Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Share

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  nemrod on Tue May 27, 2014 1:37 pm

    More than anyone he knows very well the real state of US, russian, chinese capacity. And he knows very well that US hegemony is going toward its end.


    AirCargo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 104
    Points : 108
    Join date : 2014-05-19
    Location : Seattle, WA. United States

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  AirCargo on Tue May 27, 2014 2:39 pm

    nemrod can you please post a link for that, thanks.

    Hannibal Barca
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1219
    Points : 1241
    Join date : 2013-12-13

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  Hannibal Barca on Tue May 27, 2014 2:46 pm

    Gosh! the poor man just posted a video of 3706 seconds and you ask him for a link!

    nemrod: I prefer to feel it than listen to it  Razz 

    AirCargo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 104
    Points : 108
    Join date : 2014-05-19
    Location : Seattle, WA. United States

    General Martin Dempsey takes note about US-Russia parity

    Post  AirCargo on Tue May 27, 2014 4:50 pm

    Sorry not all the graphics open on my end, thanks thought. Embarassed Embarassed 

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  nemrod on Tue May 27, 2014 11:19 pm

    AirCargo wrote:Sorry not all the graphics open on my end, thanks thought. Embarassed Embarassed 
    Mister:
    Firstly - the only link that I have is in french. This article came from Alfredo Jalife-Rahme at this link : Voltaire article, It is not translated in english yet : http://www.voltairenet.org/article183980.html.
    Secondly- you have the chance to be a native english tongue, it is the most important asset nowadays, and it ask you just a concentration of about one hour- obviously, if you want-.

    Sorry, untill now I could not provide you an english link other than the best reliable source, the video of the Gen. Demsey itself.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    US AND RUSSIAN MILITARY AIRCRAFT – FULL COMPARISON

    Post  nemrod on Wed May 28, 2014 11:51 pm



    http://www.migflug.com/jetflights/us-and-russian-military-aircraft-full-comparison.html


    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    USAF AND RUSSIAN AIR FORCE – A COMPARISON

    Post  nemrod on Wed May 28, 2014 11:59 pm

    I think the figures could mean all and nothing.
    It would be interresting to compare how much fighters F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-35 ? Against, how much Mig-29 familly, and Su-27 Familly, Mig-25 familly ?
    Moreover the shift of balance is near, as China will overtake next the first place. It is only a matter of time.
    Furthermore it would be relevant to compare US Air Force with Russia and China air force. The great difference between US and China/Russia is the concept. US air force was design in order to maintain the huge empire, on contrary to China, and Russia, where their air force were designed to maintain the protection of their territorry.

    Could someone among you provide some figures about this subject ?
    F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-35  against Mig-29 familly, Su-27 Familly and Mig-31.



    http://www.migflug.com/jetflights/usaf-and-russian-air-force-a-comparison.html

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  Werewolf on Thu May 29, 2014 8:26 pm

    This side is a joke on first look and not much better on 2nd look, biased alone on the part where it states "Wars and conflicts"

    It says:

    Conflict:

    Country involved (of Russia and the US)

    War in Afghanistan

    US

    Somali Civil War

    US

    Al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen

    US

    War in North-West Pakistan

    US

    Syrian Civil War

    Russia, US

    Iraq War

    US

    Ukraine crisis:

    Russia

    Like russia having a war with Ukraine, or Russia is involved in Syria.

    Those numbers and the lack of classification of what is meant by stating Aircrafts as "Attack" and another time as "Attack".

    Those numbers are not really detailed and hard to understand what they are actually referring.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  nemrod on Thu May 29, 2014 9:12 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Those numbers are not really detailed and hard to understand what they are actually referring.

    I agree with you, this is why, in this link
    http://www.russiadefence.net/t3191-usaf-and-russian-air-force-a-comparison

    I asked if someone among you could provide some figures about :
    How much F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-35 against how much Mig-29 familly, Su-27 Familly and Mig-31.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  Werewolf on Thu May 29, 2014 9:27 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    I agree with you, this is why, in this link
    http://www.russiadefence.net/t3191-usaf-and-russian-air-force-a-comparison

    I asked if  someone among you could provide some figures about :
    How much F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-35  against how much Mig-29 familly, Su-27 Familly and Mig-31.

    I think it is a job for stealthflanker.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  nemrod on Thu May 29, 2014 10:41 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    nemrod wrote:
    I agree with you, this is why, in this link
    http://www.russiadefence.net/t3191-usaf-and-russian-air-force-a-comparison

    I asked if  someone among you could provide some figures about :
    How much F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-35  against how much Mig-29 familly, Su-27 Familly and Mig-31.

    I think it is a job for stealthflanker.

    Let's wait StelthFlanker  Very Happy 

    BlackArrow
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 132
    Points : 114
    Join date : 2013-05-17

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  BlackArrow on Fri May 30, 2014 5:44 pm

    Your question is not clear. Do you mean how many American built combat aircraft compared to the number of Soviet and Russian aircraft in service? I would have thought there were more American built combat aircraft in service today. Virtually nobody still flies the MiG-25 today, maybe the Russian air force, I am not sure.

    NationalRus
    Senior Lieutenant
    Senior Lieutenant

    Posts : 637
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-04-11

    What is a "Modern" Army?

    Post  NationalRus on Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:44 am

    it was a LONG way to more or less a modern army

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  Mike E on Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:48 am

    NationalRus wrote:it was a LONG way to more or less a modern army
    Not exactly... The CCCP and Russia have always had a "modern army" of their time, but they just don't put as much emphasis on that compared with the US. - Not a problem, after all, this resulted in the F-35 and Zumwalt!

    NationalRus
    Senior Lieutenant
    Senior Lieutenant

    Posts : 637
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-04-11

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  NationalRus on Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:58 am

    Mike E wrote:
    NationalRus wrote:it was a LONG way to more or less a modern army
    Not exactly... The CCCP and Russia have always had a "modern army" of their time, but they just don't put as much emphasis on that compared with the US. - Not a problem, after all, this resulted in the F-35 and Zumwalt!

    what was modern in our army the past 2 dacades? our army in the CCCP was already technologicaly outdated which escalated quickly in the 90's till early 2000, a giant standing on legs of paper, rosting away

    and we had horrible military doctine for to long, which emphasised on mobilisation, was unfelxible and slow, ever heard of our skeleton devisions? its paper division which had on paper thousends of men but did had in fact only had technical staff and were supossed to be filled in by young untrained men through mobilisation for which storage equipment would be dusted off Rolling Eyes

    now yeah, a modern army, with a good military doctrine, mobile unites, good trained staff

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  Mike E on Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:19 am

    NationalRus wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    NationalRus wrote:it was a LONG way to more or less a modern army
    Not exactly... The CCCP and Russia have always had a "modern army" of their time, but they just don't put as much emphasis on that compared with the US. - Not a problem, after all, this resulted in the F-35 and Zumwalt!

    what was modern in our army the past 2 dacades? our army in the CCCP was already technologicaly outdated which escalated quickly in the 90's till early 2000, a giant standing on legs of paper, rosting away

    and we had horrible military doctine for to long, which emphasised on mobilisation, was unfelxible and slow, ever heard of our skeleton devisions? its paper division which had on paper thousends of men but did had in fact only had technical staff and were supossed to be filled in by young untrained men through mobilisation for which storage equipment would be dusted off Rolling Eyes

    now yeah, a modern army, with a good military doctrine, mobile unites, good trained staff
    The US was using weapons of the same age during that era as well. The CCCP did create great weapons anyway, like the Akula, Typhoon, Sierra, Oscar, Kirov, S-300 you name it!

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2542
    Points : 2675
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  kvs on Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:40 am

    Without information comparing the US army capabilities and those of the Russian army the whole discussion is pointless.

    The myth of US superiority arises from it rolling over 3rd world, 3rd rate armed forces such as those of Iraq. People watch the
    videos of laser guided munitions and think "that's so cool". Such "cool" are merely gimmicks.

    I would start with the Russian S-400 and the S-500 systems and evaluate their capabilities to get a good idea where things
    are and where they are going.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  Mike E on Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:46 am

    kvs wrote:Without information comparing the US army capabilities and those of the Russian army the whole discussion is pointless.

    The myth of US superiority arises from it rolling over 3rd world, 3rd rate armed forces such as those of Iraq.   People watch the
    videos of laser guided munitions and think "that's so cool".   Such "cool" are merely gimmicks.

    I would start with the Russian S-400 and the S-500 systems and evaluate their capabilities to get a good idea where things
    are and where they are going.  
    Great post...

    US forces are "cool", Russian forces get the job done. A great example is the M16 vs AK-47.

    He was talking about the past, but both of those systems will be a huge step forward.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Sep 16, 2014 2:52 am

    NationalRus wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    NationalRus wrote:it was a LONG way to more or less a modern army
    Not exactly... The CCCP and Russia have always had a "modern army" of their time, but they just don't put as much emphasis on that compared with the US. - Not a problem, after all, this resulted in the F-35 and Zumwalt!

    what was modern in our army the past 2 dacades? our army in the CCCP was already technologicaly outdated which escalated quickly in the 90's till early 2000, a giant standing on legs of paper, rosting away

    and we had horrible military doctine for to long, which emphasised on mobilisation, was unfelxible and slow, ever heard of our skeleton devisions? its paper division which had on paper thousends of men but did had in fact only had technical staff and were supossed to be filled in by young untrained men through mobilisation for which storage equipment would be dusted off Rolling Eyes

    now yeah, a modern army, with a good military doctrine, mobile unites, good trained staff

    The tragedy of Russian military after fall of USSR was not that we had no modern technology, we had all the modern stuff especially in rockets,missiles and defensive technologies from tanks up to PVO of an entire country, the tragedy was that the MIC was terminated from dozens of world leading companies to a handfull companies that struggled to not get closed or sold to western countries, that the military was unfunded and all the good equipment was rusting, that was the tradegy.

    We had all modern stuff while western countries have developed it in past 10 years like APS, ERA, IRST for Jets, the US took a long path from Wire guided TOWs to get TOWs not so wire guided which still lack behind foreign equivalents. People should get rid of the dreams and ideas they have that everything US has is modern or more modern than any other country. The point when i still was a kid and got a perception myself that US is so superior and that they only have most modern technology and i was astonished when watching an Iraq documentary where soldiers with their unarmored hummves drove to the graveyard for vehicles and used welder to cut out metal sheets from destroyed hummves or APCs and weld them to their hummves and fill the interior of their hummvees with sandbags and had to enter the vhicle through the roof. One of the soldiers mentioned that some Hummvees are good armored but not everyone had the luck to ride on them.

    Some countries are better in some fields than others and at the same time lack behind in other fields it was always that way.


    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  Mike E on Tue Sep 16, 2014 2:53 am

    Couldn't of said it better...

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:03 am

    Define a modern military

    The training? If so, then I would say yes, Russia was behind. Now they have probably more snap drills than anyone else. But they have to in order to deal with the poor training of the past.

    Equipment? Well, let me tell you, France does not even have AESA yet on their Rafale's. Eurofighter Typhoon is also lacking some of these features as well. Majority of the jets used in US are of the cold war era, much like Russia with a handful of modern ones (F-22's). During Libyan war, France ran out of guided munitions and had to resort to cement bombs. Really? At least Russia has an overt supply of dumb bombs that can more or less act like guided due to modern onboard equipment. Tanks? M1A1, as good as a tank it is, isn't all that amazing either. See the images recently of Iraqi models destroyed? It comes down to the training and the support it provides. I would say that maybe they got an edge in certain technology like ECM, due to major use of AESA radar on their jets. Some experimental like the railgun. But that is no different than Soviet test of the electromagnetic gun. At least Russia has been operating a laser based system longer (A-60).

    Thing is, it is really hard to say what is considered modern or not. Canadian army is considered modern, and our military capabilities are horribly pathetic. China? Far from modern as well in some regards, maybe more advanced than others. Russia? Well, it has its problems and has its gains. Maybe discipline and lack of modern body armor and other equipment for all troops rather than some getting everything and some not getting much. All depends on the needs.

    The term modern is very loose and is open to speculation.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  Mike E on Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:15 am

    sepheronx wrote:Define a modern military

    The training?  If so, then I would say yes, Russia was behind.  Now they have probably more snap drills than anyone else.  But they have to in order to deal with the poor training of the past.

    Equipment?  Well, let me tell you, France does not even have AESA yet on their Rafale's.  Eurofighter Typhoon is also lacking some of these features as well.  Majority of the jets used in US are of the cold war era, much like Russia with a handful of modern ones (F-22's).  During Libyan war, France ran out of guided munitions and had to resort to cement bombs.  Really?  At least Russia has an overt supply of dumb bombs that can more or less act like guided due to modern onboard equipment.  Tanks?  M1A1, as good as a tank it is, isn't all that amazing either.  See the images recently of Iraqi models destroyed?  It comes down to the training and the support it provides.  I would say that maybe they got an edge in certain technology like ECM, due to major use of AESA radar on their jets.  Some experimental like the railgun.  But that is no different than Soviet test of the electromagnetic gun.  At least Russia has been operating a laser based system longer (A-60).

    Thing is, it is really hard to say what is considered modern or not.  Canadian army is considered modern, and our military capabilities are horribly pathetic.  China?  Far from modern as well in some regards, maybe more advanced than others.  Russia? Well, it has its problems and has its gains.  Maybe discipline and lack of modern body armor and other equipment for all troops rather than some getting everything and some not getting much.  All depends on the needs.

    The term modern is very loose and is open to speculation.

    Russian training does appear to be top-notch compared with here in the US. Now that the US just shut down a large aggressor squadron, thing will only get worse.

    As for tech, Russia was behind but has completely caught up if not surpassed rivals.

    Great post Sephenrox...

    NationalRus
    Senior Lieutenant
    Senior Lieutenant

    Posts : 637
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-04-11

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  NationalRus on Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:19 am

    sepheronx wrote:Define a modern military

    The training?  If so, then I would say yes, Russia was behind.  Now they have probably more snap drills than anyone else.  But they have to in order to deal with the poor training of the past.

    Equipment?  Well, let me tell you, France does not even have AESA yet on their Rafale's.  Eurofighter Typhoon is also lacking some of these features as well.  Majority of the jets used in US are of the cold war era, much like Russia with a handful of modern ones (F-22's).  During Libyan war, France ran out of guided munitions and had to resort to cement bombs.  Really?  At least Russia has an overt supply of dumb bombs that can more or less act like guided due to modern onboard equipment.  Tanks?  M1A1, as good as a tank it is, isn't all that amazing either.  See the images recently of Iraqi models destroyed?  It comes down to the training and the support it provides.  I would say that maybe they got an edge in certain technology like ECM, due to major use of AESA radar on their jets.  Some experimental like the railgun.  But that is no different than Soviet test of the electromagnetic gun.  At least Russia has been operating a laser based system longer (A-60).

    Thing is, it is really hard to say what is considered modern or not.  Canadian army is considered modern, and our military capabilities are horribly pathetic.  China?  Far from modern as well in some regards, maybe more advanced than others.  Russia? Well, it has its problems and has its gains.  Maybe discipline and lack of modern body armor and other equipment for all troops rather than some getting everything and some not getting much.  All depends on the needs.

    The term modern is very loose and is open to speculation.

    good post

    our army suffered from a bad military doctrine, and bad training combined with horrible corruption which escalated after the fall of the CCCP, and our infantry was the most sad part, everybody likes to throw of some BS about rockets or radars or other fancy stuff (which of course has its rightfull part) but the actaully people on the ground who fight were mistreated, and horribly equiped for to long, and that alway, for nearly a century, ther were just canon fodder, my uncle served in the "glory time" of the soviet union late 70's early 80's said the same thing, soldiers were treated horrible, no respect what so ever, training was bad, food was bad, individual infantry equipment? ha in your dreams!!! but well thats how it is when you want to have a 6m man army, at some point the become just nummbers

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  Mike E on Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:22 am

    Of course things did improve and should continue to improve... I've heard that bad treatment in Russian forces is a small fraction of what it used to be.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:31 am

    NationalRus wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:Define a modern military

    The training?  If so, then I would say yes, Russia was behind.  Now they have probably more snap drills than anyone else.  But they have to in order to deal with the poor training of the past.

    Equipment?  Well, let me tell you, France does not even have AESA yet on their Rafale's.  Eurofighter Typhoon is also lacking some of these features as well.  Majority of the jets used in US are of the cold war era, much like Russia with a handful of modern ones (F-22's).  During Libyan war, France ran out of guided munitions and had to resort to cement bombs.  Really?  At least Russia has an overt supply of dumb bombs that can more or less act like guided due to modern onboard equipment.  Tanks?  M1A1, as good as a tank it is, isn't all that amazing either.  See the images recently of Iraqi models destroyed?  It comes down to the training and the support it provides.  I would say that maybe they got an edge in certain technology like ECM, due to major use of AESA radar on their jets.  Some experimental like the railgun.  But that is no different than Soviet test of the electromagnetic gun.  At least Russia has been operating a laser based system longer (A-60).

    Thing is, it is really hard to say what is considered modern or not.  Canadian army is considered modern, and our military capabilities are horribly pathetic.  China?  Far from modern as well in some regards, maybe more advanced than others.  Russia? Well, it has its problems and has its gains.  Maybe discipline and lack of modern body armor and other equipment for all troops rather than some getting everything and some not getting much.  All depends on the needs.

    The term modern is very loose and is open to speculation.

    good post

    our army suffered from a bad military doctrine, and bad training combined with horrible corruption which escalated after the fall of the CCCP, and our infantry was the most sad part, everybody likes to throw of some BS about rockets or radars or other fancy stuff (which of course has its rightfull part) but the actaully people on the ground who fight were mistreated, and horribly equiped for to long, and that alway, for nearly a century, ther were just canon fodder, my uncle served in the "glory time" of the soviet union late 70's early 80's said the same thing, soldiers were treated horrible, no respect what so ever, training was bad, food was bad, individual infantry equipment? ha in your dreams!!! but well thats how it is when you want to have a 6m man army, at some point the become just nummbers

    And if it comes down to that, then yes, I would say Russia was behind. It seems to be a problem that they are slowly dealing with, and I think it is thanks more to the fact that now they are growing the number of contract soldiers whom act far more professional and are there to make money and not some sort of weird hazing thing. As well, I think it also helped that many generals and others got sacked in recent years and now in a lot of troubled barracks, they have installed cameras. Also, with the introduction of the internet, it is easy for soldiers to prove their mistreatment, which then lights a fire under the asses of the politicians to actually do something.

    The snap drills are the best thing for Russian military, as this will be able to root out a lot of the problems they faced due to poor training. As for the equipment, well, I heard some regions, especially central, are still operating old late 80's early 90's equipment as they are not considered the most important groups. While the western military districts get some really good modern equipment and southern gets some experimental thanks to the ongoing conflict in Ingushetia. With the introduction of Ratnik and other equipments to the western and southern military districts, the far east and central will end up getting the equipment of the other troops from the west, which is not bad, not amazing, but not bad. Hopefully they will look past this, and just introduce Ratnik after initial trials with western military district, to be common with all troops through Russia. But my understanding is that this is no different in US, where Marines get some real good equipment, but Army gets hand me downs, and National guard gets the bare minimum (old Hummvees, old APC's, basic kevlar and mostly older M-16s). Hell, in Canada, our LAV III's are outfitted with basic armor protection, where they have slat armor and sandbags on it. Really, nothing wrong with it when you have to improvise. It is just modern military seems to = lack of proper number of munitions and well trained troops with semi decent equipment.

    Theoretically Ukrainian army was considered modern. Thanks to NATO's assistance in Ukraines training and military modernization in reducing number of total troops to 200,000. In the end, they are getting whooped by militia, much like our troops are barely fighting an enemy like the Taliban, now ISIS.

    Sponsored content

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:32 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 7:32 pm