USA vs Russia War Scenario

CyberI agree, that for the purposes of this debate, we should disregard cyber-warfare because we our arguments would be pure speculation. Sea While the US has the potential to out-produce Russia in the long run, since ships take so long to build (and are so expensive), a war is not long enough to make a large difference in the ship-count. Therefore, the present numbers would go largely unchanged. Aircraft carriers: While the US does have more aircraft carriers, only 5 of them (Pacific carriers) would be in a position to act immediately (it would take very long for the others to be in a useful position). These 5 carriers would not be difficult to spot, and don't forget that after all, a carrier takes much security and supplies. In the end, aircraft carriers are arguably inefficient. If the aircraft carrier goes down (being such an enormous target), then all that manpower along with about 80 aircraft (if carrier is fully loaded) are lost. . http://www.stratfor.com...http://www.navy.com...Frigates/Corvettes/Patrol Boats: While the US has 15 Frigates to Russia's 4, but Russia heavily outnumbers the US in Corvettes (74 to 0) which could play a role in the resistance to USA's attack considering that the Russian Bora-Class Corvettes carry several SS-N-22 (Moskit) cruise missiles which are specifically designed to strike ships with the Aegis command and weapon system. . http://fas.org...http://globalfirepower.com...http://www.globalsecurity.org...Mine Warfare at Sea: Russia has the world's second largest mine warfare force in the world numbering 34 ships. This force could easily be used to create a sneaky and lethal barrier between USA's ships and the Russian shore. While these ships would only be effective to create an initial minefield (because once the war really gets nasty, these ships will most likely be too vulnerable so they would only be able to carry out short operations), this minefield would make it much more difficult for US ships to get near Russia considering that they would have to travel very carefully. Also consider that the US only has 2-3 anti-mine ships anywhere near Russia, so making a pathway through the minefield would be near impossible. The US ships would then either have to turn around and move away from the Russian territory or be harrassed from sky and sea. . http://globalfirepower.com...Keep in mind that Russia is defending, which makes it harder for the US not only on land, but at sea and in the sky as well. AirFighters/Attack Aircraft: This is true, the US Airforce does outnumber the Russian, but there are multiple "equalizers" in this situation, some of which actually might turn the numbers to Russian favor. First of all, once again, note that Russia is defending. The US planes would be flying over enemy territory, which entails the risk of being shot down by not only enemy fighters, but also surface-to-air missile systems. Next, my opponent brings up the F-22. While it is a good aircraft, the US does not have very many of them (less than 300). If the US wanted to use ALL of them, this would take up atleast 2-3 of the 5 Pacific aircraft carriers. Also note that even though F-22s are stealthy, they can still be shot by surface-to-air missile systems such as the S-400s. (As demonstrated in the skies over Syria). These even opens the possibility that F-22s can be shot down by S-300s as well. . http://www.liveleak.com...Transport: The US does have very large amounts of transport aircraft, but this number may not be sufficient because the transportation will be over literally thousands of miles, part of which is hostile territory. This not only means that the transportation will be very slow, but the US will be continually losing aircraft (along with the supplies and manpower on them) from surface-to-air missile systems as well as Russian aircraft. Transportation will be no easy task for the US and the deeper the US gets into Russian territory, the harder it will be to adequately supply the soldiers and machinery. Trainer: This, I admit, will be an advantage for the US. Helicopters: These will have to be transported solely through aircraft carriers to the Russian shores (because of the helicopter's small range) which greatly limits the number of helicopters that the US can put out onto the battlefield at a time. Attack Helicopters: Countering tanks is not their specific function. Attack helicopters are just support for infantry, and have the ability to fight tanks although it is debateable how well they can do so. Bombers: I have no clue where my opponent got the "60%" fact, so I ask that he provide a source. Now, onto the Tu-22M itself. Just because it's old, doesn't mean it's poorly made. For example, consider the fact that the Tu-22M is faster than any US bomber ever made except the Valkyrie, two of which were ever made (meaning it is virtually irrelevant). Plus, the fact that Russia has nearly 500 of them can make up for its relatively small bomb load. My opponent mentions the B-2 Spirit. While it is a stealth bomber, it has never bombed any developed countries, making its stealth abilities questionable since we simply don't know how it would perform. Also consider that the US only has 21 of these bombers! Yes, they would most likely be able to inflict initial, surprise attacks but they would be erradicated by Russian fighters that would soon be in the air once the bombing starts. In the end, I don't believe the B-2 Spirit would have a very large impact on the course of the war because they are so expensive and there is such a limited supply of them. Russia would be able to use its large fleet of bombers to not only hinder the progress of the attacking US forces, but also to inflict damage on the American homeland. (This however would be riskier, and would have to be done only with heavy support from fighters). . http://www.militaryfactory.com...http://www.militaryfactory.com...Land This is where Russia's true force lies. In the event (likely event) that the US eventually renders the Russian Navy useless or completely destroyed, the US would then have to put boots on the ground. We will get to details later once my opponent forms a battle plan, but no matter where the US troops land, pushing through the Russian ground forces will be very difficult. My opponent points out that considering Russia's size, it would be difficult to move troops. This is partly true, but it is made easier by the fact that Russia is defending, so not only does it take less troops to defend (usually), but this will give Russia time to react and move troops where necessary. When the US troops finally land, they will be met with an overwhelming amount of armor and artillery. Let's just compare some numbers:__________US________RussiaTanks:___8,300______15,500AFVs:___25,800______27,600SPGs:___1,900_______5,990*RTA:___1,790_______4,620MLRSs:__1,330_______3,780*Regular Towed Artillery . http://globalfirepower.com...http://globalfirepower.com...http://globalfirepower.com...http://globalfirepower.com...http://globalfirepower.com...It is impossible to defeat Russia without dominating on land (considering Russia's enormous territory) and this is where the US Army will be crushed. Pounded day and night by enormous amounts of artillery and harassed by tanks, the US ground force would not be able to continue the attack. Yes, my opponent is correct, I do claim the T-90's far superiority to the M1 Abrams and will prove it in the below paragraph. 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 of the missile. -The T-90 also has a faster fire rate than the Abrams. 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. Cost vs. Benefit:-The T-90 ($4.25 million) is also cheaper than the M1 Abrams ($6.21 million). http://www.diffen.com...(I used one more source which I will paste next Round, I am having problems pasting it, sorry)Considering all of the above, I believe that the T-90 is superior to the Abrams as well as cheaper. The increased production of the T-90 during the war would only magnify its devastating effect. While moving armor, equipment and troops would be a challenge to both nations, it would be even more logistically difficult for the US considering not only the great distances that must be covered, but also that the movement would not be done on friendly territory, increasing the risk of attack by air or by sea while transporting. "Other stats" will be addresses next Round. (Lack of space).