Who would win?

With all due respect most people making posts on this subject do not have a clue, the UK and US would win a conventional war at a canter.

Firstly in order to fight a war you need money, the US dollar is the world reserve currency meaning most international transactions are denominated in USD, meaning all the US needs to do when it wants to purchase essential war material from the international markets is to print some more dollars, the US also spends more than the next seven largest powers combined on defence. A simple glance at the numbers on here shows the disparity in budgets http://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp

The US, UK and Russia are amongst a small handful of countries with global expeditionary warfare capability, meaning the ability to project a large combined arms military battle group to any point on the planet and to sustain that battle group logistically, China does not yet have this capability, the Chinese can of course operate in Asia.

One of the key elements to winning a war is control of sea supply routes, the key to dominating the sea are attack submarines and air superiority, the US has the most submarines in the world and all are nuclear powered meaning they can operate for far longer than diesel powered subs.

The UK also has an all nuclear powered submarine force; while Russian and China have nuke and diesel powered fleets, see http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-submarines.asp.

The US has 19 aircraft carriers, 10 being super carriers that carry 75 aircraft each; even the so called helicopter carriers have jets (harriers)

Air superiority is the key to winning any modern war, in-fact no state on state full scale conventional war has been won without control of the skies, Vietnam does not count as the US would have invaded North Vietnam if it was a full scale war, however that could have started WW3 hence why they didn’t, had they invaded the north then the war would have been won.

The disparity in numbers is even more clear in the air http://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total.asp The US has 13,444 aircraft in its air force compared to Russia’s 3,547 and Chinas 2942, that is more than Russia and China combined without counting the UK’s 879. The US also has more fighters, attack helicopters, transport helicopters etc.

So Russia does not even hold a numbers advantage as some of you seem to think.

Everybody also seems to agree that the US and UK has a technological advantage in terms of aircraft.

The only area that China and Russia enjoys a significant number advantage is in main battle tanks, however without control of the skies, it would be a turkey shoot as per Gulf war 1, when Iraqi tanks were shot to pieces on the highway out of Kuwait.

Evengodsfall wrote:

With all due respect most people making posts on this subject do not have a clue, the UK and US would win a conventional war at a canter.

Firstly in order to fight a war you need money, the US dollar is the world reserve currency meaning most international transactions are denominated in USD, meaning all the US needs to do when it wants to purchase essential war material from the international markets is to print some more dollars, the US also spends more than the next seven largest powers combined on defence. A simple glance at the numbers on here shows the disparity in budgets globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp

The US, UK and Russia are amongst a small handful of countries with global expeditionary warfare capability, meaning the ability to project a large combined arms military battle group to any point on the planet and to sustain that battle group logistically, China does not yet have this capability, the Chinese can of course operate in Asia.

One of the key elements to winning a war is control of sea supply routes, the key to dominating the sea are attack submarines and air superiority, the US has the most submarines in the world and all are nuclear powered meaning they can operate for far longer than diesel powered subs.

The UK also has an all nuclear powered submarine force; while Russian and China have nuke and diesel powered fleets, see globalfirepower.com/navy-submarines.asp.

The US has 19 aircraft carriers, 10 being super carriers that carry 75 aircraft each; even the so called helicopter carriers have jets (harriers)

Air superiority is the key to winning any modern war, in-fact no state on state full scale conventional war has been won without control of the skies, Vietnam does not count as the US would have invaded North Vietnam if it was a full scale war, however that could have started WW3 hence why they didn’t, had they invaded the north then the war would have been won.

The disparity in numbers is even more clear in the air globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total.asp The US has 13,444 aircraft in its air force compared to Russia’s 3,547 and Chinas 2942, that is more than Russia and China combined without counting the UK’s 879. The US also has more fighters, attack helicopters, transport helicopters etc.

So Russian does not even hold a numbers advantage as some of you seem to think.

Everybody also seems to agree that the US and UK has a technological advantage in terms of aircraft.

The only area that China and Russia enjoys a significant number advantage is in main battle tanks, however without control of the skies, it would be a turkey shoot as per Gulf war 1, when Iraqi tanks were shot to pieces on the highway out of Kuwait.

There is a difference between an insurgency and conventional war, the US very good at conventional, not very good at counter insurgency.

Hence why I say they would win a conventional war, to defeat an insurgency you will likely have to break the Geneva conventions e.g. Sri Lanka and defeat of Tamil Tigers , Western democracies do not have that luxury.

Evengodsfall wrote:

There is a difference between an insurgency and conventional war, the US very good at conventional, not very good at counter insurgency.

Hence why I say they would win a conventional war, to defeat an insurgency you will likely have to break the Geneva conventions e.g. Sri Lanka and defeat of Tamil Tigers , Western democracies do not have that luxury.

This thread need one poll.

Evengodsfall wrote:

With all due respect most people making posts on this subject do not have a clue, the UK and US would win a conventional war at a canter.

Firstly in order to fight a war you need money, the US dollar is the world reserve currency meaning most international transactions are denominated in USD, meaning all the US needs to do when it wants to purchase essential war material from the international markets is to print some more dollars, the US also spends more than the next seven largest powers combined on defence. A simple glance at the numbers on here shows the disparity in budgets http://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp

The US, UK and Russia are amongst a small handful of countries with global expeditionary warfare capability, meaning the ability to project a large combined arms military battle group to any point on the planet and to sustain that battle group logistically, China does not yet have this capability, the Chinese can of course operate in Asia.

One of the key elements to winning a war is control of sea supply routes, the key to dominating the sea are attack submarines and air superiority, the US has the most submarines in the world and all are nuclear powered meaning they can operate for far longer than diesel powered subs.

The UK also has an all nuclear powered submarine force; while Russian and China have nuke and diesel powered fleets, see http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-submarines.asp.

The US has 19 aircraft carriers, 10 being super carriers that carry 75 aircraft each; even the so called helicopter carriers have jets (harriers)

Air superiority is the key to winning any modern war, in-fact no state on state full scale conventional war has been won without control of the skies, Vietnam does not count as the US would have invaded North Vietnam if it was a full scale war, however that could have started WW3 hence why they didn’t, had they invaded the north then the war would have been won.

The disparity in numbers is even more clear in the air http://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total.asp The US has 13,444 aircraft in its air force compared to Russia’s 3,547 and Chinas 2942, that is more than Russia and China combined without counting the UK’s 879. The US also has more fighters, attack helicopters, transport helicopters etc.

So Russia does not even hold a numbers advantage as some of you seem to think.

Everybody also seems to agree that the US and UK has a technological advantage in terms of aircraft.

The only area that China and Russia enjoys a significant number advantage is in main battle tanks, however without control of the skies, it would be a turkey shoot as per Gulf war 1, when Iraqi tanks were shot to pieces on the highway out of Kuwait.

China would struggle even in Asia, None of the Generals have experience, and we know that one of the hardest things to do, is win a land war in Asia.

oceanhawk wrote:

we know that one of the hardest things to do, is win a land war in Asia.

The scenario I would expect would be the US and the UK taking major cities in Eastern Russia, and major cities along the Chinese coast, and interior, but only along the flat bits. They wouldn't dare fighting in the Tibetan Plateau. So they hold those major cities, and I guess that's it.

Pablo22510 wrote:

The scenario I would expect would be the US and the UK taking major cities in Eastern Russia, and major cities along the Chinese coast, and interior, but only along the flat bits. They wouldn't dare fighting in the Tibetan Plateau. So they hold those major cities, and I guess that's it.

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

we know that one of the hardest things to do, is win a land war in Asia.

Yeah, the Chinese have home ground. As far as I know, tanks can't go up these anyway:

They can all fly.. and so can their marines..

Chinese units, havent been deployed in mass since.. 1989...

China and Russia, would lose big time..

Russia alone would lose

oceanhawk wrote:

you do know, America have Helicopters and planes, and the best Army, Navy, Coast Guard, and Airforce?

They can all fly.. and so can their marines..

Chinese units, havent been deployed in mass since.. 1989...

oceanhawk wrote:

you do know, America have Helicopters and planes, and the best Army, Navy, Coast Guard, and Airforce?

They can all fly.. and so can their marines..

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

you do know, America have Helicopters and planes, and the best Army, Navy, Coast Guard, and Airforce?

They can all fly.. and so can their marines..

Yeah, well, no armoured support means no hummers, MRAP's, IFV's or Abrams. They are also dropping into prepared positions. If they do somehow get tanks in, well, Russians have large caliber AT guns with DU rounds.

Chinnoks , sea knights( RIP)

Plus, if they are really launching an invasion, they aint going that way, again that is China, the bet guns China have, are like.. water guns..

oceanhawk wrote:

Hahaha, they can get all of that there, you are forgetting

Chinnoks , sea knights( RIP)

oceanhawk wrote:

Plus, if they are really launching an invasion, they aint going that way, again that is China, the bet guns China have, are like.. water guns..

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Hahaha, they can get all of that there, you are forgetting

Chinnoks , sea knights( RIP)

Alright, neither of those can carry an Abrams, and armour is useless in that terrain. You're going back to Vietnam style tactics, except instead of rice paddies it is tea terraces you can't climb.

oceanhawk wrote:

Plus, if they are really launching an invasion, they aint going that way, again that is China, the bet guns China have, are like.. water guns..

That is idiotic. China is an exporter of arms and is a leader on drone technology.

also,

oceanhawk wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Hahaha, they can get all of that there, you are forgetting

Chinnoks , sea knights( RIP)

Alright, neither of those can carry an Abrams, and armour is useless in that terrain. You're going back to Vietnam style tactics, except instead of rice paddies it is tea terraces you can't climb.

oceanhawk wrote:

Plus, if they are really launching an invasion, they aint going that way, again that is China, the bet guns China have, are like.. water guns..

That is idiotic. China is an exporter of arms and is a leader on drone technology.

also,

That tank looks so cute for some reason... I can imagine it saying, "Im off to battle guys!"... Maybe its too early in the morning...

@Quasi-duck

That is nonsense, every nation has Sams, however the Chinease Sams are inferior, and of smaller numbers.

The American Invasion, wouldnt come through there, although I wouldnt be surprised if the Chinese Set up defenses along there. The Americans, hate it or love it, are the best fighting force in the world, nobody is a match. Their ability to conduct full scale operations anywhere in the world, and conduct many operations at once, just proves their outstanding logistics, and strength. They would knock everybody out of the way, they could win no bother.

China is over rated, like they dont even have a central command, and every single part of their army is inferior to America. Every Branch of service is inferior to America, combined with the superior skill of American forces, and better expeneced Generals. The Chinese Army, haven't actually ever been in Combat, and havent been deployed in mass, since 1989..

oceanhawk wrote:

That is nonsense, every nation has Sams, however the Chinease Sams are inferior, and of smaller numbers.

The American Invasion, wouldnt come through there, although I wouldnt be surprised if the Chinese Set up defenses along there. The Americans, hate it or love it, are the best fighting force in the world, nobody is a match. Their ability to conduct full scale operations anywhere in the world, and conduct many operations at once, just proves their outstanding logistics, and strength. They would knock everybody out of the way, they could win no bother.

China is over rated, like they dont even have a central command, and every single part of their army is inferior to America. Every Branch of service is inferior to America, combined with the superior skill of American forces, and better expeneced Generals. The Chinese Army, haven't actually ever been in Combat, and havent been deployed in mass, since 1989..

1. China has much more manpower
2. America cannot beat insurgents for their lives, literally. 15 years on and now hajji is bombing Europe.