается.
Франция вас опередила по экспорту вооружений, у вас нет вопросов по этому поводу, вы действительно верите, что развиваетесь.
Вы правы, учитывая военную экономику, которая составляет 20% вашей экономики, и через несколько лет вы будете бескровны, как и после распада Советского Союза.
Путин просто пытается спасти свою голову ценой принесения в жертву своего народа, а вы аплодируете себе.
Американцы глупы, но русские сумасшедшие...
Возможно вы и правы, но давайте не будем пытаться невежество бороть невежеством, вешая ярлыки на чужие мнения, а просто подождём, пока время само всех рассудит и расставит всё на свои места.
I dislike conflict, I want a quiet life with as little issue as possible.
I too, don't know everything
but what i do know his the following:
"ICBM" is "Inter Continental Ballistics Missile"
"AWACS" is "Airborne Warning and Control System"
"Reconnaissance Aircraft" are used to scout a territory
Thanks for decoding, dear sir😉 All these terms are so confusing. Now it makes it a bit clearer. At least now I get what they are.
@@oldb0y79 You are welcome "comrade"
Interesting how when they compared financial statistics they didn't compare the amount of debt each country has. The US debt is so high it's off the charts while Russian debt is pretty minimal. You have a great channel. Hope to see a new video soon. Maybe compare the number of champion chess players from each country. 👍🇷🇺
🇷🇺❤🇺🇸
👏👍✌
One thing that this video didn't look at was the fact that numbers don't tell the whole story. I think the US military philosophy for a while has been quality over quantity. The US has some of the most advanced tanks, aircraft, and ships in existence. For example the F35 fighter jet has the most advanced stealth technology and is virtually invisible on the radar, amongst other technology, and cost about $80 million dollars each. The average US soldier is equipped with about $17,500 (in 2007 dollars) worth of gear. They just recently adopted a new weapons platform with a higher caliber ammunition in anticipation of facing more advanced body armor. We may have less tanks but the M1 Abrams tank is still far more advanced than most of Russia's tanks. The fabled Russian T14 Armata tank is no longer planned to be in production.
I've seen a lot of pictures and footage from the Ukraine-Russia war; many russian soldiers are equipped with soviet era and even wwII era weapons with no sights. Fake bullet proof vests and helmets, Many of the russian tank designs are multiple decades old such as the T62 from the 1960's that have been deployed in Ukraine.
That's true, undeniably American weapon is technologically advanced. But one thing that is easy to miss is that Russian army of 2022 and 2024 are like two different armies. They pretty much got rid of the most of their obsolete stuff, replacing it with all modern ones. In regard to soldiers as well, Russian now has thousands of veterans well equipped and trained in real combat.
@@oldb0y79 But even Russian modern equipment isn't on par with American equipment. It's the reason Russia and China try very hard to hack or retrieve crashed aircraft before the US can retrieve.
Thank you for reaction military russia, i love russia ❤❤❤❤❤
Excellent reaction! It's very interesting to hear your perspective
That's exactly why I'm doing this - to share my perspective and opinion. I'm glad you liked it!
These charts are 99% irrelevant. I'm surprised the people making these videos didn't include things like the number of toilets per soldier.
To be fair any military that I serve in will win in any war even if it's the Saint Kitts military.
Hahaha that's good to know!😉🙃🤣
Well your arrogance is certainly over par 😂
Russia indeed has a lot more tanks than the U.S but you have to remember, majority of those Russian tanks are old outdated equipment, whilst American equipment is modern and proved very effective in Ukraine when used against Russian equipment. Same as artillery.
Yes, true, but only partially. Russian tanks they used to be outdated, but the bigger part of them were destroyed in the Uktainian campaign (that is basically why the were easy to destroy in the first place due to their age), and now they are being substituted with the modernized units. As for the American tanks, then what I have to tell is that they look good only in promo videos, but they are absolutely useless in the reality of Russian cross-terrain, mud and snow mixed with ice.
@@oldb0y79 The U.S doesn't really focus much on tank warfare anymore. They are more in focus with Naval and Air superiority.
Those numbers on the usa were not accurate
Same for Russia. Just an approximation.
GDP means Gross Domestice Product, essentially how much your company makes off it production.(Very simplified) Allows us to spend $800 Billion plus which is under 3% of our GDP in wartime we switch to a 40% Military spending.
We don't have artillery bc artillery is outdated and now use precision based strike weapons. The US considers artillery to be the antiquated arm of warfare only needed in certain situations. Also need less bc the small artillery got introduced artillery rocket propelled smart munitions that can strike in a 1 meter area from 75 miles away.
well, my honest opinion is that America and Russia suck so this is irrelevant, btw i subbed
Thanks, welcome to the channel. You're right, no place is perfect.
As an american willing to admit in my opinion the russian military is possibly the best military on the planet currently. You have battle hardened troops, great military production and most importantly high moral. Lets be honest though, America vs russia would be a nuclear conflict and no one would win we would all die. I hope we can put asside our differences and focus on trading with each other and good diplomatic relationships
Russia is struggling against Ukraine. 300k + killed or wounded. Cmon now
Agree to that. Russian force is as strong as ever. And though the Ukrainian stats are on the lower side, but it's understandable, cause we take Ukrainians as our people, so we don't want to cause much destruction. But to tell you the truth, war is stupid under any sauce, and most Russians know that.
@oldb0y79 all war is stupid in my opinion
@@joshblainer2652 yep, the most primitive way to solve the conflict. Stupid, and brings nothing but pain and destruction.
@BushmasterBrackett if your getting your stats from the mainstream media you may want to take it with a grain of salt considering they are just mouth peices for our government who is trying to sell us endless wars. Look up redacted, Douglas MacGregor and Scott Ritter. Independent media is the way to go in my opinion, 0 bias