NATO vs Russia: Military equipment and weapons comparison

[T-123456]

Of war goes on what do you think just think if Russia attack US will use its full force against Russian to stop it if NATO attack Russia it mean that they are to gain some thing and if NATO fails then again US will use it's force to accomplish objectives

The US is a member of NATO so,if NATO fails then the US fails.

 

[The Next Door]

The US is a member of NATO so,if NATO fails then the US fails.

That's exactly what I am saying as US will put all his effort from failing

 

[T-123456]

That's exactly what I am saying as US will put all his effort from failing

I see that you are new to the forum,my advice to you:do not claim things you know nothing about.
Others wont be so friendly.

 

[Drashid]

NATO's expansion is unwanted.

Or for that matter any military alliance.

This is a multi-polar world where sidekicks have also emerged as their own pillars.

In fact, if any of you listens to Russian political debates or announcement made on international issues, they speak a lot of sense. Very practical and without the usual kind of nonsense that you hear from Republican loonies in US who disrespect even their own constitution.

NATO needs to find a purpose of constructive aggression rather than medieval style brutalizing of every single country.

Yes, Syria and Israel may have their disputes, but let them sort it out. Don't put the lives of innocent people on the line to achieve a fuxking political goal.

Your one to talk, considering your from India.

NATO is stronger. We have military powers like Turkey, the UK (home sweet home), France, Germany, Italy, Greece (they are tougher than people give them credit for), Poland, Canada and the US of A (the world's most powerful nation). That's not even mentioning non NATO allies like Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, Australia, etc.

The only powerful nations that are Russia's ally are Iran, North Korea and China.

 

[DavidSling]

Nato by far

 

[The Next Door]

I see that you are new to the forum,my advice to you:do not claim things you know nothing about.
Others wont be so friendly.

Yes I am new and I am not expecting any body friendly

I see that you are new to the forum,my advice to you:do not claim things you know nothing about.
Others wont be so friendly.

I see that you are new to the forum,my advice to you:do not claim things you know nothing about.
Others wont be so friendly.

can you explain what others can do about me if I claimed things which I don't know

 

[Good123]

Turkey is part of NATO so i guess the video below is a bit relevant. Though it assumes no support from anyone, so obviously Turkey is outgunned. Still, it doesn't seem to be holding out that bad...

Russia Vs Turkey: The air war

 

[T-123456]

Turkey is part of NATO so i guess the video below is a bit relevant. Though it assumes no support from anyone, so obviously Turkey is outgunned. Still, it doesn't seem to be holding out that bad...

Russia Vs Turkey: The air war

Add the UK,France,Italy,Germany,Spain,Greece and Poland to the fight,it would be impossible for Russia to win.
This war is never going to happen so,its all just speculation.

 

[Tshering22]

Your one to talk, considering your from India.

NATO is stronger. We have military powers like Turkey, the UK (home sweet home), France, Germany, Italy, Greece (they are tougher than people give them credit for), Poland, Canada and the US of A (the world's most powerful nation). That's not even mentioning non NATO allies like Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, Australia, etc.

The only powerful nations that are Russia's ally are Iran, North Korea and China.

That's the problem.

You don't understand. Whatever 'power' you are considering as 'power' is actually becoming a war machine for defence contractors. Tell me Mr Power, do you have any idea of what happens to a family when a soldier is send abroad to fight in some warzone? To them, it is not YOUR country's war.

People become soldiers to defend their own nations; not become underpaid forced mercenaries for defence contractors who buy out presidents and politicians with $$$.

Remember, this is not about Russia, China, Pakistan, NATO or Britain.

You may feel the pang of patriotism when waving your flag but remember, someone lost their family member just so that some fat, suited-booted rich weapons tycoon got a fat paycheque from the government for a war that was not needed.

Syria and Iraq are case and point when seen from NATO's perspective.

Turkey is part of NATO so i guess the video below is a bit relevant. Though it assumes no support from anyone, so obviously Turkey is outgunned. Still, it doesn't seem to be holding out that bad...

Russia Vs Turkey: The air war

There won't be any war between Turkey and Russia; unless of course Erdogan loses his mind completely and decides to pander to US politicians' fantasy of a European war which would mean a lot of money exchanging hands.. especially for the senators in US.

 

[Drashid]

That's the problem.

You don't understand. Whatever 'power' you are considering as 'power' is actually becoming a war machine for defence contractors. Tell me Mr Power, do you have any idea of what happens to a family when a soldier is send abroad to fight in some warzone? To them, it is not YOUR country's war.

People become soldiers to defend their own nations; not become underpaid forced mercenaries for defence contractors who buy out presidents and politicians with $$$.

Remember, this is not about Russia, China, Pakistan, NATO or Britain.

You may feel the pang of patriotism when waving your flag but remember, someone lost their family member just so that some fat, suited-booted rich weapons tycoon got a fat paycheque from the government for a war that was not needed.

Syria and Iraq are case and point when seen from NATO's perspective.
.

I disagree with some decisions NATO has made, but overall the organisation has proved beneficial for its members and allies.

 

[Schutz]

Russia army = mostly poor conscripts, fairly poorly trained etc, basically like fighting trained Iraqis.

NATO = mostly well trained, well paid and motivated individuals.

Russia only ever had ONE advantage, its sheer population, Russia always needed 3-4 times as many men against an otherwise equal opponent to win, these days France and Germany combined are the same population as Russia, throw in the other countries and even the UK and your talking Russia being outnumbered vastly this time...and most of Russias opponents fighting skills and motivation are double that of their own.

Russia historically has lost or struggled to win against an opponent who is usually vastly outnumbered and this looks no different today.

Russia recruits from anywhere these days and you know that the quality of an army is REALLY poor when people are willing to join and possible die for what is a few hundred dollars a month, attract the best...not quite.

An army of conscripts where almost all the soldiers are replaced every 2 years once your obligation is up, ageing equipment for example the navy where carriers have to be escorted by tug boats, then because of conscription you have lack of quality technicians so these problems never get fixed. Have you seen the living situations of Russian soldiers?! its like 1950s soviet apartment blocks, Russian soldiers are poorly paid, poorly fed and have poor motivation. Most soldiers never experience combat and those that do will usually just be replaced once conscription is over.

Russia didnt even have proper officers until recently, no NCOS, either conscripts or officers, Russia only beat Georgia by sheer weight of numbers. Russian soldiers are tough, no doubt about that, they are brought up to be tough in a tough environment BUT that does not make them a good soldier in terms of fighting expertise, I would gladly have one next to me in a trench and fighting alongside you because you know they could take a beating but the reality is, they are not really a professional army for the most part.

It shows how stupid people are if you debate this and think Russia has a chance, the US in every department is vastly ahead of Russia, and I would say a US soldier in terms of fighting quality is several times more skilled than a Russian, then add in the vast advances they in every department and the US alone steamrolls Russia, shit, even a Germany under draft with French assistance and Baltic states probably beats Russia without to much difficulty...still fighting in Ukraine against a bunch of football hooligans in tanks.

 

[ptldM3]

Russia army = mostly poor conscripts, fairly poorly trained etc, basically like fighting trained Iraqis.

NATO = mostly well trained, well paid and motivated individuals.









Russia only ever had ONE advantage, its sheer population, Russia always needed 3-4 times as many men against an otherwise equal opponent to win, these days France and Germany combined are the same population as Russia, throw in the other countries and even the UK and your talking Russia being outnumbered vastly this time...and most of Russias opponents fighting skills and motivation are double that of their own.

Russia historically has lost or struggled to win against an opponent who is usually vastly outnumbered and this looks no different today.

Russia recruits from anywhere these days and you know that the quality of an army is REALLY poor when people are willing to join and possible die for what is a few hundred dollars a month, attract the best...not quite.

An army of conscripts where almost all the soldiers are replaced every 2 years once your obligation is up, ageing equipment for example the navy where carriers have to be escorted by tug boats, then because of conscription you have lack of quality technicians so these problems never get fixed. Have you seen the living situations of Russian soldiers?! its like 1950s soviet apartment blocks, Russian soldiers are poorly paid, poorly fed and have poor motivation. Most soldiers never experience combat and those that do will usually just be replaced once conscription is over.

Russia didnt even have proper officers until recently, no NCOS, either conscripts or officers, Russia only beat Georgia by sheer weight of numbers. Russian soldiers are tough, no doubt about that, they are brought up to be tough in a tough environment BUT that does not make them a good soldier in terms of fighting expertise, I would gladly have one next to me in a trench and fighting alongside you because you know they could take a beating but the reality is, they are not really a professional army for the most part.

It shows how stupid people are if you debate this and think Russia has a chance, the US in every department is vastly ahead of Russia, and I would say a US soldier in terms of fighting quality is several times more skilled than a Russian, then add in the vast advances they in every department and the US alone steamrolls Russia, shit, even a Germany under draft with French assistance and Baltic states probably beats Russia without to much difficulty...still fighting in Ukraine against a bunch of football hooligans in tanks.

This is the biggest crap I have ever read. Russia has been moving away from conscripts and they mostly use them in supporting roles. Israel still uses conscripts, just so you know.


Most of the fighting now is done by VDV paratroopers, marines and spetsnaz groups. VDV paratroopers and marines are far superior to any basic NATO soldiers their, training as well as combat operations in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Georgia prove it. The entire NATO standards and training is grossly over rated. Turkish soldiers have been taking heavy losses to the Kurds and we all know how Iraq went. There is nothing special about NATO in fact the training varies wildly from country to country.



As for 'poor Russian training', Russia conducts thousands of military exorcists yearly while NATO is busy trying to better accommodate transgenderes


http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...Putin-armed-forces-plan-2000-summer-exercises


Georgian soldiers were trained by the British and Americans some even had combat experience in Iraq, they were also better equipped yet they got routed and it was not so much bigger numbers because that that was hardly the case but that the Georgians faced Russian paratroopers and ground attack aircraft.



As for Russia "fighting Ukraine" they are providing advisors and old weapons. If Russia used air power, that alone would send the Ukrainians running west (the ones that survive). Russia only cares about setting up a buffer zone between Ukraine, and that's it. The Ukrainians have lost thousands of soldiers and hundreds of pieces of equipment. entire Ukrainian brigades have surrendered. If Russia wanted to they could reach Kiev in a week, there is nothing that would stop a Russian advance.



Another myth of NATO is that they are so well equipped while Russia is a rust bucket. You know some NATO countries still use aircraft from the 1950s right?



Russia is already planning on inducting new generation tanks, APCs, IFVs, MRAPs, ect while NATO is still going to be rolling around in vehicles that were developed largely in the 1950s and 1980s.

 

[Tshering22]

I disagree with some decisions NATO has made, but overall the organisation has proved beneficial for its members and allies.

Exactly.

Only its members.

But that has come at the cost of thousands of lives, aspirations and dreams of innocent people.

That's why NATO is an unwanted menace.

Not even that; it has converted European countries' militaries into hired mercenaries for some loony neocons sitting in Washington.

This is what has created refugee crisis in Europe. It is cyclical; you destroy other countries, you see others coming in search of greener pastures.

NATO was relevant during the days of WARSAW PACT.

Today, with a peaceful Europe and no ideological enemy, it is simply useless.

 

[Penguin]

NATO vs Russia: Military equipment and weapons comparison - The Economic Times

Take a look.
Armata tank: Russia's new Armata battle tank is one of the world's most advanced. More than 2,000 are expected to be in service by 2020, and was showcased in Moscow's Victory parade this year, with a 125mm cannon capable of firing 10 rounds per minute.

The Russian army plans to acquire 2,300 T-14s in the period 2015-2020. (note that PLANNED equates neither ORDERED nor OPERATES). 2015 number built: 20+.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata

The Ground Forces retain a very large quantity of vehicles and equipment. There is also likely to be a great deal of older equipment in state military storage, a practice continued from the Soviet Union. However, following the collapse of the USSR, the newly independent republics became host to most of the formations with modern equipment, whereas Russia was left with lower-category units, usually with older equipment. As financial stringency began to bite harder, the amount of new equipment fell as well, and by 1998, only ten tanks and about 30 BMP infantry fighting vehicles were being purchased each year]

New equipment, like the Armata Universal Combat Platform, Bumerang and Kurganets-25 will be equipped from 2015 and replace many old tanks, BMPs, BTRs like T-72, T-90, BMP-1/2/3, BTR-80 in active service. Funding for new equipment has greatly risen in recent years, and the Russian defence industry continues to develop new weapons systems for the Ground Forces. However, for the Ground Forces, while overall funding has dramatically increased, this does not guarantee that large numbers of new systems will enter service. In the case of vehicles, as the references show, examination of the actual number of vehicles planned to be bought yearly (about 200 MBTs and IFVs/APCs) means that for a force of about thirty divisions, each with about 300–400 MBTs and IFVs, it might take around 30 years to re-equip all formations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ground_Forces#Equipment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90
T-90: 350 active, 200 reserve (orders halted, 400 T-90s acquired in the early 2000s due to be upgraded)
T-80BV/U: 450 active, 3,000 reserve
T-72: 1,900 active, 7,000 reserve (around 1,300 are T-72B/BA models of which 600 upgraded to modern T-72B3 standard. Additional T-72s are brought back into service as T-80s are progressively being withdrawn)
T-64, T-62, T54/55: large numbers, reserve only.
So, in sum, 2700 active MBTs, of which only a portion has been modernized to current standards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Russian_Ground_Forces#Tanks

2) Leopard 2A7 battle tank: Not all of NATO's highly advanced equipment is American (though most is) — Germany's Leopard 2A7 battle tank, which recently came into service, is perhaps the world's most well-regarded tank.

NATO MBTs

Albania: 0 (1,100 Type-59, T-54, T-55 of which most retired, some in storage)
Belgium: 0
Estonia: 0
Iceland: 0
Latvia: 0
Lithuania: 0
Luxembourg: 0

Bulgaria: 160 T-72M2
Canada: active 59 Leopard 2 tanks (31 2A4+, 12 2A4MCAN and 16 2A6MCAN), as of July 2015. 66 Leopard C2 (Leopard 1A5 equivalent) Acquired total of 20 Leopard 2A6M, 20 Leopard 2A4M CAN, 40 Leopard 2A4+ plus 20 A4s leased)
Croatia: 72 M-84A4 (modern T-72 variant), of which 48 to be further modernized and retained.
Czech Rep: active 30 T-72M4CZ, reserve 93 T-72M1
Denmark: 57 Leopard 2A5
France: active 200 AMX Leclerc, 206 more in storage
Germany: 135 Leopard 2A6, 70 Leopard 2A6M, 20 Leopard 2A7+. Total number be increased from 250 to 328
Greece: 170 Leopard 2A6HEL, 183 Leopard 2A4, 501 Leopard 1A5GR, 390 M48A5MOLF (EMES-18), 101 M60A3TTS
Hungary: 12 T-72M/T-72M1, 2 more in reserve
Italy: 200 Ariete C1
Netherlands: active 18 Leopard 2A7, 48 stored
Norway: 52 Leopard 2A4NO (upgrading to A5)
Poland: 142 Leopard 2A5, 105 Leopard 2A4, 2 Leopard-NJ
Portugal: active 31 Leopard 2A6, 6 training/reserve
Romania: 54 TR-85M1 Bizon, 235 TR-85, 43 TR-580, 495 T-55AM/AM2
Slovakia: active 22 T-72M1, 35 T-72M1 stored
Slovenia: active 19 M-84 (35 more in operational reserve), reserve 30 M-55S (Israeli upgraded T-54/55)
Spain: 219 Leopardo 2E (=A6), 54 Leopard 2A4 Main Battle Tank (54 more in reserve )
Turkey: 354 Leopard 2A4NG, 227 Leopard 1A3, 170 Leopard 1T, 170 M60Sabra, 658 M60A3TTS, 104 M60A1, 758 M48A5T2
United Kingdom: 309 Challenger 2 in operational service (287 mbt and 22 driver training tanks), plus 98 in climate controlled storage (60 recently removed from storage for active service)
United States: M1 Abrams: 2,831 active service plus 3,500 in storage (Total 6331), of which US Army 1,174 M1A2 and M1A2 SEP variants plus 4,393 M1A1 variants and USMC 403 M1A1 (Total 5970)

Leopard 2 active subtotal (A4 or better) 59+57+225+18+52+249+37+273+581 = 1,278
Subtotal active other modern: Challenger 2: 309; Ariete C1: 200; LeClerc: 200; M60Sabra: 170 = 879
Subtotal: some number of US M1 Abrams stationed in Europe.

So, NATO at least 2,157 modern MBTs, not counting US tanks and not counting the Leopard 2s of non-NATO European countries like Austria (114 2A4), Finland (100 2A4), Sweden (120 Leopard 2(S) / Strv 122) and Switzerland (134 modernized 2A4 / Pz87WE + 192 2A4 / Pz87 stored).

 

[barbarosa]

NATO will never fight against Russia.