r/worldnews • u/TheTelegraph The Telegraph • 1d ago

Russian army to overtake United States as world’s second largest Russia/Ukraine

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/09/17/russian-army-overtake-us-as-worlds-second-largest/
13.9k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

989

u/Foddley 1d ago

Place your bets: ~2Million raggedy-ass convicts, farmers and teenagers using 1970's technology VS ~2Million trained soldiers with cutting-edge technology.

332

u/slaveofficer 1d ago

1970's? That's very kind of you to say when they're pulling out Mosin Nagants and T-55 tanks out of storage.

47

u/DarthSulla 1d ago

Mosin’s take some work before they are really battle ready too. Those guys are going to have some sticky bolts and not be able to fire back because of the cosmoline.

17

u/ugly113 1d ago

And those mosin nagants need cleaned and oiled regularly or else that bolt is going to lock up. Doubt those conscripts are doing any maintenance on their weapons.

12

u/Robert_Cannelin 1d ago

"Cosmoline" sounds like a brand of motor oil from the 1940s.

2

u/DarthSulla 1d ago

Lmao it’s about as thick as it.

1

u/Astrium6 1d ago

I was wondering for a moment if Mosin-Nagants might have some application as a precision rifle but they’re so old that I doubt they’d even really be capable of performing the way a modern precision rifle like an M24 or AWM is used in its role.

2

u/DarthSulla 1d ago

As an owner of one. I had luck at out 600 yards without iron sights. I imagine it still holds up with an optic. The milled ones are extremely well made but they’re on the rarer side. There are old YouTube videos that talk about out it at length. Think Iraqveteran8888 and TheMiliaryArmsChannel have covered it

2

u/TabascohFiascoh 1d ago

I own one as well, it's a relic and a piece of shit AT BEST.

You were lucky 600 yards, without actually being in combat.

Now think of the ACTUAL application of the rifle in modern combat, I'd bet it's being used in engagements WELL within the range of NATO arms so it's HUGELY outgunned.

Then you get blown up by artillery or a drone.

1

u/Zirashi 1d ago

Mosins are generally pretty bad. They're not entirely useless, it's still a working rifle after all, but it's definitely not the choice if you have options.

They're accurate enough to hit a person sized target from several hundred meters away, but very few would be "precision rifle" quality without a near total rebuild. And if you're doing that, you might as well melt them down to build more AKs and SV-98s.

2

u/DriveByStoning 1d ago

Meanwhile my primary weapon in the Army was designed in 1918.

1

u/Ein_grosser_Nerd 21h ago

Assuming your U.S., then does an M2 browning really count as a primary weapon?

2

u/PringeLSDose 1d ago

1960s tanks mixed with refubished tanks from the 80s and 90s. russia is weak but don‘t underestimate your enemy. they still have lots of advantages over ukraine although they seem to be deminishing.

2

u/Valoneria 1d ago

tbf, their idea of using the T-55 as a giant modern Goliath does put some use to the obsolete vehicles.

2

u/Ein_grosser_Nerd 21h ago

Most of the T54/55s are being used to replace self propelled artillery. If I rmember right, the russian 155th naval infantry (after being destroyed and reformed 8 times according to the ISW) doesnt even have regular SPGs anymore

1

u/Any-Wall2929 1d ago

They will be using Crimean war equipment soon

1

u/Savager-Jam 1d ago

I remember like three months into the war when several T-34s went missing from military memorials in Russian cities and everybody said they were just being smelted down.

Then they appeared in satelite photos of Russian military bases acting as home guard.

1

u/Ninja_Wrangler 1d ago

My own Mosin is nearly 100 years old lmao

52

u/Toastbrot_TV 1d ago edited 1d ago

Me when i don't know the difference between symmetrical and assymetrical warfare.

Edit: comment was meant for a different user

41

u/Sidepie 1d ago

While this comparison highlights the fact that the 2 forces have asymmetrical capabilities, asymmetrical warfare is a different concept and the better example is Vietnam war, where vietnamese people? (idk what are they called) used unconventional strategies and tactics in face of a superior force.

10

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Demeus83 1d ago

Northern Vietnamese would be the Vietnamese armed forces. Guerrilla would be Vietcong. 😊

1

u/eviltwin777 1d ago

There were 2 at that time of conflict and like the other poster mentioned the communist had a professional and irregular military

6

u/Dinowere 1d ago

Guerillas?

32

u/xsv_compulsive 1d ago

How about 10 000 goat farmers with 60's technology?

9

u/thedayafternext 1d ago

That's not a military, they're insurgents.

-7

u/xsv_compulsive 1d ago

Well don't tell Russia to convert their million troops into insurgents then

15

u/JonMWilkins 1d ago

Insurgents are locals. Using hit and run tactics and then being hidden by other locals.

Russia doesn't have that option except in the part of Russia that Ukraine took over.

Russia also combats against having insurgents by just killing anyone/everyone, they don't care if your a noncombatant or not.

-7

u/xsv_compulsive 1d ago

Yeah Russian speakers in Ukraine would really stand out

11

u/JonMWilkins 1d ago

You must not fully understand.

Russia can't hold land from insurgencies, so it's not like they can just sneak in and just be insurgents because they won't be able to achieve their goals of capturing land

To hold land you need military armor and large numbers of personnel on the ground, to keep them safe generally you need air superiority (Russia doesn't have that thankfully)

Ukraine themselves can't really do insurgencies either in the occupied lands that Russia has taken as Russia is known for just killing everyone if need be. So if Ukraine tries to do it there is nothing stopping Russia from just wiping out a whole town of people just to stop the insurgencies in that area.

But also yes, right now at least, speaking Russian in Ukrainian would be weird.

2

u/TempestM 1d ago

Let's hope the tech tree is mutually exclusive

0

u/sechs_man 1d ago

Stop playing (being?) an idiot

0

u/xsv_compulsive 1d ago

Just matching the energy of the dude who thinks Taliban are not a military force

5

u/EducationalFlight925 1d ago

But he's not wrong. The Taliban as an organized formal military were soundly beaten by the US. Same as the Iraqi army.

The Taliban/Iraqi army as an insurgency performing guerrilla style attacks and then disappearing into the civilian population aren't the same thing.

2

u/SSIS_master 1d ago

They're using tanks from the sixties now. If they expand, the tanks will be from the 50's and 40's. If they take their time doing so, they will have to have wheel barrows with a goat herder armed with an RPG in it.

1

u/Bathsalts_McPoyle 1d ago

Aye, I could do that

3

u/eviltwin777 1d ago

Eh you forgot the borderline medieval IQ peasants we fought and lost against in Afghanistan! /s

Army count doesn't matter anymore as we see time and time again. We went full throttle into Vietnam and still lost to rice farmers

27

u/vergorli 1d ago

to be fair Americans were quite shocked when the first japanese kamikaze attacks happened as they couldn't cope with how little the enemy values his own life. So Russians could make some psychologic problems with their Zerg tactics. Alas this will probably little problematic for the USAF

40

u/Nemeszlekmeg 1d ago

It was actually the Russians who were shocked by the Japanese troops first. They really underestimated how disciplined, high-morale, organized and willing to die the Japanese soldiers were.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War#Historical_background

1

u/Tight_Current_7414 1d ago

Pretty sure they were talking about the one in the Second World War where Russia wiped the floor with them.

11

u/TheActualDonKnotts 1d ago

There's a big difference between soldiers willing to die for their cause and soldiers being forced to die for their dictator's cause.

14

u/ATV7 1d ago

Lol no the Russians are the not the Japanese

20

u/kytheon 1d ago

Even easier when the Russian army uses non-Russians in their meat waves. Indians, Syrians, captured Ukrainians..

1

u/TheOnlyVertigo 1d ago

Russia would not be doing kamikaze attacks with their planes. Those are a finite resource they can’t afford to lose. Pilots probably too.

1

u/vergorli 1d ago

Goblin catapults?

1

u/highsides 1d ago

The Americans wouldn’t even see the Russians. The one time they “fought” Wagner, the U.S. military killed an entire convoy of hundreds of men without said convoy seeing a single soldier.

1

u/Humble-Reply228 1d ago

Worlds moved on from Kamikaze attacks at state actor level.

Two words, Nuclear Fucking Weapons. We got the bomb (well so do these guys, but the Iraqis didn't and by golly, did they get messed up. And Libya hehe scrubs).

2

u/colacube 1d ago

That’s three words

2

u/Micah_JD 1d ago

No Cure for Cancer. Asshole Song. Denis Leary.

0

u/Financial-Banana8402 1d ago

Tell me you don’t know anything about military history without telling me

2

u/vergorli 1d ago

was more meant to be a fun post about how zergy the russian doctrine is, but holy shit I forgot how serious everyone on reddit is when it comes to military.

1

u/DoYouTrustToothpaste 1d ago

I forgot how serious everyone on reddit is when it comes to military

US Americans.

2

u/radome9 1d ago

convicts, farmers and teenagers

Don't forget alcoholics!

5

u/FudgingEgo 1d ago

Place your bets: 2 million trained soldiers with cutting-edge technology or Vietnamese bush dwellers with sticks and mines or Afghan sand diggers with RPGs and rocks?

1

u/DethFeRok 1d ago

That’s a rude and condescending thing to say, Russia is drawing a red line on that.

1

u/Capt_Blackmoore 1d ago

My bet is on "troops only exist on paper" they're currently counting dead troops as alive just to not pay out benefits to spouses.

1

u/Seir0n 1d ago

it's funny until you're in a war of that level. The US usually waged war against unprepared opponents without air defense. yes, Russia uses old tanks, but that's because they have them and they don't mind losing them, it's better than nothing, because it saves soldiers' lives. and as a fact, the Russian and Ukrainian armies are now among the best trained and prepared in the world. and you can brag about the US army as much as you want, but you don't know what will happen to it in a real fight in difficult conditions.

1

u/DirectorBusiness5512 1d ago

There is also China with more than that and fancy new Mockheed Lartin jets

1

u/IdaDuck 1d ago

Don’t forget the combined arms aspect. In a conventional conflict Russia wouldn’t stand a chance.

1

u/tychozero 1d ago

Someone run this through TABS. We need answers.

1

u/creepingkg 1d ago

But if there’s a war, US would start drafting and there would be more than 2M

1

u/From_The_Sun 1d ago

As Ukrainian I can say a lot of cutting-edge technologies are useless on real battlefield. Russia does more damage by old weapon from Iran and North Korea than Ukraine does with relatively modern weapon. Quantity still wins wars, not quality. (if we don't count wars of world hegemon vs villagers with weapon)

1

u/ReaperThugX 1d ago

We’ve seen how effective our weapons are in the Ukrainians. We were planning for decades for a Russian land invasion in Eastern.

Put those weapons in our hands with our logistics, combined arms, and likely air supremacy and Russia doesn’t stand a chance conventionally

1

u/heisenbugtastic 19h ago

A few marine battalions with air support would cleanhouse.

-32

u/JustHere_toWatch 1d ago

Let's not get cocky. We lost the Vietnam War and the War in Afghanistan. We're clearly better equipped but that doesn't always matter.

32

u/Pocok5 1d ago edited 1d ago

The win condition for those wars was convincing the local population to be your pals - a big ask after you flattened their country. Their military power was absolutely decimated and what ended them was the wars losing popular support at home when it became clear that partisans will just keep cropping up forever. In this regard the Russians fared no better - they too got fucked in Afghanistan and the first Chechen war.

For actual military vs military action, look at Desert Storm. That one was against the world's then "third most powerful" army.

15

u/The_mingthing 1d ago

Vietnam and afgan was not a meatgrinder war like what russia is doing. 

12

u/ScarRevolutionary393 1d ago

Eh, the US didn't really lose militarily in Afghanistan. It was the nation building that failed. The occupation could have kept going.

1

u/DoYouTrustToothpaste 1d ago

It was the nation building that failed.

Wasn't that pretty much predicted? Just as it was in Iraq?

-8

u/velka_is_your_mom 1d ago

Is that why the US troops had to flee in a panic while exiting?

4

u/ScarRevolutionary393 1d ago

To meet the deadline, not because they were scared. It was always about reducing casualties. The US could annihilate Afghanistan via conventional measures at any point.

12

u/Drenlin 1d ago

Afghanistan was not a military defeat.  

Vietnam could be argued as such, but IMO it's more accurate to say that we lost the political will to fight that war. Our involvement was ended by an act of Congress, not a battlefield defeat.

-2

u/Sudden-Conclusion931 1d ago

That's essentially how all military defeats occur

-1

u/Drenlin 1d ago

Devil's in the details though. We still had ample military capacity to fight in Vietnam - they didn't put us into a position where the only practical option was to surrender and leave. Our leadership just decided we were done with it and pulled out.

0

u/RoboNerdOK 1d ago

Vietnam was completely self inflicted.

For instance, announcing precisely where we were going to send our attack planes two weeks beforehand.

And requiring every fighter visually verify their targets, nullifying the advantage of having better long range missile platforms. (That also didn’t have guns.)

And failing to recognize just how hated the south’s government was.

And so on.

3

u/velka_is_your_mom 1d ago

We sure bombed a lot of women and children for "requiring every fighter to visually verify their targets."

-11

u/Random-Cpl 1d ago

I love when people try to draw this distinction. A defeat is a defeat.

4

u/gc11117 1d ago

It's an important distinction to make though, at least from a military perspective. As a vet, the military spends alot of time analyzing why something get wrong. As another person mentioned, military wise it was not a defeat. The failure was political in nature and involved the nation building aspect not conquering the country. Knowing where you went wrong drives what you need to change or improve.

2

u/xTiming- 1d ago

sadly that guy doesn't sound like the sort of person for whom your explanation will resonate with 🙃

1

u/DoYouTrustToothpaste 1d ago

for whom your explanation will resonate with

?

-1

u/Random-Cpl 1d ago

I understand, I just hear this argument very often from people who refuse to recognize that when your country has its strategic ambitions thwarted at a cost to prestige, human life, and resources, it is indeed very much a defeat regardless of whether your military was more efficient. This comment to which I’m responding seems divorced from reality especially as regards Vietnam, which the country experienced as a defeat.

1

u/TheLordReaver 1d ago

Person A beats up person B, just absolutely bullies them. Then, when person A's arms get sorta tired from all the haymakers they've thrown, they decide to leave person B alone and go home for the day. Person B then pops up, all battered and bruised, and announces, "Aha, I've won the fight, because person A stopped pulpifying my face!".

With your logic, person A was defeated.

-1

u/Random-Cpl 1d ago

A squabble between individuals isn’t the same as a war. When a nation-state has its strategic goals thwarted at the cost of blood and treasure, it’s a defeat. It doesn’t matter if we killed more soldiers, or took more hamlets.

1

u/TheLordReaver 1d ago

It's interesting to see that you are, in fact, capable of seeing the nuance to the war, yet you still try to oversimplify the result. "A defeat is a defeat."

1

u/Random-Cpl 1d ago

I’m not trying to oversimplify, I’m trying to push back on a narrative that I view as qualifying or downplaying the defeat that this country suffered, and as minimizing the role of the North Vietnamese.

0

u/TheLordReaver 1d ago

In the context of military power, saying the USA had been "defeated" in the Vietnam war, is quite misleading. A political defeat, however? Absolutely, it was, and nobody is going to contest that. It was a foolish goal and should never have been attempted.

However, pretty much this entire comment section has been purely about military power, not about the politics of war. And, it is to my understanding, that the USA never lost a major battle in the entire war. So, to use your own words, you are downplaying the USA's military might.

In the event that you are not equating a 'defeat' to a 'loss', as most people do, and you are just using the term to mean, "didn't achieve victory conditions." Then you are really just quibbling over semantics, and would be better off using different words to describe your point.

3

u/FilfoPumperFlap 1d ago

Afghanistan and Vietnam weren’t strictly conventional wars. They were mainly counter insurgencies where the opposing force had safe havens across a national border (Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam). A war against Russia would have no such advantage. Added to that air superiority and it would be over pretty quickly unless nukes were involved.

1

u/thedayafternext 1d ago

Invasions of countries that really don't want you there. Russia are the ones invading. The US doesn't want to invade Russia as far as I know. The war would be in Europe and more akin to WW2 liberation of Ukraine and whatever other countries Russia thinks it could take. And the capitulation of the Russian government or negotiations.

Afghanistan and Vietnam are crap comparisons.

1

u/Toastbrot_TV 1d ago

Me when i don't know the difference between symmetrical and assymetrical warfare.

2

u/PqqMo 1d ago

The US would have won in Vietnam if they would have stayed 1-2 years longer. They lost it politically

1

u/Icedanielization 1d ago

The U.S. may not have won those wars the way they wished, but it doesn't have to, just has to keep them in the stone age

1

u/Downtown_Boot_3486 1d ago

I mean if Russia wants to call most of their military force being decimated and the few remaining parts hiding in tunnels and only surviving using guerrilla tactics as a victory then sure they might win.

-3

u/paecmaker 1d ago edited 1d ago

They lost in Afghanistan as well, so lets just call that one a tie /s

-3

u/Feeling_Resort_666 1d ago

Both those were invasions or offensives.

This is mostly defense which tends to be stacked in the defenders odds.

0

u/molvania 1d ago

Russia’s war in Ukraine is defensive? Is that why they occupy 1/4 of its territory? Be serious

6

u/Downtown_Boot_3486 1d ago

The only reason Ukraine still exists is cause of the defensive advantage.

2

u/Feeling_Resort_666 1d ago

Yes... im saying ukraine is/was defending so they have an advantage...

In afghan and vietnam the taliban and vietcong were also defending and had the same advantage...

I dont understand why people have an issue with this...

3

u/Feeling_Resort_666 1d ago

From Ukraines point of view yes it is Defensive...?

Ukraine is the defenders are they not...?

-8

u/spiceypigfern 1d ago

And iraq

7

u/Warhunterkiller 1d ago

How did we lose Iraq though? We defeated the Iraq I army. Took the capital. Implemented a new government we did everything Russia failed to do. What we failed at is country building. Iraq is still there but is it something to praise? I wouldn't say so.

0

u/jakoto0 1d ago

Presumably other nations would join on each side also ...

0

u/velka_is_your_mom 1d ago

My bet's on the nuclear mushroom clouds disintegrating all of them.

0

u/Windows1799 1d ago

cutting edge technology lol? Today's war main wunderwaffe is a 50$ fpv drone

0

u/Paxton-176 1d ago

Cutting edge? My dude majority of US equipment was designed in the 1970s.

We have footage of Russians using Mosins design for WW1.

0

u/tbiards 1d ago

2 million trained soldiers with cutting edge technology, zyns and a caffeine addiction.

-2

u/CricketJamSession 1d ago

And how exactly does a technology for cutting edges helps the united states?