"Comparing NATO Military Forces vs. Russia " Topic

(In One Graph)

link

Easy to see that Russia is outgunned in every-way ….

Amicalement
Armand

surprising!

Why are the Brits listed separate? Aren't they in NATO? Could they go over to the Ruskies??

Yet the Russians are still seen by some as some super-human boogeyman threat to overrun Europe, if not the world. It doesn't compute.

It is not about weapons, only. It is also about the political will to use them. How many NATO countries are really willing to go to war for Ukraine or, God forbids!, Poland?

Ukraine, none, it isn't part of NATO.
Poland, everyone except possibly US if Trump as President – that possibility is probably the biggest military threat to NATO today.

Going from TMP link ''The combined component strength of the naval forces of member states is some 563 commissioned warships. Of those in service, 3 are fleet carriers, the largest of which is the 42,000 tonne Charles de Gaulle. However two 70,600 tonne Queen Elizabeth-class carriers are projected to enter service in the Royal Navy starting 2017. The EU also has 5 amphibious assault ships and 13 amphibious support ships in service. Of the EU's 58 submarines, 21 are nuclear-powered submarines (11 British and 10 French) while 37 are conventional attack submarines.'

'As of 2014, it is estimated that the European Union had around 2,000 serviceable combat aircraft (fighter aircraft and ground-attack aircraft).[56]'

Etc.'

Russia is posturing, but ability to wage war on the grand scale? I would very much doubt that they have sufficient resources – how soon would they run out of munitions, etc, based on their military expenditure?

'NATO Europe military expenditure 2015 $253.00 USD USDbn.
Russian military expenditure 2015 $66.40 USD USDbn.

link link

So Europe, without the US, spends about 4 times as much as Russia. '

So, why is it surprising?

Worth noting that the Russia figures are misleading though – that tank figure does not take into account tanks in storage – including 4,500 T80 and 10,255 T72. link

We are of course somewhat forgetting that:

a) Things cost a lot less in Russia, so they get more bang for their buck.

b) Putin might not be telling the truth about his military expenditure.

But which way though?

a) 4 x as much? Remember, that's European component, most of which is really aimed at Russia. Russia has it's own foreign escapades to pay for plus a need to keep an eye on China.

Average wages link so average wages in Russia higher than Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania. Countries with 4 x Russia's wage – well, none. Highest wage is Luxembourg which is 2.28 x Russia. UK tops the non-US NATO states at 1.7 – so, adjusting for wages Europe still spends over twice as much as Russia. Note the ones with low wages are often the ones who spend a lower part of their GDP on defence, so they will get 'more bang for their buck' than Russia… though that's in 2009.

b) I'm guessing Putin would want to overestimate rather than underestimate expenditure in order to try and impress people. The state of Russia's economy would make this even more likely.

Average EU wage in 2015 $1,631. USD link
Actually, Russia seems to have dropped way down now… link

OK, more searches, latest one suggests not much difference in pay for military personnel:

link

'The above shows that service pay in the leading NATO armies is higher than in Russia, but income tax in Europe is also higher, despite a developed system of subsidies and tax deductions approved for civil servants. If the new system takes effect in Russia, the salaries of our service people will be approximately the same as in Europe in terms of take-home pay.'

Oh for goodness sake!

Several points to make here;
The majority of NATO troops are stationed in their home countries and at least one of them does not have tanks. For them to be a threat they have to move and that requires discussion between countries, agreement etc. The total NATO strength is not stationed at the Russian border.

Should Russia decide to invade part of a country and annex it they achieve local superiority for a limited time. Putin then stops once that gain has been made. Russia is quite content to behave in this way as it cannot sustain long term conflict with NATO. However, Russia does have nuclear weapons and the idea of NATO going to war with Russia over a non NATO country is ridiculous. NATO will go to war if another NATO member is attacked which is why many Eastern European countries are looking to join NATO as protection from creeping Russian annexation.

'The majority of NATO troops are stationed in their home countries and at least one of them does not have tanks'

As you would expect. But then, Russian troops are also based in their own country…

The smaller armies of NATO would not really be expected to act as anything other than local defence forces. With the best will in the world they have to hold on until the big guns arrive. That basically means US, UK, France and possibly Germany, Italy, Turkey – though Turkey would obviously be unlikely to intervene in the western sectors.

But frankly you're right about not risking open war over a non-NATO country.

That graph is misleading as all national troops are not committed to NATO. The vast majority is USA. No consideration is given that the USA cannot commit all troops and assets to Europe.

If USA troops are separated, the side-by-side would be more even, plus the Russians are more capable/ready as it is a uniform command vs. separate NATO entities with differing quality, committment and readiness levels.

…not that I think Russia is as big a threat as some paint them out to be.

Not that even.

link

Rough European Union figures 546 ships, 2448 aircraft, 7490 battle tanks.

Russia active personnel 771,000
European Union active personnel 1,423,097 – listed as 417,180 'deployable'

Russia tanks 2600 (more if you include ones in storage)
European Union about 7490 (adding ones in EU from link

Russia ships 297 (from link
European Union 546

Russian combat aircraft (fighters, interceptors, attack aircraft) 4298 (from link
Note link gives Russia 3547 aircraft altogether, of which fighters, interceptors, attack aircraft 2189.
European Union combat aircraft about 2000 (from link

So European Union has, if anything, a numerical advantage in most areas.

Note at least some Russians would face off Turkey, which is currently still (purges permitting) the second biggest army in NATO…

Turkey is down as having 3778 tanks, 194 ships, 414 fighter/interceptor/attack aircraft… link

Garrison:

Russia is posturing, but ability to wage war on the grand scale? I would very much doubt that they have sufficient resources – how soon would they run out of munitions, etc, based on their military expenditure?

They'd probably last longer than NATO. NATO, with many nations spending below the 2% GDP threshold for military spending. NATO, which repeatedly runs out of precision munitions and requires emergency resupply from the US. Meanwhile the Russians are content burning up their gigantic stockpile of Cold War dumb bombs. Which would probably serve them just fine in a large-scale conventional conflict anyway (less concern for precision targeting against easily-spotted concentrations of maneuver units).

Most of those 500+ NATO warships aren't.

They're nothing more than glorified fishing trawlers with some minesweeping capabilities, and long ago lost ASW equipment and skills.

Many others are no doubt service and support vessels as well.

My guess is the real number of serviceable "warships" that could actually conduct combat ops with less than 30 days notice is probably on the order of 20% – 30% of that number.

Hell, the two UK carriers don't even have jets yet.

They can be used as helo carriers, or for keeping up fleet and FAA morale by conducting weekend Flugtag launching contests though, as long as the beer holds out…….