Originally posted by Zarax
You guys played too many games...
The US forces never faced anything better than 30 years old hardware used by less trained troops than them...
Stuff like MiG-29/31 with AA9 (range:130+km and someone pulled F14 and AIM54 out of service in the meantime) supported by IL76 (or whatever their AWACS now is) can face anything except the stealth fighters/bombers (but they are putting into service their own version in the meantime, not to mention that the russian doctrine also makes large use of IRST that don't care for stealth), and on the ground T80 and 90 with reactive armour and 125mm cannons are equal or better than M1, BMP2/3 taught the US what an IFV is, and finally the Hokum is more than capable to do whatever the AH64 Apache do and more, while the older Hind kicks Blackhawck's ass in every respect.
Oh God no. NO
T-80 is not that modern. It is actually older than Abrams, and lacks the comfortability, fire control system, training and superior armour of the latter. T-90 is yet another update of T-XX series, with it's strenghts (excellent cross-country ability, durable like nothing, survives service abuse, low profile, Arena, advanced ERA systems) and weaknesses (cramped interior, fire control systems THAT WE KNOW OF obsolete and inferior to Western counterparts, ERA can be surpassed and has little effect on DU Sabot rounds, even more modern 125mm Russian guns are not as good as Rheinmetall-Borsig 120mm guns [both L44 and L55]), lack of training and so on.
BMP-2s are the tanks that were destroyed wit 25mm Bushmasters in Gulf Wars. I know these tanks; I have served with them. They are good IFVs, but obsolete - the rear doors, for example, can be penetrated with standard 7,62x51mm rifle round! Said rear doors also contain fuel tanks, and the tank interior is very open. Once again, fire control in even BMP-2Ks is nothing when compared to, say, Marders, Warriors, Bradleys, AMVs or Strykers. Amphibious capability and cross-country performance are good, although BMP-2 especially has thin tracks. It's footprint is bigger than T-72'/80's. It is BMP-1 with a new turret and more badass look, but nothing special.
BMP-3 is a new design and concept, very different from classical BMP/BMD's. It is impressively armed (100mm and 30mm guns, PKTs and new missiles which can be tube-launced - a feature also in use with later Russian tanks, such as late T-80s and T-90s).
MiG-29 is an impressive piece of weaponry, but agility and sturdiness do not play as big role as training, fire control, support and stealth. Elite MiG-29s with something completely else than AA-9s (it's a
1981 design!) can be a significant threat, especially against unprotected targets or in F/A role. Stuff like F-22 and F-35 are, however, decades newer designs. Hell, even new Falcons and Eagles are younger!
Finally, the US is sorely lacking on the AAA side.
what
You sport a grand total of ground 5 veichles (if none have been retired in the meantime) capable of offering short range coverage (IR stinger or sidewinder derivative), while the navy does a little better with the sea sparrow, at least as long as the other side doesn't use a decent radard jammer, after that semiactive guidance == useless.
Now, do you want to face this with at least 10-1 numerical odds in their favor? [/B]
what
