China vs Russia (2017)

[Reichsmarschall]

 

[LeGenD]

I think China will defeat Russia in a strictly conventional engagement. Good preparation is necessary nonetheless.

China is too big to fail in a regional dispute.

 

[jhungary]

I think China will defeat Russia in a strictly conventional engagement. Good preparation is necessary nonetheless.

China is too big to fail in a regional dispute.

I wouldn't say that, it quite depend on how the war fought on both side.

Don't forget, Russia have one very good defence, which is their weather, and even tho China should be able to take majority of boundary cities with Russia, they would have a hard time taking inland city especially when the war drag over the winter.

Quite a few power tried to take on Russia and failed....There is a reason behind that

 

[dexter]

One thing is for sure Russia's "infinte manpower hack" will not work on China.

 

[ptldM3]

I think China will defeat Russia in a strictly conventional engagement. Good preparation is necessary nonetheless.

China is too big to fail in a regional dispute.

Due to Russia's, experience, terrain, weather, manpower and endless equipment no one including the US can defeat Russia. An enemy may win some battles but will ultimately lose the war.

I don't see where China would have an advantage other then more manpower, but Russia will never run out of manpower itself. Russia has more ground equipment and is atleast as modern as Chinese but most importantly Russia has experience in fighting in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia and Syria. The last combat experience China had was Vietnam. Experienced soldiers and generals make all the difference.

 

[Stryker1982]

China would probably win in the long run due to way larger GDP

BUT

Russia has far more military experience than China which can be rewarding if used well. If their is any war which is highly unlikely, Russia would have to win within the first month or it is over for russia. china makes far more $$ than Russia and can afford to sustain a war for decades russia can't. also Russias weakness is its complete focus on Europe leaving Eastern Russia with less defense and preperation than Western Russia as obviously their is no threat on the east. Russia military experience, can win them the war if they employ a few crushing defeats at the early stages of the war. but Russia cannot win a war of attrition.

 

[beijingwalker]

Russia has more ground equipment and is atleast as modern as Chinese but most importantly Russia has experience in fighting in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia and Syria. The last combat experience China had was Vietnam. Experienced soldiers and generals make all the difference.

China is a peace loving country and there is nothing, home or abroad, needs China to fight for.

 

[LeGenD]

Due to Russia's, experience, terrain, weather, manpower and endless equipment no one including the US can defeat Russia. An enemy may win some battles but will ultimately lose the war.

I don't see where China would have an advantage other then more manpower, but Russia will never run out of manpower itself. Russia has more ground equipment and is atleast as modern as Chinese but most importantly Russia has experience in fighting in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia and Syria. The last combat experience China had was Vietnam. Experienced soldiers and generals make all the difference.

American military is well-equipped to fight any enemy in all weather conditions. If you think that Russia stands a chance against US in a strictly conventional fight, you are sadly mistaken.

Mongols proved that Russians are not unbeatable even in their own turf but Russians tend to overlook this part of history; Mongols were extremely mobile and tactical in their war-effort.

Regarding Russia versus China; I am assuming an all-out war between Russia and China in which both sides will suffer massive casualties but China is way too big population-wise and from even military standpoint for Russia to cope with in the long-term. In-fact, China's greatest concern would be its logistics problems while trying to occupy large swaths of Russian territory but China has a huge economy and Industrial might to complement its war-effort this time.

I do not expect China to march all the way to Moscow but it will achieve a symbolic victory nonetheless.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Regarding Russia versus China; I am assuming an all-out war between Russia and China in which both sides will suffer massive casualties but China is way too big population-wise and from even military standpoint for Russia to cope with in the long-term. In-fact, China's greatest concern would be its logistics problems while trying to occupy large swaths of Russian territory but China has a huge economy and Industrial might to complement its war-effort this time.

I do not expect China to march all the way to Moscow but it will achieve a symbolic victory nonetheless.

According to person who was consulted in drafting new Russian military doctrine, the Russians plan to use to tactical nukes to deter PLA in Siberia.

A PREVIEW OF RUSSIA'S NEW MILITARY DOCTRINE


5. (C) Zolotarev argued that, while the chances of a large-scale war breaking out are remote, China would most likely be the target of any preemptive nuclear strike. Most serious military planners dismissed any threat from NATO long ago, he posited. China still has a mass mobilization army, he said, and the Russian Far East is thinly populated, has little infrastructure, and a small Russian military contingent. With the Russian army restructured to rapidly respond to small-scale wars, the GOR would have to rely on its nuclear deterrent to prevent a Chinese attack. He admitted, however, that by declaring the right to launch a nuclear first strike, Russia appeared to be taking a step back from the spirit, if not the letter of its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Article VI commitments regarding nuclear disarmament.

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09MOSCOW3138_a.html

 

[ptldM3]

American military is well-equipped to fight any enemy in all weather conditions. If you think that Russia stands a chance against US in a strictly conventional fight, you are sadly mistaken.

No, the only one that is sadly mistaken is you. You're thinking like a layman. What advtage does the US hold on the ground? Equipment wise, none really, especially now since Russia has developed all new tanks, IFVs, APCs, and upgraded much of the existing equipment.


First off they would be at a disadvantage because they would need to transport equipment and soldiers half way around the world, secondly that equipment and soldiers would be vulnerable to attack even if they were far from Russia. Russian Submarines and ships would sink US supply ships. transport aircraft would be vulnerable to fighters and SAMs, forward operating bases would be vulnerable to cruise missiles, suface-to-surface missiles and aircraft.

The US can't even subdue Afghanistan, how will they deal with Russia? The US will have the same problem as every other invader, subzero temperatures, heavy rain and mud, fog, and impassable mountains and forests. The US will never be able to destroy all of Russia's ground equipment (they can't even destroy all of Isis ground equipment). Think of the destruction a few MLRSs hidden in thick vegetation will cause to a US convoy.

The US will never achieve full air superiority due the size of Russia and the sheer amount of aircraft. US convoys will likely be hit by helicopters taking off from the middle of nowhere. You can imagine what even a few thousand well dug in and well trained soldiers with ATGMs would do.

Mongols proved that Russians are not unbeatable even in their own turf but Russians tend to overlook this part of history; Mongols were extremely mobile and tactical in their war-effort.

And the mongols got kicked out. I'm also confused, what does ancient Slavic tribes and mongols have to do with the modern Russian military? Ancient Slavic tribes actually invited mongols and the mongols got kicked out once their was unity.

Regarding Russia versus China; I am assuming an all-out war between Russia and China in which both sides will suffer massive casualties but China is way too big population-wise and from even military standpoint for Russia to cope with in the long-term. In-fact, China's greatest concern would be its logistics problems while trying to occupy large swaths of Russian territory but China has a huge economy and Industrial might to complement its war-effort this time.

I do not expect China to march all the way to Moscow but it will achieve a symbolic victory nonetheless.

Again Russia will never run out of manpower, anyone that thinks otherwise is crazy. And in terms of factories, Russia is no slouch, the Germans tried their best to destroy Soviet factories and that failed.

Just like the US China would have trouble because of the size, forests, mountains, subzero temperatures, rain, mud, fog ect. China also lacks the logistics the US has such as transport aircraft and tankers and unlike the US china would not be able to launch attacks from Europe, they would be limited to launching from their border with Russia and the Chinese army would eventually just get worn out from the natural obstacles and weather. Russia, on the other hand, can quickly move equipment anywhere in Russia, even a NATO general said Russia can move equipment much faster then NATO. Russia has large transport fleets, railways and equipment specially designed to cope with the terrain and weather. The Chinese, with zero combat experience in 35 years would face an adversary that is highly experienced in conventional warfare as well as urban warfare. They would face an enemy that has made countless improvements to doctrine, training, and equipment based on their experiences, they would face an enemy that is familiar with the terrain, an enemy that can rapidly deploy and move large army units, they would face an enemy that is equipped to fight in their environment, an enemy with specialized equipment to cope with the elements and a well trained and experienced enemy.

You're thinking Hollywood if you think Chinese manpower and factories will bring victory. It's much more complicated then that.

 

[LeGenD]

According to person who was consulted in drafting new Russian military doctrine, the Russians plan to use to tactical nukes to deter PLA in Siberia.

A PREVIEW OF RUSSIA'S NEW MILITARY DOCTRINE


5. (C) Zolotarev argued that, while the chances of a large-scale war breaking out are remote, China would most likely be the target of any preemptive nuclear strike. Most serious military planners dismissed any threat from NATO long ago, he posited. China still has a mass mobilization army, he said, and the Russian Far East is thinly populated, has little infrastructure, and a small Russian military contingent. With the Russian army restructured to rapidly respond to small-scale wars, the GOR would have to rely on its nuclear deterrent to prevent a Chinese attack. He admitted, however, that by declaring the right to launch a nuclear first strike, Russia appeared to be taking a step back from the spirit, if not the letter of its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Article VI commitments regarding nuclear disarmament.

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09MOSCOW3138_a.html

Then this war will go nuclear and both will loose.

Nonetheless, this revelation complements my argument that Russia cannot stop Chinese advances in the Siberia via its conventional muscle alone.

 

[GS Zhou]

why China and Russia needs to have war against each other??

Russia has its western front and Ukraine to deal with; China has its Taiwan issue, and also the South China Sea to protect. Why the two countries need to have a war?

 

[Dai Toruko]

why China and Russia needs to have war against each other??

Russia has its western front and Ukraine to deal with; China has its Taiwan issue, and also the South China Sea to protect. Why the two countries need to have a war?

There are powerful sick people in the world who want to drastically reduce the population of mankind.

 

[LeGenD]

No, the only one that is sadly mistaken is you. You're thinking like a layman. What advtage does the US hold on the ground? Equipment wise, none really, especially now since Russia has developed all new tanks, IFVs, APCs, and upgraded much of the existing equipment.

What advantage US held on the ground against Germany in WW2?
What advantage US held on the ground against Japan in WW2?
What advantage US held on the ground against Iraq in 1991?

Yet, US soundly defeated all of them in a major confrontation.

American tactical ingenuity notwithstanding, American AIR and NAVAL forces are too vast (and capable) to overcome. Russia is incredibly weak in these two crucial sectors in comparison to the US and this FACT doesn't bodes well for Russian armed forces in a major clash against American war-machine. Americans also have significant advantage in the spectrum of surveillance, precision-strikes and training.

You can learn a thing or two about American surveillance capability from this excellent piece: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ica-keeps-watch-over-north-korea-from-the-sky

And Russia haven't mass-produced its latest military vehicles because Russian economy is not doing well. The bulk of Russian equipment is outdated per American standards and assessments.

And even the best of Russian hardware is prone to failures: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-military-failures-of-all-time-a7493186.html/

Any comparison between US and Russia in conventional respect is a futile exercise. Just take a look at the defense budget of these two countries.

Why do you think Russia retains a vast nuclear capability? Because Russian experts and military planners have acknowledged significant disparity between the military capability of Russian and American armed forces and believe that Russian nuclear arsenal is the only platform that can offset this disparity:-

Example # 1:

The analysis and conclusions of the NPR were driven by the changed and changing international security environment. Several key factors were taken into account: today's most urgent nuclear threats that are posed by nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism; the removal of Cold War rivalries - although there is an enduring challenge in preserving strategic stability with existing nuclear powers, most notably Russia and China; and the growth of unrivaled U.S. conventional military capabilities and major improvements in theater missile defenses systems.

Source: http://www.nuclearsecurityproject.org/uploads/publications/CONTEMPORARYNUCLEARDOCTRINES_102110.pdf

Example # 2:

On October 26, 2009 President Medvedev recognized the technological backwardness of the Russian armed forces and defence industry. “Large financial assets are allocated for development and manufacturing of the most modern arms” he said to the bosses of the Russian military-industrial complex. Yet “money is being spent for modernization of armaments that are already morally obsolete or will become outdated in a few years. Research and development lasts for years, and decades sometimes…This is inadmissible.” A major initiative of the Medvedev Administration, a technological breakthrough project, often called “Russia’s modernization,” emerged basically from deep concerns about country continually lagging behind advanced nations in military technologies. In this context nuclear weapons are considered by Russian political and military leadership as the most important means of assuring military security simply because Russian non-nuclear forces are not seen as effective enough and degrade further.

Source: http://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/event/symposium/pdf/2009/e_04.pdf

First off they would be at a disadvantage because they would need to transport equipment and soldiers half way around the world, secondly that equipment and soldiers would be vulnerable to attack even if they were far from Russia. Russian Submarines and ships would sink US supply ships. transport aircraft would be vulnerable to fighters and SAMs, forward operating bases would be vulnerable to cruise missiles, suface-to-surface missiles and aircraft.

Have you looked at the map of Europe?

US can deploy a massive military force in Europe and move it towards the Russian front, and this force is expected to move under the cover of American ABCM systems and USAF.

Unlike your fantasies, USAF and USN will make short work of Russian AIR and NAVAL assets in the theater.

And this: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/how-f-22-is-deconflicting-u-s-russia-operations-over-syria.503754/

The US can't even subdue Afghanistan, how will they deal with Russia?

US soundly defeated the Spanish Empire, Germany, Japan, North Korea* and Iraq.

*China saved North Korea from humiliating subjugation.

What will US gain by beating the crap out of a dead horse in Afghanistan? No point in wasting resources on reforming cave-dwellers. US came to Afghanistan to dismantle Al-Qaeda Network and succeeded in this mission.

If extermination was the objective, Afghanistan would have seized to exist in a span of few hours.

The US will have the same problem as every other invader, subzero temperatures, heavy rain and mud, fog, and impassable mountains and forests.

Your ignorance continues to surprise me. American military forces conduct drills in diverse environments across the world in order to prepare for any eventuality.

Here is an example of American forces conducting a drill in Norway:-

They also have an extensive training regimen in Alaska:-

And these videos are just a tip of the iceberg.

Equally important is the fact that American military hardware performs well in cold-weather conditions.

The US will never be able to destroy all of Russia's ground equipment (they can't even destroy all of Isis ground equipment). Think of the destruction a few MLRSs hidden in thick vegetation will cause to a US convoy.

You are comparing a clearly identifiable threat in a professional military force with ISIS now?

ISIS is a concealed threat in large part, registering its presence in populated regions across Syria and Iraq, wearing civilian attire and hard to distinguish from other militant factions on the ground.

US can choose to level entire towns and cities where ISIS militants have taken shelter but what about loss of infrastructure and civilian casualties on a massive scale? Who will rebuild those cities? Who will be responsible for slaughtering innocent people on such a scale? Best course of action is to mobilize local forces against them like US is doing in Syria and Iraq but this strategy will take time to bear fruit. ISIS is on retreat virtually everywhere and will meet its end one day much like Al-Qaeda network.

The US will never achieve full air superiority due the size of Russia and the sheer amount of aircraft. US convoys will likely be hit by helicopters taking off from the middle of nowhere. You can imagine what even a few thousand well dug in and well trained soldiers with ATGMs would do.

FYI:-

1. US has extensive knowledge of Russian defensive positions across its mainland.
2. USAF has excellent mid-air refueling capabilities.
3. No region is safe from American long-range bombers in particular.
4. US surveillance network spans across the world.

More importantly, if Russians think about these matters like you do, they are surely toast.

And the mongols got kicked out. I'm also confused, what does ancient Slavic tribes and mongols have to do with the modern Russian military? Ancient Slavic tribes actually invited mongols and the mongols got kicked out once their was unity.

Excuse me? I am referring to this part of history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Rus'

My point is that Mongols soundly defeated Russian forces with combination of tactical ingenuity and mobility - both qualities that American war-machine possess and then some.

Again Russia will never run out of manpower, anyone that thinks otherwise is crazy. And in terms of factories, Russia is no slouch, the Germans tried their best to destroy Soviet factories and that failed.

Soviet Union was much bigger than modern-era Russia and a huge chunk of Wehrmacht was invested in Europe and Africa. If the Wehrmacht had only concentrated on the Soviet Union, it would have succeeded.

Not to forget the impact of Allied lend-lease program: http://www.historynet.com/did-russi...ase-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

Modern-era Russia will run out of manpower.

Just like the US China would have trouble because of the size, forests, mountains, subzero temperatures, rain, mud, fog ect. China also lacks the logistics the US has such as transport aircraft and tankers and unlike the US china would not be able to launch attacks from Europe, they would be limited to launching from their border with Russia and the Chinese army would eventually just get worn out from the natural obstacles and weather. Russia, on the other hand, can quickly move equipment anywhere in Russia, even a NATO general said Russia can move equipment much faster then NATO. Russia has large transport fleets, railways and equipment specially designed to cope with the terrain and weather. The Chinese, with zero combat experience in 35 years would face an adversary that is highly experienced in conventional warfare as well as urban warfare. They would face an enemy that has made countless improvements to doctrine, training, and equipment based on their experiences, they would face an enemy that is familiar with the terrain, an enemy that can rapidly deploy and move large army units, they would face an enemy that is equipped to fight in their environment, an enemy with specialized equipment to cope with the elements and a well trained and experienced enemy.

You're thinking Hollywood if you think Chinese manpower and factories will bring victory. It's much more complicated then that.

I refer to you posts # 9 and 11 for this matter. Russians military planners think otherwise.

 

[terranMarine]

why China and Russia needs to have war against each other??

Russia has its western front and Ukraine to deal with; China has its Taiwan issue, and also the South China Sea to protect. Why the two countries need to have a war?

People who talks about China vs Russia in war scenarios have a hidden agenda. We have solved territorial disputes in the 90s already. US using NATO wants to contain Russia in the West and in the East Yankees want to stir up trouble for China by using the lapdogs. Hence why China and Russia have formed the most important alliance or semi alliance if you will. The terminology isn't that important whether it's officially acknowledged or not. You see China, DPRK, Iran and Russia have been labelled by the US as the "axis of evil"

There are powerful sick people in the world who want to drastically reduce the population of mankind.

Yes a hidden government has been doing that for a long time. Iraq,Libya,Syria,Afghanistan to name a few. There's a reason why a certain race don't join the US military, the white, blacks, latinos are stupid to join the army and being used for a secret agenda which they are unaware of. Many will return back to US in coffin