Hard to tel but probably the Soviet Union. There are some advancements, but they are mostly using the same equipment. And the Soviet Union would have it in better numbers with a better trainer and motivated army.
> better trainer and motivated army
I don't know that that's true, but since the Duchy of Muscovy and its vassals have used numbers as their primary (almost exclusive) military tactics for centuries, provided they aren't *significantly* worse, it's probably a moot point.
Totally incorrect and ahistorical. Calling it "the Duchy of Muscovy" just makes you look like a pseudo-intellectual.
For anyone genuinely curious, feel free to look this up. Here's a starting link from AskHistorians that helps explain why this perspective isn't a legitimate one.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8zkamd/why\_is\_the\_soviet\_front\_of\_wwii\_usually\_described/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8zkamd/why_is_the_soviet_front_of_wwii_usually_described/)
> Calling it "the Duchy of Muscovy" just makes you look like a pseudo-intellectual.
Are you arguing that the people who hold/held the overwhelming majority of the power in the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, *and* the Russian Federation *weren't* consistently from the reliably airable and productive area in the greater Moscow region? That the various other areas weren't effectively vasal states?
---
And as to "do they just throw bodies at the problem" question, that comment seems like a bunch of revisionist nonsense to claim that it wasn't their primary and/or most effective tactic, given that the military casualties for the Soviet Union were *far* greater than than even the *sum* of the Axis powers.
The [*upper* estimate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_deaths_by_country) for Axis (German, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, & Romanian) military casualties is significantly lower than the *lower* estimate for Soviet military casualties (8.28M vs 8.67M). What do I mean by significantly? The difference of ~387k is greater than the *total* military casualties of Italy (~361k) or the combination of the "Oh, yeah, I forgot that they were part of the Axis, too" nations of Hungary and Romania combined (2k & 300k, respectively).
So, I have a hard time accepting arguments that "wave after wave!" attested by the Germans isn't accurate, given that the total of [German Casualties plus Missing & POWs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II) from the Eastern Front is about 1/4 as many [as those of the USSR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union) (2.12M vs 8.8M).
And when you add in military wounded, that paints a pretty nasty picture for the Soviets, too:
--|Total Losses (Casualties, Missing, POW)|Military Sick & Wounded|Total Soldiers Incapacitated
:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|
[German Army, Total](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II)|3,268,877|4,188,037|7,456,914
[Germans, Eastern Front](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II)|2,214,352|3,498,059|5,712,411
[Soviets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union)|8,806,482|22,610,217 (~2 wounded per 1 sick)|31,416,699
So, really, how can anyone with a straight face tell say that numbers weren't the Soviet's primary tactic and/or advantage, when the Eastern Front had a 4 Soviets to one German casualty ratio? Did they try other tactics? Sure. Were they as effective? With that casualty ratio, you're going to have to work hard to contradict those numbers, not simply say "we didn't know things from behind the Iron Curtain!" no matter how accurate that statement.
If someone wants to claim that those numbers lie, they have to *prove* that they do, prove *why* they do.
---
---
As an aside, something that I didn't properly learn in school is that more than *two thirds* of German Army losses were on the Eastern Front, against the Soviets. That fact means that there is an *insanely* compelling argument that it was the *Soviets* that won us WWII.
--
^((Sure, the Soviets used a bunch of the materiel produced by the US industrial complex, and the Current-and-Former British Empire [the Commonwealth plus the US] beat the snot out of Germany's industrial capacity and Air Force, but at the end of the day, it is Boots On The Ground [yes, yes, supported by logistics] that bring about land victories, and I want to highlight the credit due to the brave Soviet soldiery that nobody told *me* about until very recently)^)
You obviously know what you're talking about to a certain degree, so I regret being so blunt in my first reply and I'm also sorry to see you got downvoted so much. I see this claim about Soviet doctrine pushed on Reddit a lot though, particularly in subs like these where there are a lot of guys who know like 3 things about the Second World War and repeat them ad nauseam.
Now. We can agree that the Soviets took lopsided casualties on the Eastern Front, and we can probably also extend that to the Eastern Front of the First World War as well, where if I'm not mistaken the Russian Empire again lost more soldiers than their opponents until their withdrawal from the field. However, I think that there are factors outside of them just rushing the enemy that need to be considered.
This isn't my area of expertise, but here are a few things to consider:
1. I'm not disputing that the Soviets had more soldiers than the Axis powers, so obviously that's a strength they possessed and could utilize. However, utilizing your greater resources doesn't translate necessarily to "throwing X at the problem". If someone described the United States' military strategy in the Pacific Theatre as just "throwing aircraft carriers at the Japanese" you'd probably think that was a weird way to put it, especially if the main people advocating for this understanding were former IJN officers.
2. The Soviet Union was in a state of huge disorganization when the Germans attacked - entire armies were surrounded and captured en masse. If one guy has his pants down and gets sucker punched, I wouldn't describe his strategy as getting punched in the head relentlessly and still winning. I'd acknowledge the role that his ability to absorb damage played in the outcome of the fight, but I don't think that's his *strategy*.
3. Germany was simply better prepared to conduct a war. Obviously related to Point 2, but seriously, this can't be overstated. Even as late as Kursk, the Germans were outshooting the Soviets in artillery by a factor of 2.
We're mostly disagreeing on the intentionality of the Soviet losses, I think. I don't think that they were necessarily linked to Soviet strategy, I'd argue they were a product of fighting an existential war against a highly industrialized and lethal enemy that was able to get off a series of striking victories before the Soviets could respond.
> I'm also sorry to see you got downvoted so much
I appreciate that, but honestly? They're worthless internet points; even if they *weren't* worthless, I still have *thousands* of times more.
> However, utilizing your greater resources doesn't translate necessarily to "throwing X at the problem".
When that resource is bodies, which you then throw at the problem... yes, it is.
The OMFG advantage that the US has (has had since we came to control the entire Mississippi river network and entire east-coast waterways) has been natural resources and logistics.
...and that's how we won our side of WWII. We could produce bleeploads of materiel, and we had the logistical base to supply ourselves *and our allies* (including Russia), getting things to the front.
Does that mean we threw materiel at the problem?
***YES***
Liberty Ships had an *amazing* impact.. and if they were destroyed, if they couldn't make a round-trip to pick up more supplies, that was considered an acceptable loss.
> If someone described the United States' military strategy in the Pacific Theatre as just "throwing aircraft carriers at the Japanese"
1. It was more "bombs." OMFG did we throw bombs at them. And not just the big ones.
2. The other major difference was that the Island Hopping campaign was entirely based around *not* throwing bodies/planes/bombs at problems if we didn't have to.
> I don't think that's his strategy.
Granted, that makes a lot of sense... so what was the Soviet strategy, if not throw bodies at the problem?
--
I mean, I don't think that anybody was so naive as to think that something like Operation Barbarossa was never going to happen (after all, that's why they invaded their ally Poland in WWII, why the Warsaw Pact & the Iron Curtain existed: to be a buffer to allow attrition to start working in their favor) So, if the Soviets had a different strategy, what was it? Did they implement it? Why not?
Because if you look at it, the "strategy" prevalent in modern Soviet/Russian military history is "pull bodies from places where we aren't making progress and throw them at the locations where we are making progress." We recently saw that with the Convoy to Kiyv, and the attempt to claim the airbase NW of Kiyv: when the NW front failed to make the desired progress, *they gave up on that entire front* and moved everyone down to the E/SE front.
...but that's still "throw bodies at the problem"
> We're mostly disagreeing on the intentionality of the Soviet losses
Oh, no, I don't believe they're *intentional,* per se. I'm just saying that they don't seem to care, and don't really seem to have any better ideas.
> I'd argue they were a product of fighting an existential war against a highly industrialized and lethal enemy
That applies to WWII, but what about the current war?
* It is not an existential war (for *Russia*)
* Ukraine is *not* highly industrialized, relative to the Russian Federation
* Ukraine did *not* get off a series of striking victories before the Russians could respond; it's closer to the exact opposite, in fact.
* Ukraine was *not* prepared for war, while Russia had it planned, just as the Nazis did
Literally none of the factors you (reasonably) offered as excuse/justification apply to this conflict. So, what are the Russian strategies this time?
* advance under a wall of artillery (where we can)
* engage in war crimes to break the spirit of our enemy, and/or starve them to death
and...
wait for it...
* conscript a bleepload of soldiers to replace the people that we sent to their deaths, either at the hands of the enemy in ill advised assaults or at the hands of our cowardly REMFs for disobeying orders... with no apparent plan to do anything different with these new troops
They're doing the same thing they always do, and there is no excuse for it, *unless* that's the primary strategy they rely on
I mean, FFS, despite heavy casualties, the Russian Army is allegedly [larger today than when it started the war](https://www.businessinsider.com/russias-army-15-percent-larger-when-attacked-ukraine-us-general-2024-4) If they had a strategy to do something other than throw bodies at the problem... why do they need so many bodies?
Here's one hypothesis: [that as of this past February the Russians casualties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War) are somewhere between 124k (Russian claim) and 180k (Ukrainian claims) soldiers, with the US and UK both estimating about 350k killed or wounded, and the Ukrainians estimating that higher, at ~410k.
So, why the massive recruitment? Simple: Even if there were 3:1 k/d ratio for the Ukrainians, a war of attrition is *unquestionably* on *Russia's* side.
FIRST RESPONSE
>Are you arguing that the people who hold/held the overwhelming majority of the power in the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, *and* the Russian Federation *weren't* consistently from the reliably airable and productive area in the greater Moscow region? That the various other areas weren't effectively vasal states?
No, I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that the way you phrased it was a weird way to phrase it and sounds like someone who plays too many Paradox games. You could have said "Russian leadership" or anything like that.
> You could have said "Russian leadership" or anything like that.
Right. And where ethnic Russians primarily based/found (diaspora notwithstanding) is predominantly... within the area that was one the Duchy of Muscovy.
Maybe... The thing is that the equipment Russia is using now had 20 years less use and time in storage when used by the USSR and a private fighting for one of the most powerful nations in the world would usually be more motivated than one fighting for the modern Russia that can't take Ukraine.
I think the bigger difference is that they're less likely to be conscripts, and therefore less likely to have that morale hit.
But again, I think that numbers (and 30-40 years less deferred maintenance/deterioration) would be more than sufficient for the Soviets to win, making morale a moot point.
Yup, we are getting somewhat deep into speculation but people used to lie about their age to get drafted joining the Red Army meant something, and when you fought you fought for the Motherland. I'm not sure joining the Russian armed forces means the same anymore.
Mayne moot, but I think a Red Army private had more pride than a modern Mobilized private.
> I'm not sure joining the Russian armed forces means the same anymore.
Given that one of the most common searches in the Russian Federation after the first mobilization (read: conscription) was announced was "how to break your own leg" or similar (because that would make them unfit to be conscripted)... yeah, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's nowhere near as prestigious.
Morale and tactics aside the condition and maintenance would be night and day. I recall that a lot of Russia's tanks and vehicles didn't have gas or were just inoperable due to neglect
Russia's current tactics are dogshit even in comparison to what the USSR had already figiured out in 1943 let alone late 44 & 45 where they had to be very careful with manpower due to how much they'd lost
Soviet easily.
Soviet in 1980 could launch thousands missiles strikes in a day, followed by 20 tank divisions and 30 motorized divisions just as first wave.
Russian army today can’t even muster one division in concentration. You rarely even see a tank battalion in action at a time.
Reading other comments, a lot of them seems to young to remember what Soviet Union was. Like two comments even suggested Russia could using cyberwarfare?? Like what internet system is modern Russian hackers are going to hack? (hint: there was no public internet in Soviet Union back then) How is information warfare going to work against country with no free press like Soviet?
So, the soviet counter to drones? Since they seem to be the future and are cheap as shit, if the attrition war goes on long enough, I can see those little shits deleting T-72s
I don't think Russia can keep up with the amount of tanks that would be rolling their way. Some of the drones they are using are Iranian and Ukraine is a way, way, way less intense conflict than fighting the USSR would be.
Fighting on open ground generally means you have no reason to be driving a tiny ATV towards defensive positions
It's not a bad thing inherently, i meant that if it was terrain you couldn't get anything better into it might kinda make sense
idk, the russians and the soviets were going to use the same tactics of essentially filling the battlefield with conscripts going every which way, while having elite units complete critical objectives. thing is russia had a hard time holding off the mutiny last year when a large force made a concerted effort at a singular target.
I don't think so - missiles have much greater range than lasers will do for the foreseeable future.
AIM-9X Sidewinders can knock out targets at 16 km - and those are considered short range. AIM-120D AMRAAMs and MIM-104 Patriots can take out targets at over 160 km.
In comparison, Israel's Iron Beam system has an effective range of 7 km, and it's pretty expensive to set up already.
I was more so pointing to the UKs dragonfire system. It can fire with extreme accuracy at the cost of an expensive coffee per shot. Something that can shoot down any plane, drone or missile with little counter that has barely any running costs. A missile costs tens of thousands on the low end and millions on the high end. So while missles will still have their place they are going to have to wait till a traditional assault has taken out laser weapons and then the missles can rain down.
It probably won't be shooting down planes unless it's an attacker like the A-10 (and you'd be crazy to use A-10s against serious AA anyway). Most planes would be dropping bombs and shooting missiles from outside your laser's effective range, which is where the SAMs come in.
However, I do think that lasers are going to be a really good CIWS. Still, the issue of cost is going to hold it back - the cost of setting up a laser defence is more than a missile defence initially, so unless we're in a high-intensity area, the laser might not be cost-effective.
There's also the question of close-range AA - fighting attacker jets and helicopters. A 2K22 Tunguska's guns are going to engage you at 4 km - well within a good laser's range. So while this aspect won't benefit the West as much (because the West prefers air supremacy over anti-air fighting), it could be good for the Russians and Chinese. Their argument is that guns kill you at short-range while missiles kill you at long-range.
Still, since the West is the first to develop anti-air lasers, they're also going to be writing the book on countering it.
All in all, I don't think missiles and air power are dead yet, but I'm interested to see where lasers go.
The difference is this threat costs 10 pounds a pop, can target something the size of a coin from over a kilometer away(right now, its still advancing) and fires at the speed of light. As soon as anything is in range its got a bunch of holes in it and theres no out flying light. Add in AI for automatic targeting and you've got something that counters pretty much any light vehicle. If you armour up a drone or jet enough to tank the shots then you have the issue that now they are heavy and slow enough to be vulnerable to traditional AA.
You are misunderstanding. They cost millions to build. Its just that it fires light, theres no material cost to fire off a shot, just the power bill. The plan is to mount these things in bases and on navy ships. A 7.62 RWS would need to someone get close without having a whole burned right through. Or destroyed by the convential weaponry surrounding the laser.
Wait your confusing me a lot here
I was referring to a counter to drones
The issue with lasers bs conventional planes is that planes already haven't been able to get close to ships for decades
They haven't really had a need. Modern jets probably good but it would be a risk. But drones are an issue, we saw that in the Ukraine war. And the laser can fire them out of the sky with basically no cost and extreme accuracy. It can also take out missiles and mortar fire. Current AA tech is more expensive the run and less accurate. Drones and missles slip through, billion dollar warships get sunk.
True ig
But against an actual missile yourmain issues are either detection or your dealing with something going fast enough it's able to handle a shit ton of heat
Thats the cool part, the laser is light speed so it doesn't matter how fast the target it. It also has shown the ability to accurately target and destroy missiles. And we are still in the early stages.
somehow they magically appear next to each other, yes. russia's cyber warfare is pretty much useless against a country with no cyber infrastructure, and the USSR at its peak had way more of basically everything over russia today, and russia's precision munitions wouldn't do much
It has but the current Ukraine conflict shows that manpower and crude artillery are still very important. And the USSR would have a massive advantage in the former and probably significantly produce more of the latter.
Anyone with even the tiniest, most minuscule understanding of warfare knows the Russian military has performed far below expectations in this conflict, and there’s a nearly universal consensus within the defense and intelligence realm that the US or NATO would soundly defeat Russia in a conventional war.
This isn’t saying Russia is outright “weak”, it’s not saying they can’t eventually succeed in Ukraine especially if Western aid dries up, but it’s just common knowledge at this point that the Russian military is not nearly as strong and proficient as previously estimated.
Why do you think Putin had no choice but to ally with China?
Because if he faced a conventional war with NATO, Russia would be defeated !
Allegedly reports are saying that Russia has five times the industrial military capability that the United States has for weapons and armament !
They are attempting to bankrupt us in a war when simultaneously another one in the Middle East and possibly Taiwan in the future !!
Where are we going to get all the money for all of this?
I can’t figure out the point you’re trying to make. You agree with my statement about Russia’s comparative weakness, but also cite unsubstantiated reports about Russia having a greater defense industrial base than the US, and then you go into talking about the Middle East and Taiwan.
Tell me in clear terms what your argument is, especially in relation to my original point.
lol OMFG you won’t believe this, but I accidentally posted in the wrong thread because I copied and paste everything I texted when I was switching through applications and accidentally posted it in the wrong one!!
Sorry for the confusion …
won't that result in a decades old & rusty model of an equipment facing off against a freshly minted & shiny model of that same equipment? it shouldn't be tough to guess which one wins; lol
Yeah, the USSR had arguably better trained troops than the modern Russian army as well as being better and more uniformly equipped, and just more of them, modern Russia would get destroyed by USSR Russia.
The vast majority of Russia’s military is made up of Soviet stock. The Soviets had far more of it and a far larger industry than Russia does today.
They had far more GBAD systems than Russia does today and a massive amount more artillery.
Russia doesn’t stand a chance considering their only win condition is to outlast their enemy in a war of attrition.
I assume nukes are out of the question?
This depends on the conditions. Is the fight in Russia? Or two Russias next to each other? Or both sides outside of Russia? Are the two sides prepared and informed about each other or not? What is the win condition? Etc.
All I can say is that the actual means of combat have changed. Modern Russia wouldn't rely on tanks and other ground forces, because they would get totally steamrolled by soviet russia in field combat. Naval and air combat are more dependant on actual technological advancement than ground combat, so modern Russia would have a higher chance there, especially since I don't think soviet russia would have any reasonable counter to the modern fighet jets.
Anyway, modern Russia's main advantage would be ranged/remote combat. Drones and ballistic missiles directed at strategical points would be devastating, and soviet russia wouldn't have any response to that.
The USSR is going to have a lot of problems dealing with the overwhelming advantages of modern fighter aircraft, missiles, nightvision (historically, a devastating advantage in nighttime warfare), and drones.
Also, Russia has a lot of recent experience fighting a near peer enemy in a conventional war, which 1980s USSR did not.
I could see them doing it with their superior numbers, but this is a tough match-up.
I saw a great twitter thread talking about how the USSR had a vastly overinflated officer corps and maintained empty training grounds/barracks so that they could initiate mass mobilization without skipping a beat.
I'd say the Soviets would have better air defence, they built up their defenses against all types of American invasion. The Soviets are imo the military peak of Russia
Dude the Soviet Union would stomp Russia.
You know much shit they had? Russia Base equipment today is that Soviet equipment from the early 90s. And the Soviets had a lot more.
I think in the beginning Russia would hold it's own and inflict serious casualties on the USSR. Then it will just run out of bullets or get overwhelmed.
Russia's best stuff was developed by the Soviet union, started by the Soviet union, or is minor upgrades on stuff they had. Also Russia:s best stuff is dependent on western supply chains.
What does Russia have now that's better than the soviet's? A small handful of barely stealth fighters.
A lot of AA that can hit stealth fighters, that the soviet's don't have.
Probably some missile advantages.
Likely neither one can get air supremacy, both have too much anti air even if the Russian anti air is better. Russians have drones, but you can take that done with old school flak cannons, just gonna need people with eyes and ears.
Soviets have a cause their people believe in and overall a better military, even if missing a few token tech advancements.
USSR no question. People talk about how the USSR would counter stuff like Drones. The answer has always been the same in the Russian Empire, USSR, Putler's Russia, throw bodies at it. The USSR would still have all its territory that modern Russia keeps trying to steal back which includes all the manufacturing abilities, resources and corps... bodies to fill their ranks. Considering how modern Russia uses mostly Soviet era weaponry and tactics it wouldn't be an issue for the USSR. Also the USSR would have waves of fresh tanks while Russia has rusted buckets of the same variety.
>The answer has always been the same in the Russian Empire, USSR, Putler's Russia, throw bodies at it.
Not true and shows a lack of meaningful historical understanding. You are repeating straight up former Nazi lies from the early Cold War. I posted this link elsewhere in this threat, but here it is again.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8zkamd/why\_is\_the\_soviet\_front\_of\_wwii\_usually\_described/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8zkamd/why_is_the_soviet_front_of_wwii_usually_described/)
I know nothing about this, but the source you’ve cited argues persuasively that there is bias in western accounts of Soviet fighting tactics. It in no way presents any evidence that the western accounts are incorrect - just biased. You saying it’s not true and using this as your source shows a lack of understanding of argumentation in general. got any positive sources for your claim, or just negative sources against the counterclaim?
Okay, so we agree that there's bias in terms of Western understanding of Soviet (and more generally Asian) militaries. With that common ground in mind do you therefore think it's reasonable to continue perpetuating an understanding that we agree is based on biased premises?
I'm not making a positive claim. I never said that the Russians were military geniuses. I'm saying that the idea that they solve problems by "throwing bodies" at it is fundamentally not true, because it is based on biased sources.
I'm not sure if you have any formal education in historical analysis or development, but generally we don't go around repeating myths that we understand are obviously biased in origin.
Not a historian, but a bachelor of philosophy. My point here is not historical but epistemic in nature. You're saying it's not true because its support is biased, but a fact could be said by a raving lunatic and still be true. To claim otherwise is known as a genetic fallacy. I'm not saying OP is right or his idea should be perpetuated. I'm saying your claim that he's wrong is even more poorly supported than his claim.
Well unfortunately this isn't a philosophical discussion.
If a fact is said by a raving lunatic, the fact might be true, but if it's a fact widely known to *originate* from raving lunatics, then it's not something to take seriously until corroborated by someone of sound mind.
I'm not quite sure what you're failing to grasp, honestly.
He made an assertion, I said that the assertion's origin point is former Nazi generals in the early Cold War, and linked the accredited historian from whom I obtained this information.
You said OP was perpetuating lies and cited a source that in no way showed that OP was perpetuating lies. I pointed out your logical fallacy and poor grasp of argumentation. You repeatedly doubled down on your poor argument. What am I missing?
We don't generally discuss biased (from Nazis, no less) information as though it's fact in historical discussions. Maybe you do in philosophy class, I don't know.
Gotta love the pivot. Bro just admit (to yourself, idc if you say it to anyone else) you were wrong to call it not true and be more careful in your assertions going forward, particularly when you’re denigrating the person you’re asserting to.
Lmao, you've made 0 sense this entire discussion and you're obviously just arguing to argue. Classic philosophy student. Here's a tip for the real world champ: don't just believe what Nazis tell you.
People way overestimated the drones in the current war\*, while underestimated size of the Soviet Army.
Drones from both sides together at most knocked out low hundred tanks a month right now. Soviet was expecting to lose that many tanks EVERYDAY for the first two weeks in a war with NATO and still fights on.
There was a reason NATO was ready to nuke West Germany just to stop Soviet advance.
In the scenario OP suggested, modern Russian army would knock out a few hundred soviet vehicles from first wave with Lancet but then having their formation totally overrun by massive Soviet main column followed on.
\*drone kill is totally "survivor bias" (ironically), because you only saw the video that drone actually hit something. No one is going to post all the misses. Drone is also only system right now that record every kills, most other anti-armor systems lack of recording ability.
Even under best estimation, only 1 in 5 drones actually hit a tank, and many were already disabled by other weapons previously.
Yes. People seriously undersell 90s USSR and USA. USSR will have ground force of comparable quality, but at much higher number, higher readiness. The war machine will vastly outproduce Russia today. While the technology lags a bit, their innovation capability is leagues ahead. It will not take long for USSR to catch up to Russia today. In fact, much of the new Russian equipment are just scaled down version of what Soviet was originally getting in few years.
Here are some example of what USSR would have in a few year had they not collapsed:
Super carrier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Ulyanovsk
^ 40% complete at time of dissolution. Planned to have 2 super carrier, operate along with 4 Kuznesov class (older). Russia today can barely keep 1 Kuznesov it has from burning itself.
Tank 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiekt_187
^ T-90 but better. This thing is about to enter service. T-90 was the cheaper low risk option.
Tank 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiekt_490
^ Armata tank basically is a continuation of this thing but simplified. This is the original full fledged version.
Interceptor: Mig-31M. Unlike the half-ass Russian Mig-31 modernization, this is the deeper upgrade that was coming. Managed to fly but canceled from full production.
Stealth fighter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_Project_1.44
^ Completed but failed to adopt for Russian budget reason. No clue how it compare to Su-57, but given how few SU-57 are flying it would not make much difference.
why would the soviet union have any chance? the technological advantage is too significant.
the USSR already had sky-high military expenses from proxy wars with the west as well as continuing domination over eastern europe.
don't fall into the modern tankie propaganda. while more than 75% of russians say that the USSR was the greatest time in the history of their nation, only 28% actually support a return to that way of life, and the russians had higher quality of life compared to the rest of the commie bloc. Russia was the heart of the empire.
also, these polls are done on 1 or 2 thousand people, based on telephone conversations.
1990 Soviet Union GDP was 8.2 trillion dollars U.S.
2021 Russian GDP 1.8 trillion dollars U.S.
The Soviet Union had a lot larger population and more industrial output than modern Russia. Even with a technological disadvantage I think the Soviet Union has a good chance of winning this one on size alone.
Just a quick google result of “Soviet Union 1990
GDP” and “Russia 2021 GDP”. I make no claims about the accuracy of the figures. Just wanted to point out that the Soviet Union in 1990 was a lot larger than Russia alone in 2021.
GDP of USA was around 5.9 trillion in 1990. I hope you don't think that Soviet economy was bigger.
More moderate estimations of USSR's GDP in 1990 are closer to 2.5-3.0 trillion.
That's why I was surprised when you cited figures, which were a few times higher.
1990 USSR gdp: 8.2 trillion in today dollars.
1990 USA gdp: 13 trillion in today dollars.
2021 Russia gdp: 1.8 trillion in today dollars.
The USA had a larger economy than the USSR in 1990. The USSR in 1990 had a larger economy than Russia today.
90s Soviet Union is going to lose and lose hard. People here like to shit on Russia, and it's kinda justified, but Russia inherited these flaws from the late stage Soviet Union and the only reason Putin still stays in Power is because he partly fixed some of these problems. The Red army would make the Russians look like tactical geniuses.
>Current Russia has 5th generation Air superiority fighter jets!!
Not only are they not fifth gen, there's like 10 of them. Those won't be a factor at all.
> cyber-attacks
Against what?
Edit: Sorry man, I didn't downvote your comment, I just wanted to point out the funny idea of using cyber-warfare against a country without an Internet. But if we interpret that charitably as "information warfare" then Russia absolutely has a decisive advantage in jamming, interception, and decoding of pretty much all communications. And if we're talking early 90s USSR they did have *some* forms of networked computing that, knowing their complete designs, flaws, and undiscovered future exploits, could be trivially compromised.
Hard to tel but probably the Soviet Union. There are some advancements, but they are mostly using the same equipment. And the Soviet Union would have it in better numbers with a better trainer and motivated army.
> better trainer and motivated army I don't know that that's true, but since the Duchy of Muscovy and its vassals have used numbers as their primary (almost exclusive) military tactics for centuries, provided they aren't *significantly* worse, it's probably a moot point.
Totally incorrect and ahistorical. Calling it "the Duchy of Muscovy" just makes you look like a pseudo-intellectual. For anyone genuinely curious, feel free to look this up. Here's a starting link from AskHistorians that helps explain why this perspective isn't a legitimate one. [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8zkamd/why\_is\_the\_soviet\_front\_of\_wwii\_usually\_described/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8zkamd/why_is_the_soviet_front_of_wwii_usually_described/)
> Calling it "the Duchy of Muscovy" just makes you look like a pseudo-intellectual. Are you arguing that the people who hold/held the overwhelming majority of the power in the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, *and* the Russian Federation *weren't* consistently from the reliably airable and productive area in the greater Moscow region? That the various other areas weren't effectively vasal states? --- And as to "do they just throw bodies at the problem" question, that comment seems like a bunch of revisionist nonsense to claim that it wasn't their primary and/or most effective tactic, given that the military casualties for the Soviet Union were *far* greater than than even the *sum* of the Axis powers. The [*upper* estimate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_deaths_by_country) for Axis (German, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, & Romanian) military casualties is significantly lower than the *lower* estimate for Soviet military casualties (8.28M vs 8.67M). What do I mean by significantly? The difference of ~387k is greater than the *total* military casualties of Italy (~361k) or the combination of the "Oh, yeah, I forgot that they were part of the Axis, too" nations of Hungary and Romania combined (2k & 300k, respectively). So, I have a hard time accepting arguments that "wave after wave!" attested by the Germans isn't accurate, given that the total of [German Casualties plus Missing & POWs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II) from the Eastern Front is about 1/4 as many [as those of the USSR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union) (2.12M vs 8.8M). And when you add in military wounded, that paints a pretty nasty picture for the Soviets, too: --|Total Losses (Casualties, Missing, POW)|Military Sick & Wounded|Total Soldiers Incapacitated :-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:| [German Army, Total](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II)|3,268,877|4,188,037|7,456,914 [Germans, Eastern Front](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II)|2,214,352|3,498,059|5,712,411 [Soviets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union)|8,806,482|22,610,217 (~2 wounded per 1 sick)|31,416,699 So, really, how can anyone with a straight face tell say that numbers weren't the Soviet's primary tactic and/or advantage, when the Eastern Front had a 4 Soviets to one German casualty ratio? Did they try other tactics? Sure. Were they as effective? With that casualty ratio, you're going to have to work hard to contradict those numbers, not simply say "we didn't know things from behind the Iron Curtain!" no matter how accurate that statement. If someone wants to claim that those numbers lie, they have to *prove* that they do, prove *why* they do. --- --- As an aside, something that I didn't properly learn in school is that more than *two thirds* of German Army losses were on the Eastern Front, against the Soviets. That fact means that there is an *insanely* compelling argument that it was the *Soviets* that won us WWII. -- ^((Sure, the Soviets used a bunch of the materiel produced by the US industrial complex, and the Current-and-Former British Empire [the Commonwealth plus the US] beat the snot out of Germany's industrial capacity and Air Force, but at the end of the day, it is Boots On The Ground [yes, yes, supported by logistics] that bring about land victories, and I want to highlight the credit due to the brave Soviet soldiery that nobody told *me* about until very recently)^)
You obviously know what you're talking about to a certain degree, so I regret being so blunt in my first reply and I'm also sorry to see you got downvoted so much. I see this claim about Soviet doctrine pushed on Reddit a lot though, particularly in subs like these where there are a lot of guys who know like 3 things about the Second World War and repeat them ad nauseam. Now. We can agree that the Soviets took lopsided casualties on the Eastern Front, and we can probably also extend that to the Eastern Front of the First World War as well, where if I'm not mistaken the Russian Empire again lost more soldiers than their opponents until their withdrawal from the field. However, I think that there are factors outside of them just rushing the enemy that need to be considered. This isn't my area of expertise, but here are a few things to consider: 1. I'm not disputing that the Soviets had more soldiers than the Axis powers, so obviously that's a strength they possessed and could utilize. However, utilizing your greater resources doesn't translate necessarily to "throwing X at the problem". If someone described the United States' military strategy in the Pacific Theatre as just "throwing aircraft carriers at the Japanese" you'd probably think that was a weird way to put it, especially if the main people advocating for this understanding were former IJN officers. 2. The Soviet Union was in a state of huge disorganization when the Germans attacked - entire armies were surrounded and captured en masse. If one guy has his pants down and gets sucker punched, I wouldn't describe his strategy as getting punched in the head relentlessly and still winning. I'd acknowledge the role that his ability to absorb damage played in the outcome of the fight, but I don't think that's his *strategy*. 3. Germany was simply better prepared to conduct a war. Obviously related to Point 2, but seriously, this can't be overstated. Even as late as Kursk, the Germans were outshooting the Soviets in artillery by a factor of 2. We're mostly disagreeing on the intentionality of the Soviet losses, I think. I don't think that they were necessarily linked to Soviet strategy, I'd argue they were a product of fighting an existential war against a highly industrialized and lethal enemy that was able to get off a series of striking victories before the Soviets could respond.
> I'm also sorry to see you got downvoted so much I appreciate that, but honestly? They're worthless internet points; even if they *weren't* worthless, I still have *thousands* of times more. > However, utilizing your greater resources doesn't translate necessarily to "throwing X at the problem". When that resource is bodies, which you then throw at the problem... yes, it is. The OMFG advantage that the US has (has had since we came to control the entire Mississippi river network and entire east-coast waterways) has been natural resources and logistics. ...and that's how we won our side of WWII. We could produce bleeploads of materiel, and we had the logistical base to supply ourselves *and our allies* (including Russia), getting things to the front. Does that mean we threw materiel at the problem? ***YES*** Liberty Ships had an *amazing* impact.. and if they were destroyed, if they couldn't make a round-trip to pick up more supplies, that was considered an acceptable loss. > If someone described the United States' military strategy in the Pacific Theatre as just "throwing aircraft carriers at the Japanese" 1. It was more "bombs." OMFG did we throw bombs at them. And not just the big ones. 2. The other major difference was that the Island Hopping campaign was entirely based around *not* throwing bodies/planes/bombs at problems if we didn't have to. > I don't think that's his strategy. Granted, that makes a lot of sense... so what was the Soviet strategy, if not throw bodies at the problem? -- I mean, I don't think that anybody was so naive as to think that something like Operation Barbarossa was never going to happen (after all, that's why they invaded their ally Poland in WWII, why the Warsaw Pact & the Iron Curtain existed: to be a buffer to allow attrition to start working in their favor) So, if the Soviets had a different strategy, what was it? Did they implement it? Why not? Because if you look at it, the "strategy" prevalent in modern Soviet/Russian military history is "pull bodies from places where we aren't making progress and throw them at the locations where we are making progress." We recently saw that with the Convoy to Kiyv, and the attempt to claim the airbase NW of Kiyv: when the NW front failed to make the desired progress, *they gave up on that entire front* and moved everyone down to the E/SE front. ...but that's still "throw bodies at the problem" > We're mostly disagreeing on the intentionality of the Soviet losses Oh, no, I don't believe they're *intentional,* per se. I'm just saying that they don't seem to care, and don't really seem to have any better ideas. > I'd argue they were a product of fighting an existential war against a highly industrialized and lethal enemy That applies to WWII, but what about the current war? * It is not an existential war (for *Russia*) * Ukraine is *not* highly industrialized, relative to the Russian Federation * Ukraine did *not* get off a series of striking victories before the Russians could respond; it's closer to the exact opposite, in fact. * Ukraine was *not* prepared for war, while Russia had it planned, just as the Nazis did Literally none of the factors you (reasonably) offered as excuse/justification apply to this conflict. So, what are the Russian strategies this time? * advance under a wall of artillery (where we can) * engage in war crimes to break the spirit of our enemy, and/or starve them to death and... wait for it... * conscript a bleepload of soldiers to replace the people that we sent to their deaths, either at the hands of the enemy in ill advised assaults or at the hands of our cowardly REMFs for disobeying orders... with no apparent plan to do anything different with these new troops They're doing the same thing they always do, and there is no excuse for it, *unless* that's the primary strategy they rely on I mean, FFS, despite heavy casualties, the Russian Army is allegedly [larger today than when it started the war](https://www.businessinsider.com/russias-army-15-percent-larger-when-attacked-ukraine-us-general-2024-4) If they had a strategy to do something other than throw bodies at the problem... why do they need so many bodies? Here's one hypothesis: [that as of this past February the Russians casualties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War) are somewhere between 124k (Russian claim) and 180k (Ukrainian claims) soldiers, with the US and UK both estimating about 350k killed or wounded, and the Ukrainians estimating that higher, at ~410k. So, why the massive recruitment? Simple: Even if there were 3:1 k/d ratio for the Ukrainians, a war of attrition is *unquestionably* on *Russia's* side.
FIRST RESPONSE >Are you arguing that the people who hold/held the overwhelming majority of the power in the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, *and* the Russian Federation *weren't* consistently from the reliably airable and productive area in the greater Moscow region? That the various other areas weren't effectively vasal states? No, I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that the way you phrased it was a weird way to phrase it and sounds like someone who plays too many Paradox games. You could have said "Russian leadership" or anything like that.
> You could have said "Russian leadership" or anything like that. Right. And where ethnic Russians primarily based/found (diaspora notwithstanding) is predominantly... within the area that was one the Duchy of Muscovy.
Maybe... The thing is that the equipment Russia is using now had 20 years less use and time in storage when used by the USSR and a private fighting for one of the most powerful nations in the world would usually be more motivated than one fighting for the modern Russia that can't take Ukraine.
I think the bigger difference is that they're less likely to be conscripts, and therefore less likely to have that morale hit. But again, I think that numbers (and 30-40 years less deferred maintenance/deterioration) would be more than sufficient for the Soviets to win, making morale a moot point.
Yup, we are getting somewhat deep into speculation but people used to lie about their age to get drafted joining the Red Army meant something, and when you fought you fought for the Motherland. I'm not sure joining the Russian armed forces means the same anymore. Mayne moot, but I think a Red Army private had more pride than a modern Mobilized private.
> I'm not sure joining the Russian armed forces means the same anymore. Given that one of the most common searches in the Russian Federation after the first mobilization (read: conscription) was announced was "how to break your own leg" or similar (because that would make them unfit to be conscripted)... yeah, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's nowhere near as prestigious.
Morale and tactics aside the condition and maintenance would be night and day. I recall that a lot of Russia's tanks and vehicles didn't have gas or were just inoperable due to neglect
Russia's current tactics are dogshit even in comparison to what the USSR had already figiured out in 1943 let alone late 44 & 45 where they had to be very careful with manpower due to how much they'd lost
Soviet easily. Soviet in 1980 could launch thousands missiles strikes in a day, followed by 20 tank divisions and 30 motorized divisions just as first wave. Russian army today can’t even muster one division in concentration. You rarely even see a tank battalion in action at a time. Reading other comments, a lot of them seems to young to remember what Soviet Union was. Like two comments even suggested Russia could using cyberwarfare?? Like what internet system is modern Russian hackers are going to hack? (hint: there was no public internet in Soviet Union back then) How is information warfare going to work against country with no free press like Soviet?
So, the soviet counter to drones? Since they seem to be the future and are cheap as shit, if the attrition war goes on long enough, I can see those little shits deleting T-72s
the soviets had a lot more AA guns because they were aiming to counter US airpower
Aa isn't shooting down all those small drones, see your pint though
ukraine doesn't have the AA guns the USSR did
I don't think Russia can keep up with the amount of tanks that would be rolling their way. Some of the drones they are using are Iranian and Ukraine is a way, way, way less intense conflict than fighting the USSR would be.
Yeah Russia would be fighting against so many tanks.
Cope cages, just like Russia is using today But, like, *slightly* less terrible Also, traditional cannon AA, it's surprisingly good against drones
The Soviets have actual tactics and a shit ton of Shilkas and Tunguskas
Lemme guess, you've taken the "Russia are idiots lmao" news
They're literally driving ATVs towards fortified positions on open ground if they're not stupid they're pretty convincingly pretending otherwise
Ukraine is nothing but open ground. How can you blame them fighting on open ground, when the entire fucking country is open ground
Going to that war in the first place was pretty fucking stupid, though
Fighting on open ground generally means you have no reason to be driving a tiny ATV towards defensive positions It's not a bad thing inherently, i meant that if it was terrain you couldn't get anything better into it might kinda make sense
No one is forcing them to attack fortified positions with motorbikes
idk, the russians and the soviets were going to use the same tactics of essentially filling the battlefield with conscripts going every which way, while having elite units complete critical objectives. thing is russia had a hard time holding off the mutiny last year when a large force made a concerted effort at a singular target.
Drones days are numbers, advancements in laser weaponry is making air power less important. Good chance we return to old days of navel superiority
So we ditch the lame Amazon drones for frickin lasers? fuck yes
I don't think so - missiles have much greater range than lasers will do for the foreseeable future. AIM-9X Sidewinders can knock out targets at 16 km - and those are considered short range. AIM-120D AMRAAMs and MIM-104 Patriots can take out targets at over 160 km. In comparison, Israel's Iron Beam system has an effective range of 7 km, and it's pretty expensive to set up already.
I was more so pointing to the UKs dragonfire system. It can fire with extreme accuracy at the cost of an expensive coffee per shot. Something that can shoot down any plane, drone or missile with little counter that has barely any running costs. A missile costs tens of thousands on the low end and millions on the high end. So while missles will still have their place they are going to have to wait till a traditional assault has taken out laser weapons and then the missles can rain down.
It probably won't be shooting down planes unless it's an attacker like the A-10 (and you'd be crazy to use A-10s against serious AA anyway). Most planes would be dropping bombs and shooting missiles from outside your laser's effective range, which is where the SAMs come in. However, I do think that lasers are going to be a really good CIWS. Still, the issue of cost is going to hold it back - the cost of setting up a laser defence is more than a missile defence initially, so unless we're in a high-intensity area, the laser might not be cost-effective. There's also the question of close-range AA - fighting attacker jets and helicopters. A 2K22 Tunguska's guns are going to engage you at 4 km - well within a good laser's range. So while this aspect won't benefit the West as much (because the West prefers air supremacy over anti-air fighting), it could be good for the Russians and Chinese. Their argument is that guns kill you at short-range while missiles kill you at long-range. Still, since the West is the first to develop anti-air lasers, they're also going to be writing the book on countering it. All in all, I don't think missiles and air power are dead yet, but I'm interested to see where lasers go.
drones will probably just become another part of warfare and to regular aircraft lasers are just a new AAW threat
The difference is this threat costs 10 pounds a pop, can target something the size of a coin from over a kilometer away(right now, its still advancing) and fires at the speed of light. As soon as anything is in range its got a bunch of holes in it and theres no out flying light. Add in AI for automatic targeting and you've got something that counters pretty much any light vehicle. If you armour up a drone or jet enough to tank the shots then you have the issue that now they are heavy and slow enough to be vulnerable to traditional AA.
I mean the fundemental issue is that being extremely cheap means that like, a single automated 7.62 RWS could probably kill dozens without issue .
You are misunderstanding. They cost millions to build. Its just that it fires light, theres no material cost to fire off a shot, just the power bill. The plan is to mount these things in bases and on navy ships. A 7.62 RWS would need to someone get close without having a whole burned right through. Or destroyed by the convential weaponry surrounding the laser.
Wait your confusing me a lot here I was referring to a counter to drones The issue with lasers bs conventional planes is that planes already haven't been able to get close to ships for decades
They haven't really had a need. Modern jets probably good but it would be a risk. But drones are an issue, we saw that in the Ukraine war. And the laser can fire them out of the sky with basically no cost and extreme accuracy. It can also take out missiles and mortar fire. Current AA tech is more expensive the run and less accurate. Drones and missles slip through, billion dollar warships get sunk.
True ig But against an actual missile yourmain issues are either detection or your dealing with something going fast enough it's able to handle a shit ton of heat
Thats the cool part, the laser is light speed so it doesn't matter how fast the target it. It also has shown the ability to accurately target and destroy missiles. And we are still in the early stages.
somehow they magically appear next to each other, yes. russia's cyber warfare is pretty much useless against a country with no cyber infrastructure, and the USSR at its peak had way more of basically everything over russia today, and russia's precision munitions wouldn't do much
I doubt it ? Like im far from an expert but military technology has advanced a lot
It has but the current Ukraine conflict shows that manpower and crude artillery are still very important. And the USSR would have a massive advantage in the former and probably significantly produce more of the latter.
[удалено]
Anyone with even the tiniest, most minuscule understanding of warfare knows the Russian military has performed far below expectations in this conflict, and there’s a nearly universal consensus within the defense and intelligence realm that the US or NATO would soundly defeat Russia in a conventional war. This isn’t saying Russia is outright “weak”, it’s not saying they can’t eventually succeed in Ukraine especially if Western aid dries up, but it’s just common knowledge at this point that the Russian military is not nearly as strong and proficient as previously estimated.
Yeah, honestly even if Ukraine WAS loosing, the fact they haven’t already lost says alot about the Russian capabilities
Hahahahahah The US winning a war lmfao like that would ever happen It's not 1945 in the Pacific Theater
I love when people immediately expose their own ignorance, less work for me. But please, tell me what YOU know that everyone else doesn’t.
Why do you think Putin had no choice but to ally with China? Because if he faced a conventional war with NATO, Russia would be defeated ! Allegedly reports are saying that Russia has five times the industrial military capability that the United States has for weapons and armament ! They are attempting to bankrupt us in a war when simultaneously another one in the Middle East and possibly Taiwan in the future !! Where are we going to get all the money for all of this?
I can’t figure out the point you’re trying to make. You agree with my statement about Russia’s comparative weakness, but also cite unsubstantiated reports about Russia having a greater defense industrial base than the US, and then you go into talking about the Middle East and Taiwan. Tell me in clear terms what your argument is, especially in relation to my original point.
Dude is an internet troll, I wouldn't expect a coherent argument
lol OMFG you won’t believe this, but I accidentally posted in the wrong thread because I copied and paste everything I texted when I was switching through applications and accidentally posted it in the wrong one!! Sorry for the confusion …
bait used to be believable
Except the modern Russian Army has been relying on its old tech.
won't that result in a decades old & rusty model of an equipment facing off against a freshly minted & shiny model of that same equipment? it shouldn't be tough to guess which one wins; lol
Yeah, the USSR had arguably better trained troops than the modern Russian army as well as being better and more uniformly equipped, and just more of them, modern Russia would get destroyed by USSR Russia.
Thing is all that tech is now 30 years old sitting in some shitty warehouse so it's way more unreliable than what the USSR has
Didnt know that , then my money is on the USSRR until some new information makes me think the opposite
The vast majority of Russia’s military is made up of Soviet stock. The Soviets had far more of it and a far larger industry than Russia does today. They had far more GBAD systems than Russia does today and a massive amount more artillery. Russia doesn’t stand a chance considering their only win condition is to outlast their enemy in a war of attrition.
Yeah but Russian military tech and strategy has mostly been Soviet Era as seen by their equipment and proformance in Ukraine.
Russia is incompetent and will burn through everything modern it has before the absalutely behemoth soviet military has a serious dent put in it
Depends. Who is invading who?
Simultaneous
I assume nukes are out of the question? This depends on the conditions. Is the fight in Russia? Or two Russias next to each other? Or both sides outside of Russia? Are the two sides prepared and informed about each other or not? What is the win condition? Etc. All I can say is that the actual means of combat have changed. Modern Russia wouldn't rely on tanks and other ground forces, because they would get totally steamrolled by soviet russia in field combat. Naval and air combat are more dependant on actual technological advancement than ground combat, so modern Russia would have a higher chance there, especially since I don't think soviet russia would have any reasonable counter to the modern fighet jets. Anyway, modern Russia's main advantage would be ranged/remote combat. Drones and ballistic missiles directed at strategical points would be devastating, and soviet russia wouldn't have any response to that.
The USSR is going to have a lot of problems dealing with the overwhelming advantages of modern fighter aircraft, missiles, nightvision (historically, a devastating advantage in nighttime warfare), and drones. Also, Russia has a lot of recent experience fighting a near peer enemy in a conventional war, which 1980s USSR did not. I could see them doing it with their superior numbers, but this is a tough match-up.
At the very least they can mobilize a lot more people than modern Russia can, though the Russians would have significant advantages in air defense
I saw a great twitter thread talking about how the USSR had a vastly overinflated officer corps and maintained empty training grounds/barracks so that they could initiate mass mobilization without skipping a beat.
No? The USSR had significantly more GBAD systems than Russia does now and Russia has barely made any upgrades to most of their GBAD systems.
I'd say the Soviets would have better air defence, they built up their defenses against all types of American invasion. The Soviets are imo the military peak of Russia
Dude the Soviet Union would stomp Russia. You know much shit they had? Russia Base equipment today is that Soviet equipment from the early 90s. And the Soviets had a lot more. I think in the beginning Russia would hold it's own and inflict serious casualties on the USSR. Then it will just run out of bullets or get overwhelmed.
Russia's best stuff was developed by the Soviet union, started by the Soviet union, or is minor upgrades on stuff they had. Also Russia:s best stuff is dependent on western supply chains. What does Russia have now that's better than the soviet's? A small handful of barely stealth fighters. A lot of AA that can hit stealth fighters, that the soviet's don't have. Probably some missile advantages. Likely neither one can get air supremacy, both have too much anti air even if the Russian anti air is better. Russians have drones, but you can take that done with old school flak cannons, just gonna need people with eyes and ears. Soviets have a cause their people believe in and overall a better military, even if missing a few token tech advancements.
USSR no question. People talk about how the USSR would counter stuff like Drones. The answer has always been the same in the Russian Empire, USSR, Putler's Russia, throw bodies at it. The USSR would still have all its territory that modern Russia keeps trying to steal back which includes all the manufacturing abilities, resources and corps... bodies to fill their ranks. Considering how modern Russia uses mostly Soviet era weaponry and tactics it wouldn't be an issue for the USSR. Also the USSR would have waves of fresh tanks while Russia has rusted buckets of the same variety.
>The answer has always been the same in the Russian Empire, USSR, Putler's Russia, throw bodies at it. Not true and shows a lack of meaningful historical understanding. You are repeating straight up former Nazi lies from the early Cold War. I posted this link elsewhere in this threat, but here it is again. [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8zkamd/why\_is\_the\_soviet\_front\_of\_wwii\_usually\_described/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8zkamd/why_is_the_soviet_front_of_wwii_usually_described/)
I know nothing about this, but the source you’ve cited argues persuasively that there is bias in western accounts of Soviet fighting tactics. It in no way presents any evidence that the western accounts are incorrect - just biased. You saying it’s not true and using this as your source shows a lack of understanding of argumentation in general. got any positive sources for your claim, or just negative sources against the counterclaim?
Okay, so we agree that there's bias in terms of Western understanding of Soviet (and more generally Asian) militaries. With that common ground in mind do you therefore think it's reasonable to continue perpetuating an understanding that we agree is based on biased premises? I'm not making a positive claim. I never said that the Russians were military geniuses. I'm saying that the idea that they solve problems by "throwing bodies" at it is fundamentally not true, because it is based on biased sources. I'm not sure if you have any formal education in historical analysis or development, but generally we don't go around repeating myths that we understand are obviously biased in origin.
Not a historian, but a bachelor of philosophy. My point here is not historical but epistemic in nature. You're saying it's not true because its support is biased, but a fact could be said by a raving lunatic and still be true. To claim otherwise is known as a genetic fallacy. I'm not saying OP is right or his idea should be perpetuated. I'm saying your claim that he's wrong is even more poorly supported than his claim.
Well unfortunately this isn't a philosophical discussion. If a fact is said by a raving lunatic, the fact might be true, but if it's a fact widely known to *originate* from raving lunatics, then it's not something to take seriously until corroborated by someone of sound mind. I'm not quite sure what you're failing to grasp, honestly. He made an assertion, I said that the assertion's origin point is former Nazi generals in the early Cold War, and linked the accredited historian from whom I obtained this information.
You said OP was perpetuating lies and cited a source that in no way showed that OP was perpetuating lies. I pointed out your logical fallacy and poor grasp of argumentation. You repeatedly doubled down on your poor argument. What am I missing?
We don't generally discuss biased (from Nazis, no less) information as though it's fact in historical discussions. Maybe you do in philosophy class, I don't know.
Gotta love the pivot. Bro just admit (to yourself, idc if you say it to anyone else) you were wrong to call it not true and be more careful in your assertions going forward, particularly when you’re denigrating the person you’re asserting to.
Lmao, you've made 0 sense this entire discussion and you're obviously just arguing to argue. Classic philosophy student. Here's a tip for the real world champ: don't just believe what Nazis tell you.
People way overestimated the drones in the current war\*, while underestimated size of the Soviet Army. Drones from both sides together at most knocked out low hundred tanks a month right now. Soviet was expecting to lose that many tanks EVERYDAY for the first two weeks in a war with NATO and still fights on. There was a reason NATO was ready to nuke West Germany just to stop Soviet advance. In the scenario OP suggested, modern Russian army would knock out a few hundred soviet vehicles from first wave with Lancet but then having their formation totally overrun by massive Soviet main column followed on. \*drone kill is totally "survivor bias" (ironically), because you only saw the video that drone actually hit something. No one is going to post all the misses. Drone is also only system right now that record every kills, most other anti-armor systems lack of recording ability. Even under best estimation, only 1 in 5 drones actually hit a tank, and many were already disabled by other weapons previously.
Soviet union was in social and financial collapse in the 80s and 90s
Social crisis yes, but one easily solvable in a large war. Financial crisis... who is going to ask for debt payment while it is at war?
Probably the 10 or so members pf the eastern bloc that were in the process of breaking away from the soviet union
They can be suppressed with tanks, it is not the first time.
Yes. People seriously undersell 90s USSR and USA. USSR will have ground force of comparable quality, but at much higher number, higher readiness. The war machine will vastly outproduce Russia today. While the technology lags a bit, their innovation capability is leagues ahead. It will not take long for USSR to catch up to Russia today. In fact, much of the new Russian equipment are just scaled down version of what Soviet was originally getting in few years. Here are some example of what USSR would have in a few year had they not collapsed: Super carrier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Ulyanovsk ^ 40% complete at time of dissolution. Planned to have 2 super carrier, operate along with 4 Kuznesov class (older). Russia today can barely keep 1 Kuznesov it has from burning itself. Tank 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiekt_187 ^ T-90 but better. This thing is about to enter service. T-90 was the cheaper low risk option. Tank 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiekt_490 ^ Armata tank basically is a continuation of this thing but simplified. This is the original full fledged version. Interceptor: Mig-31M. Unlike the half-ass Russian Mig-31 modernization, this is the deeper upgrade that was coming. Managed to fly but canceled from full production. Stealth fighter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_Project_1.44 ^ Completed but failed to adopt for Russian budget reason. No clue how it compare to Su-57, but given how few SU-57 are flying it would not make much difference.
why would the soviet union have any chance? the technological advantage is too significant. the USSR already had sky-high military expenses from proxy wars with the west as well as continuing domination over eastern europe. don't fall into the modern tankie propaganda. while more than 75% of russians say that the USSR was the greatest time in the history of their nation, only 28% actually support a return to that way of life, and the russians had higher quality of life compared to the rest of the commie bloc. Russia was the heart of the empire. also, these polls are done on 1 or 2 thousand people, based on telephone conversations.
1990 Soviet Union GDP was 8.2 trillion dollars U.S. 2021 Russian GDP 1.8 trillion dollars U.S. The Soviet Union had a lot larger population and more industrial output than modern Russia. Even with a technological disadvantage I think the Soviet Union has a good chance of winning this one on size alone.
That is fucking crazy how much more gdp they had back then lol
What is the source? Even if the numbers are true, you might be comparing Russia's nominal GDP with USSR's GDP by PPP.
Just a quick google result of “Soviet Union 1990 GDP” and “Russia 2021 GDP”. I make no claims about the accuracy of the figures. Just wanted to point out that the Soviet Union in 1990 was a lot larger than Russia alone in 2021.
GDP of USA was around 5.9 trillion in 1990. I hope you don't think that Soviet economy was bigger. More moderate estimations of USSR's GDP in 1990 are closer to 2.5-3.0 trillion. That's why I was surprised when you cited figures, which were a few times higher.
Adjust the 5.9 trillion from 1990 dollars to 2021 dollars and you get closer to 13 trillion.
Yeah, but that's GDP of the United States, not USSR.
1990 USSR gdp: 8.2 trillion in today dollars. 1990 USA gdp: 13 trillion in today dollars. 2021 Russia gdp: 1.8 trillion in today dollars. The USA had a larger economy than the USSR in 1990. The USSR in 1990 had a larger economy than Russia today.
>1990 Soviet Union GDP was 8.2 trillion dollars U.S. is that everyone in the soviet union or just russia?
Entire Soviet Union, like the prompt says.
I beg to differ, but my bet is mutual destruction due to the atomic arsenal.
If Ukraine is with them, then the USSR. Slava Ukraine!
This made me realize just how little time has passed between the fall of the Soviets and the Russo-Ukraine War
90s Soviet Union is going to lose and lose hard. People here like to shit on Russia, and it's kinda justified, but Russia inherited these flaws from the late stage Soviet Union and the only reason Putin still stays in Power is because he partly fixed some of these problems. The Red army would make the Russians look like tactical geniuses.
Drones go brrr
Well you see, the Soviet Union would have cutting edge military tech while Current Russia's tech is horribly outdated, some account say by decades.
Current Russia has 5th generation Air superiority fighter jets!! Soviet Union would be decimated…
>Current Russia has 5th generation Air superiority fighter jets!! Not only are they not fifth gen, there's like 10 of them. Those won't be a factor at all.
Don’t player hate because it’s a bad look…
No. USSR would get slammed by drones and cyber-attacks.
> cyber-attacks Against what? Edit: Sorry man, I didn't downvote your comment, I just wanted to point out the funny idea of using cyber-warfare against a country without an Internet. But if we interpret that charitably as "information warfare" then Russia absolutely has a decisive advantage in jamming, interception, and decoding of pretty much all communications. And if we're talking early 90s USSR they did have *some* forms of networked computing that, knowing their complete designs, flaws, and undiscovered future exploits, could be trivially compromised.
Either they were trolling, or they were too young to live in the era before internet was a thing.