USA vs Russia War Scenario

T-90 vs AbramsOn the subject of autoloader: I do not see in my opponent's source where he got information that the two tanks have the same fire rate. Also, not having an auto-loader and having a crew member instead is always a problem because of communication. The smaller the crew, the more efficiently commands can be given and executed. On the subject of engine: My opponent's own source says: "Its complex gas turbine engine offers good performance, but requires tremendous amount of maintenance, logistical support. .. " about the Abrams engine. The T-90's engine is actually known for a large flexibility of fuel. The official fuels are: diesel fuel, kerosene grades T-2 and TS-1, and gasoline grade A-72. On the subject of the missile: While I suppose that the missile could reveal the tank's position (although I ask my opponent for a source for this), it won't be too much of a problem because the targets will be very far away (up to 5 km) and they will also be destroyed by the missile. In the end, I believe it is a large advantage for the T-90. . http://www.armyrecognition.com...HelicoptersI would like to note that there is one big downside to these ships and it is their speed. They are even slower than regular aircraft carriers. It is also a very risky maneuver to use them considering that "all the eggs would be in one basket". If even one of these it taken down, that is an enormous loss in machinery and manpower (up to 34 helicopters along with the ship itself and 1,100 men lost). . http://www.militaryfactory.com...Aircraft CarriersMy opponent's source notes that: "The most significant threats to carriers are cruise missiles. .. " As mentioned in previous Rounds, Russia has 74 Corvettes, 34 of which have the "Moskit" missile system which is specifically designed to counter the Aegis missile defense system. (The Aegis missile defense system is used on US ships). http://fas.org... Before we continue, I would like to make note of something that will be very important to this debate: We established that because of the US-Russia relations, both countries would be war-ready. I also ask my opponent to realize that the US would have to mobilize massive (literally unprecedented amounts) of troops and machinery. This COULD NOT go unnoticed by the Russian military in our day and age. This would cause the Russian military to be even more active. (If all of a sudden the US starts closing in, moving millions of troops and machines closer to the Russian border, this is bound to be acknowledged and reacted to). The attack would'nt be a surprise and would not have such a devastating effect as the German Operation Barbarossa in WW2. Keeping this in mind, we can continue. AirI do not see any of the missiles my opponent described in the inventory of the F-15E. Even then, the Russian 40N6 missiles (400 km range) would be able to lock onto, out-range and destroy any US planes that are NOT armed with the AGM-158 JASSM-ER missile (1000 km range). (Which would be the vast majority of the planes). After the wave of enemies, Russian planes would take to the skies and be able to clear the Russian airspace of any remaining US aircraft. . http://www.militaryfactory.com...The military bases in Poland and Baltic states would be overrun by Russian ground forces early on in the war considering their importance and proximity to Russia. The attack on the Eastern Coast of Russia would be even less successful than the attack on the Western parts because:1) An entire ocean separates Russia and US, giving Russia ample time to see an attack coming and prepare.2) The Russian mining warfare force would be able to prepare much better and create a denes barrier of sea mines, so that any US ships or carriers would not be able to get too close. Only through heavy losses. Considering the ranges of aircraft, this will affect the "helicopter carriers" much more than the regular carriers. Overall, there would definitely be damage as a result of the initial strikes, but as the US continues making these runs, they become less and less effective because the Russians are much more prepared. SeaI agree that the Black Fleet would be incapacitated quickly. There would be some losses to US subs and surface ships (because of the anti-submarine and missile boats) but the losses would be insignificant. In the Pacific however, the story would be completely different. The Russian Pacific fleet consists of 22 submarines and 49 warships, a much more formidable force than that of the Black Sea Fleet. This force would be able to resist the US Navy at least for some time. In the Baltic, a blockade could be enforced but:1) US ships wouldn't be able to advance into St. Petersburg because of the natural chokepoint and the size of the Baltic Fleet.2) The blockade ships would be constantly taking damage from air and sea. Many also forget about the Russian Northern Fleet, which is actually of considerable size (48 subs and 35 warships). This fleet would not only strike US forces in Alaska, but also reinforce the Pacific Fleet, which would be under a heavy barrage. Overall:1) The Black Fleet would be eliminated relatively quickly.2) The Pacific Fleet (soon reinforced by Northern Fleet) would be able to put up resistance to the advancing US forces.3) The Baltic Fleet would not be overrun, but would be blockaded in the Baltic Sea. US blockade would take continuous damage. . http://russian-ships.info...Economy More money would be pumped into the defense budget, but even now the majority of the defense budget goes to just maintaining foreign military bases. Considering USA's debt and already enormous military spendings, I doubt it could increase much more. Since my opponent brought up WW2 production, let's compare: The US produced 300k aircraft, while the USSR produced a total of 158k. This is large difference, but also consider that this time, the US homeland will also be under attack (unlike WW2) which I will describe later. In tank production, the US and USSR were about equal, but once again, note that this time the US homeland will be under attack as well. . http://www.nationalww2museum.org...GroundI disagree with my opponent's last comment: "with both sides making swift advances and even swifter retreats. " There is virtually no reason for the Russians to make any advances. Russians would just sit there and wait for the US attack waves, which would mostly be defeated by greatly superior numbers. The US camps would be under constant artillery fire, so the US ground troops would have to either stay in that spot and die, attack and die or retreat. My opponent has not provided a very detailed plan of attack on the ground, but where ever it is (probably coming from the Caucasus Mountains), the US would have a very difficult time breaking through the Russian lines of defense. Attacking is hard enough, and when massively outnumbered, it is even harder. Air I believe my opponent's depiction in this paragraph is relatively accurate. The US would continue taking air losses with every run, however it would most likely not be a sufficient amount. Any remaining Russian planes would be ordered to target the bombers, but most of the US air losses would be the result of surface-air missiles. My opponent describes finding and destroying remaining Russian missile systems but this would be virtually impossible considering the large number of them and their concealment. The increased production of missile systems would begin taking a heavier toll on the US Air Forces to the point where in many cases, performing a bombing run would not be cost effective because of the losses. Also note that bombing in general is not very accurate and can only do so much. My opponent mentions that the helicopter support of US infantry would devastate Russian forces, but this is not so. Helicopters are very vulnerable to simple rocket-launchers such as the RPG family. Also, Russia has a mulitude of medium-range anti-air missile systems such as the 2K12 Kub chain. Relatively simple and cheap, but highly effective in numbers. (Also has very fast missiles at Mach 2.8, which eliminates the target very quickly). This system even puts jets at risk, but helicopters would not be a challenge. Very heavy losses would be taken by the US helicopters when attempting to assist infantry in advances on the Russian defense line. . http://www.militaryfactory.com...SeaBlack Sea would be taken, yes, but US infantry still would not be able to land effectively. Anti-ship missiles can be fired from land to eliminate US ships that get to close to shore. Any attempt to put boots on the ground would result in a massacre. (It would be even more difficult than D-Day). In the Baltic waters, I still do not see how the US would be able to overwhelm that many ships in such a good position. Monstrous losses would be taken by the US forces even if they somehow manage to defeat the naval assets there. Also, I believe (unless my opponent proves me wrong) that the US would not be able to easily eliminate the Pacific Fleet (supported by Northern Fleet). There would be war raging in the Pacific for a very long time. LogisticsFor this, I wanted to make two simple points:-The US consumes more than twice the amount of oil it produces. This means that in this war of attrition, the US would have very large problems with lack of oil. . http://globalfirepower.com...-Russia has a large amount merchant ships, making transportion of troops and supplies much easier. The US, however, only has 300 (when compared to Russia's 1,100), which would make it extremely difficult to support the soldiers overseas. Especially considering the losses these ships would take from submarines. . http://globalfirepower.com...MissilesThis is how Russia will strike the US homeland. Russia has a much larger variety in missile types (and quantity) and would be able to bombard key US cities with missiles (loaded with conventional explosives). . http://www.armscontrol.org...