Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    nope. We couldn't really take the world over or anything like that, we're a small nation. All we've got is nukes and that's not enough to call yourself a superpower.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edwinemanuelposse)
    Almost 50% of whole the planet knows English speech , so u as a small island in the year 1700, did pretty well !!
    No, its around 1.5bn people and the world population is just over 7bn. Almost 50% you say?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    the only thing britain is a superpower in is binge drinking
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I, personally, would argue they are quite influential but certainly not a superpower. As someone said before, they're a great power.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    Debateable, its currently under going a massive rearmament is it not? Which was driven by its somewhatlack lustre performance in the countries mentioned [although relating back to Afghanistan no one has ever won there...]
    Well it has bases in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Syria, Tajikistan, Transnitria and the Ukraine... which given its lack of desire for foreign intervention is still quite impressive, no?
    With regards to the last comment though the same can be said for America. Theyve armed everything from land mines to bombs to missilesto artillary with atomic warheads.
    Maybe but negligent doesnt mean incapable, the Spteznaz is still a highly capable force.
    It does have bases all over CIS, but these are situated close to its borders which greatly reduces the versatility of its forces. The only base outside CIS is located in the contested region of Syria and if the rebels manage to push Assad out that base will go with him.

    Afghanistan was disastrous for the Soviet Union, US army is much more efficient in terms of casualties and losses. Although the US does have a huge stockpile of nukes it also boasts an unparalleled conventional military force with lots of highly trained soldiers/pilots/seamen etc.

    Spetsnaz is a relatively small force, although it is highly trained its effectiveness during a massive invasion or any large scale conflict would be limited by its modest size. It is also common knowledge that specialist units (e.g. fighter pilots) receive far less training than their NATO counterparts due to certain budgetary constraints. Recent military reforms broke up a familiar structure within the force and this has created a certain degree of confusion among servicemen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CEKTOP)
    It does have bases all over CIS, but these are situated close to its borders which greatly reduces the versatility of its forces. The only base outside CIS is located in the contested region of Syria and if the rebels manage to push Assad out that base will go with him.

    Afghanistan was disastrous for the Soviet Union, US army is much more efficient in terms of casualties and losses. Although the US does have a huge stockpile of nukes it also boasts an unparalleled conventional military force with lots of highly trained soldiers/pilots/seamen etc.

    Spetsnaz is a relatively small force, although it is highly trained its effectiveness during a massive invasion or any large scale conflict would be limited by its modest size. It is also common knowledge that specialist units (e.g. fighter pilots) receive far less training than their NATO counterparts due to certain budgetary constraints. Recent military reforms broke up a familiar structure within the force and this has created a certain degree of confusion among servicemen.
    That is true but as i said since russias intentions arent global police force it suits its purpous fine does it not?
    Thats true but it was also disasterous for everyone else whos gone in there, maybe not in the man power costs but economically its cost a vast vast fortune! And when the British went in they hardly came off on top either did they?

    They do that is true but in a fulscale war their usefulness would be questionable, many of the russian weapons render american miliary units absolute such as there ASM's which are almost unparalleled... with the collapse of the USSR and the majority of their armed forces it must be said they did continue to pour huge amounts of money into certain aspects such as missile technology. This is leaving aside the brand sqeaky new weapons systems that are being rolled in and are in R&D. And lets not forget that their submarine force despite being commanded by idiots are some of the best in the world and vertially undetectable to most other vessels.

    Aye but is that not the point of spec ops forces? Small force capable of high collateral damage?

    I wont argue on that point but theyre still a force to be reconed with none the less after all in this day and age the skill of pilots is fast diminishing with upgrades in missile technology.

    I guess my pain point is that regardless of any military superiority on either side any victory would be purely phyric, no side could ever win a war against the other could they?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CEKTOP)
    It does have bases all over CIS, but these are situated close to its borders which greatly reduces the versatility of its forces. The only base outside CIS is located in the contested region of Syria and if the rebels manage to push Assad out that base will go with him.

    Afghanistan was disastrous for the Soviet Union, US army is much more efficient in terms of casualties and losses. Although the US does have a huge stockpile of nukes it also boasts an unparalleled conventional military force with lots of highly trained soldiers/pilots/seamen etc.

    Spetsnaz is a relatively small force, although it is highly trained its effectiveness during a massive invasion or any large scale conflict would be limited by its modest size. It is also common knowledge that specialist units (e.g. fighter pilots) receive far less training than their NATO counterparts due to certain budgetary constraints. Recent military reforms broke up a familiar structure within the force and this has created a certain degree of confusion among servicemen.
    There's a lot of myths about the Russian Military in Afghanistan.

    Firslty they never went into conquer. They went into stabilise the country. By the time they pulled out the Country was stable with 90% of teh country under Government control and a successful (for a communist state) eceonomy. When they pulled out, attacks were down to a minimum, 90% of teh country was under Government control. The problems started with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Najibullah regime lost it's financier and the pro government guys such as dostum turned against the government.

    The other misnomer is that the Soviet Army wasn't very good. Granted the 40th Army wasn't to begin with but it adjusted its tactics very quickly from Battalion sized operations at the start to more small unit tactics by 83. The other Side of the mountain is a good read for that as it shows Soviet Tactics.

    Casualties certainly are lower, however a lot of that has to do with Combat Body Armour (CBA) and improvements to Combat Medicine. The US lost 53K in Viewtnam. Had they had those improvements then, the that would've been cut down to between 10 to 15K.

    However to quote Marshall Zukov. 'Quantity is a quality all of it's own.'
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    There's a lot of myths about the Russian Military in Afghanistan.

    Firslty they never went into conquer. They went into stabilise the country. By the time they pulled out the Country was stable with 90% of teh country under Government control and a successful (for a communist state) eceonomy. When they pulled out, attacks were down to a minimum, 90% of teh country was under Government control. The problems started with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Najibullah regime lost it's financier and the pro government guys such as dostum turned against the government.

    The other misnomer is that the Soviet Army wasn't very good. Granted the 40th Army wasn't to begin with but it adjusted its tactice very quickly from Battalion sized operations at the start to more small unit tactics by 83. The other Side of the mountain is a good read for that as it shows Soviet Tactics.

    Casualties certainly are lower, however a lot of that has to do with Combat Body Armour (CBA) and inprovements to Combat Medicine. The US lost 53K in Viewtnam. Had they had those improvements then, the that would've been cut down to between 10 to 15K.

    Howevr to quote Marshall Zukov. Quantity is a a quality all of it's own.
    Oh, and another thing, I've always wondered why Zhukov is so widely praised for his strategic leadership and skill during the WWII. Most of the major battles he conducted resulted in disastrous numbers of casualties among the members of the SA. I know that it's a major oversimplification, but he frequently chose to rely on the "zerg rush" tactic above everything else.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CEKTOP)
    Oh, and another thing, I've always wondered why Zhukov is so widely praised for his strategic leadership and skill during the WWII. Most of the major battles he conducted resulted in disastrous numbers of casualties among the members of the SA. I know that it's a major oversimplification, but he frequently chose to rely on the "zerg rush" tactic above everything else.
    Casualties weren't a political problem for the Soviet Generals due to the huge manpower reserves Russia had at the time. In fact in many cases they wasted lives just to beat other Generals. The Battle for Berlin being a prime example. The race to the Reichstag was an waste of life, but Stalin used to get his Generals to coompete against one another. Countries like Russia didn't have manpower shortages.

    MaCarthur was quoted as saying in WW2 to one of his subordinates that the Australians weren't fighting hard enough as they're casualty rates were lower.

    Zhukov however was generally well regarded. Remember he had troops with very basic education and training andstopped theJuggernought that was the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS. That's why he's rated.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Although we're not a superpower anymore. We're still a a major player on teh world stage and punch above our weight economically, militarily, financiall and politically.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoz...r-survey-says/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If we're talking about military strength etc. then no. I've heard it said that since the end of the Cold War the United States is the only superpower! Luckily (or maybe unfortunately in the eyes of some) we're a major ally of America, so we can still exercise considerable influence on the world stage. Not to mention we're a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and NATO. We're adapted to the new global world.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Casualties weren't a political problem for the Soviet Generals due to the huge manpower reserves Russia had at the time. In fact in many cases they wasted lives just to beat other Generals. The Battle for Berlin being a prime example. The race to the Reichstag was an waste of life, but Stalin used to get his Generals to coompete against one another. Countries like Russia didn't have manpower shortages.

    MaCarthur was quoted as saying in WW2 to one of his subordinates that the Australians weren't fighting hard enough as they're casualty rates were lower.

    Zhukov however was generally well regarded. Remember he had troops with very basic education and training andstopped theJuggernought that was the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS. That's why he's rated.
    From 1943 onwards the soviet troops were qualified enough to be effective and avoid mass casualties among themselves as the force was better trained/mechanised, but their commanders had something else in mind. It is also wise to consider the fact that this faceless "manpower" represents actual people killed during a senseless drive to capture enough territory in record time, which is in itself a crime. Zhukov and Stalin were far from being heroic and were definitely not great military commanders (despite the conventional wisdom).
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Could we stay away from World War Two History please?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.