Russia has more tanks than the U.S., but that will not give it an advantage in the event of armed conflict, says the American military journalist. Recently, the Western press has been publishing more and more stories about a possible U.S.-Russian war. Russia has an advantage over the United States in terms of the number of tanks, although that does not guarantee it will win the land war, war journalist Chris Osborne writes in The National Interest.
According to the article, Russia has only 27,000 armored vehicles, 12,000 of which are tanks. The author was impressed by this fact. At the same time, he called it quite reasonable, since Russia is first and foremost a land power. At the same time, as the publication writes, the country’s leadership plans to add another 1.2 thousand units of armored vehicles. In the first half of 2020, Russia received 160 tanks, including repaired and restored T-72B and T-80 tanks, the journalist notes. But he expressed doubt that all of them could compete with the American M1 Abrams.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has fewer tanks – only 6,000 vehicles, although the total number of armored vehicles in Washington is 39,000. In addition, the United States has naval and air power.
For that reason, Osborne wondered how important it was to have large numbers of tanks for a long land war.
According to the author, military aviation would play an important role in any modern armed conflict, and Washington would have more than twice as much advantage in that respect for combat aircraft and five times as much advantage for helicopters. It is the air force that will be the decisive factor for victory on the ground, the author stated. Osborne also recalled specialists’ fears that Russia would quickly seize the Baltics if the U.S. did not send serious reinforcements.
The expert concluded that naked figures have little meaning in modern warfare, as the range, accuracy, invulnerability, and combat characteristics of tanks and aircraft will play their part. According to the author of the article, the U.S. equipment is likely to have more advantages in this regard.
Recently, the U.S. media has been writing more and more about a possible military conflict between Russia and the United States. Defense One, citing Shane Preiswater, a military analyst at the Center for Military and Political Power at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, wrote that the United States would need more strategic bombers than it currently has to successfully break through the Kaliningrad air defense system.
“Even though the U.S. has bases and allies in the region, a huge number of countermeasures needed, for example, to defeat the integrated air defense system in Kaliningrad, will require significant participation of bombers,” the article wrote.
Shortly before that, Timothy Ray, head of the U.S. Air Force’s Global Strikes Command, wrote to the Air Force Times that his country may wage war with China or Russia in the future.
He stressed that the United States “needs to modernize its network of bombers, submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles [ICBMs], partly by developing new technologies” to keep pace with the times.
Last year, u.s. Navy specialist Lyle Goldstein, in an article in The national interest, suggested who could win the war between the United States and Russia at sea. He predicted that Russian submarines, land-based missile systems, missile boats, and aircraft equipped with hypersonic anti-ship missiles, such as the Dagger, would destroy virtually the entire North Atlantic Alliance fleet in the Black Sea in the first hours of the war.
Goldstein believes that under the Montreux Convention, the ban on aircraft carriers crossing the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits is lucky for the United States, because otherwise, U.S. ships of this type, considered the pride of the U.S. Navy, could be sunk.
The expert also advised the country’s leadership to stop betting on aircraft carriers, which he called obsolete. He expressed the opinion that the state needed to develop its submarine fleet, as well as the latest drones.