US/NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces comparison

What do you guys think of this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/russias-hypersonic-missiles-are-not-game-changing-says-army-chief-of-staff-231032723.html

I think that he had to say that

andalusia wrote:What do you guys think of this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/russias-hypersonic-missiles-are-not-game-changing-says-army-chief-of-staff-231032723.html

That must be why John Bolton accused Russia of stealing the technology....

Americans only know how trash talk.

andalusia wrote:What do you guys think of this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/russias-hypersonic-missiles-are-not-game-changing-says-army-chief-of-staff-231032723.html

Confidence boosting at play where behind those words stands nothing. There is no logic as to answer the question "why" there is no knowledge as to answer the question "with what"

there is nothing to support the claim. People in the establishment are scared because it is them hypersonic is aimed at and taking decisions under the state of fear means succumbing

so as they can only work with what they have got and not with what they dont they might along the way that is unavoidable feel a bit better.

I dont recoil I have seen any western media dismissing Puting words about "weapons superiority" as lies and what could they show besides emotional denial ?

kvs wrote:

andalusia wrote:What do you guys think of this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/russias-hypersonic-missiles-are-not-game-changing-says-army-chief-of-staff-231032723.html

That must be why John Bolton accused Russia of stealing the technology....

Americans only know how trash talk.

Then they need to explain why RAND Corp is advocating a global world-wide treaty on a moratorium/ban on hypersonic weapons.

It doesn't matter what they advocate or what PR campaigns they run among their own populations.

The only thing that matters is what Russia (and later China) judges to be in its interest and what it signs up for. So they better put that energy instead into formulating proposals and getting ready for some hard concessions and negotiations. Else they better get ready for them hypersonic missiles.

Given the NATO superiority in the surface fleet and aircraft carriers, it's hard to see Russia agreeing to limit anything though. It knows it needs such missiles as a counter.

1. All rockets are hypersonic.
2. hypersonic projectile can actully be stopped quite easily. Their flight path is very predictable, because teh G-forces involved in change of direction are so high. They can easily be taken out
by strew field penetrators or laser weapons.

3. All this is a distraction rubbish anyways. I honestly dont understand whats the fuss about Russia?

Its not in french or European interest to be hostile with Russia. Russia is to weak to be a threat, both in economy and military. But Russia is a big market and chance for rescoruces.

Our president understands that. Even his biggest competitor Marine understands that.

The enemy is China, not Russia.

France is a bigger threat than China or most other countries... as our french friend clearly spells out... big market with plenty of resources to make money on... and of course the way the wests trades with countries they will strip mine the resources and walk away with most of the money generated...

1. All rockets are hypersonic.

No they aren't. The definition of hypersonic is faster than Mach 5, so the majority of air to air missiles and shorter ranged ballistic missiles are not hypersonic.

2. hypersonic projectile can actully be stopped quite easily. Their flight path is very predictable, because teh G-forces involved in change of direction are so high. They can easily be taken out
by strew field penetrators or laser weapons.

Hypersonic ballistic projectiles have a predictable path and can be intercepted by systems designed to do so... hypersonic manouvering weapons like Iskander and Kinzhal are rather more difficult to intercept... but please tell us all about the field penetrators and laser weapons ready and operational that make hypersonic weapons useless...

3. All this is a distraction rubbish anyways. I honestly dont understand whats the fuss about Russia?

To displace your problems and to blame someone else so you ignore protests in France but focus on protests in Moscow or Hong Kong...

Our president understands that. Even his biggest competitor Marine understands that.

Le Penn was saying this last election and no body listened to her... but now Micron is a genius for working it out for himself that the huge country with all those forests and oil and gas and minerals and resources could be a good place to do business and make money... fucking amazing... hey... you could sell them some ships... if America says you can...

France is part of the enemy called the west that is a much bigger threat to Russias future than China would ever be... Russia can just sell gas to the EU and turn east for its future...

Comparison of the US and Russian armies in 2020. Ground troops

Interest in comparing the capabilities of the US and Russian armed forces continues to this day. This topic will always remain relevant, given the existing geopolitical contradictions between the two states. The simultaneous presence of Russian and US military personnel in Syria, where they sometimes come face to face, only fuels interest in this topic. In addition, in recent years, in response to the strengthening of Russia's military capabilities and the intensification of the actions of the Russian armed forces in the post-Soviet space, NATO has increased its military presence in the Baltic states, where units of the American armored brigade are currently based on a rotational basis.

In recent years, the combat capabilities of the armies of the two countries have significantly expanded. The Russian Armed Forces have significantly updated the material and technical fleet, surface fleet, air force and army aviation , having massively received new helicopters, the country's air defense fleet has also been seriously updated, which has been replenished with dozens of S-400 air defense divisions. The US armed forces continued to increase their aviation superiority, receiving more and more fifth-generation F-35 fighters of various modifications, as well as new drones for various purposes.

The backbone of the two armies is still mechanized units with a large number of armored vehicles, vehicles and self-propelled artillery. At the same time, the armies of the United States and Russia are rightly considered one of the most belligerent, a sufficient number of military personnel have real combat experience. In Russia, such experience in the fullest extent received the Aerospace Forces and the fighters of the recently created Special Operations Forces. At the same time, the armies of the two states today have experience not only of counter-guerrilla warfare and battles with illegal armed groups in Afghanistan and Syria, but also the experience of more traditional wars against regular armies in Iraq and Georgia. In this regard, they are superior to the Chinese army, which in recent decades has not had real combat experience.

When thinking of the US and Russian armies, nuclear weapons are often the first thing that comes to mind . The two countries possess the most powerful nuclear arsenals, but it is clear that any war that uses them for our civilization is likely to be the last major military conflict in history . Therefore, we will not even consider this component and will immediately move on to other types and types of troops, starting with the ground forces of the two countries. For a comparative analysis of the armed forces, we will use data from the annual bulletin "The Military Balance", which is compiled by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). Using the materials of this collection will allow bringing the data for the two countries to a single denominator.

Personnel of the ground forces of the United States and Russia

In terms of the total number of military personnel, the US Armed Forces are ahead of Russia, and the same applies to the mobilization potential of the two states. The population of the United States is trite 2.23 times that of Russia. In the US armed forces, according to data for 2020, 1,379,800 servicemen (excluding the national guard) are serving, in Russia - about 900 thousand servicemen. The US Army, which is the country's ground forces, has 481,750 men, and the Russian ground forces 280,000. In addition, there are about 333,800 troops serving in the US National Guard. The number of Russian paramilitary formations, which primarily include the troops of the National Guard, is estimated by the compilers of The Military Balance at 554 thousand people.

Also, the tasks of the ground forces on the battlefield can and has been successfully solved by the US Marine Corps, in which 186,300 servicemen are serving. If necessary, the United States can deploy up to 668 thousand active servicemen of the Army and Marine Corps in various theaters of operations, transferring the tasks of the country's defense to units of the National Guard and reservists. In Russia, taking into account the Airborne Forces units, which in modern Russian realities play the role of elite infantry, up to 325 thousand servicemen can be deployed in a land theater of operations, and taking into account the marines from the Navy, the number of fighters can be brought to about 360 thousand people (280 thousand - ground forces, 45 thousand - airborne forces, 35 thousand - marines). In order not to overload the already number-rich text,we will not compare the composition of the weapons of the US Marine Corps, the Airborne Forces and the Russian Marine Corps, limiting ourselves directly to the topic of the article - the ground forces.

Main battle tanks of Russia and the USA

The main striking force of the ground forces is still tanks... The American army is armed with 2,389 main battle tanks Abrams. Of these, 750 machines in the M1A1 SA version, 1605 in the M1A2 SEPv2 version and 34 machines in the M1A2C version, which are currently undergoing test operation. The Russian ground forces are armed with 2,800 tanks. Of these, 650 vehicles in the T-72B / BA versions, 850 in the T-72B3 version, 500 T-72B3 tanks of the 2016 modification, 330 T-80BV / U tanks, 120 T-80BVM tanks, 350 T-90 / 90A. Paradoxically, the T-72 tanks remain the most modern combat vehicles in the Russian army. The T-72B3 version, which was modernized in 2016, received a new weapon, a 1000 hp engine. sec., improved protection, including through the use of dynamic protection "Contact-5", an automatic transmission, a television rear-view camera and other improvements. As in the USA,The Russian army is still massively using the backlog inherited from the Cold War, modernizing it and bringing it to a state adequate to today's realities. In terms of the number of main battle tanks, the countries are practically equal, especially without taking into account the T-72B / BA tanks still remaining in combat units.

At the same time, both armies have a large number of tanks in storage. In the USA, this is about 3300 M1A1 / A2 Abrams, in Russia - more than 10 thousand tanks, of which about 7 thousand are various versions of the T-72. At the same time, the Russian army may very soon receive a fundamentally new main battle tank belonging to the next generation. Although the T-14 tank on the Armata platform has not yet been officially adopted for service, it is much closer to mass production (first presented to the public in 2015) than the new generation American MBT, the development process of which in the United States is just beginning.

Wheeled and tracked armored combat vehicles

The same picture as with tanks is typical for wheeled and tracked armored combat vehicles of the ground forces. Both countries use the legacy of the Cold War to modernize it. The main infantry fighting vehicle of the American army is still the Bradley, and the Russian one is numerous BMP-1, BMP-2 and BMP-3, while Russia is actively developing a new tracked BMP on the Kurganets-25 platform. The main armored personnel carrier of the Russian army remains the BTR-80 and its modernization - the BTR-82A / AM vehicles. In this regard, the US Army looks preferable, as it received numerous wheeled "Strykers", which have a much higher level of protection for the crew and troops. Armored personnel carriers on the wheeled platform "Boomerang" should become similar in terms of capabilities of the armored personnel carrier for the Russian army,the test completion dates were shifted to 2021.

The total number of infantry fighting vehicles and reconnaissance vehicles on the Bradley base in service with the American army is estimated at about 3,700 units (1,200 M3A2 / A3 reconnaissance combat vehicles, 2,500 M2A2 / A3 BMPs). At the same time, the total number of infantry fighting vehicles and reconnaissance combat vehicles of all types is estimated at almost 4,700 units. Also, the US Army has about 10,500 armored personnel carriers, of which about 5,000 are still tracked M113A2 / A3, as well as 2,613 wheeled Strykers of various modifications. The Russian army is armed with about 4060 BMPs, including 500 BMP-1, about 3000 BMP-2, 540 BMP-3 and more than 20 BMP-3M. The number of armored personnel carriers is estimated at 3,700 vehicles, including 100 BTR-80A, 1000 BTR-82A / 82AM, in addition there are about 800 BTR-60 of all variants, 200 BTR-70 and 1,500 BTR-80.Also in service are about 3,500 tracked lightly armored MTLB transporters, which, if desired, can be used as an armored personnel carrier.

A distinctive feature of the American ground forces is the presence of a large number of mine-protected armored vehicles - MRAP (more than 5 thousand vehicles), military police armored vehicles and light armored vehicles. The total number of such equipment in the American army is about 10.5 thousand units. In terms of the number of such vehicles in the ground forces, Russia is an order of magnitude inferior to a potential enemy, and the only models of domestic MRAPs produced in commercial quantities, apparently, are the Typhoon-K and Typhoon-U modifications (several hundred vehicles were produced).

Artillery of the ground forces of Russia and the USA

Despite the changing landscape of warfare, artillery is still the God of War. Thanks to the use of guided munitions, new guidance and reconnaissance systems, including with the help of UAVs, the capabilities of artillery are approaching those of high-precision weapons. In service with the US Army for 2020, there are more than 5,400 artillery systems, of which a thousand are 155-mm self-propelled guns: 900 M109A6 and 98 M109A7. Also in the US Army there are 1,339 towed artillery pieces: 821 105mm M119A2 / 3 howitzers and 518 155mm M777A2 howitzers. There are only 600 MLRS units, including 375 M142 HIMARS and 225 M270A1 MLRS, these installations, when placing the appropriate launch containers and equipment, can also be used as operational-tactical missile systems.Also, the ground forces have about 2,500 81 and 120 mm mortars.

In terms of artillery, the ground forces of Russia look much more diverse, this can hardly be attributed to the advantages (problems with logistics, maintenance and operation of a motley fleet of equipment). In quantitative terms, Russia is losing to the United States in artillery, but only at the expense of mortars. At the same time, the Russian ground forces have superiority in MLRS, mainly due to the large number of 122-mm MLRS BM-21 Grad / Tornado-G, as well as in self-propelled guns. And in terms of the number of different artillery systems in storage, Russia significantly surpasses the United States. In our country, there are almost 12.5 thousand various towed artillery systems in warehouses, in addition to this, there are about 4300 self-propelled guns in storage, half of which are 122-mm 2S1 Gvozdika and more than 3 thousand MLRS.American stocks are much more modest and are represented by about 500 155-mm M109A6 self-propelled guns, there is no information on other artillery systems in storage.

In total, the Russian ground forces are armed with 4340 artillery systems, including 1610 self-propelled guns, among which: 150 122-mm self-propelled guns 2S1 "Carnation", 800 152-mm self-propelled guns 2S3 "Akatsiya", 100 152-mm self-propelled guns 2S5 "Hyacinth-S" , as well as 500 of the most modern vehicles: 2S19 / 2S19M1 / 2S19M2 Msta-S / SM, in addition to this, the ground forces have 60 203-mm ACS 2S7M "Malka". Approximately 80 self-propelled artillery and mortar launchers, including 50 units of 120-mm 2S34 "Host" (modernized "Carnations"), as well as about 30 120-mm 2S23 "Nona-SVK" on the BTR-80 chassis, are also making their own variety. About 250 towed artillery systems remain in service, including 150 units of 152-mm MSTA-B howitzers and 100 units of 120-mm 2B16 or "Nona-K", combining the capabilities of a cannon, howitzer and mortar. There are more than 860 MLRS units in the ground forces, including:550 122 mm BM-21 Grad / Tornado-G, 200 220 mm 9P140 Uragan and some 9K512 Uragan-1M, 100 300-mm MLRS 9A52 Smerch and 12 9A54 Tornado-S. There are also more than 1,540 mortars, of which 40 self-propelled 240-mm 2S4 "Tulip" mortars are of the greatest interest.

The most long-range instrument of the Russian ground forces is the Iskander operational-tactical missile systems, which especially frighten our overseas partners. Officially, the firing range of these complexes is limited to 500 km. According to the annual publication The Military Balance, the Russian army is armed with 140 OTRK 9K720 Iskander-M complexes. This is the most formidable weapon of the Russian ground forces, capable of striking targets deep in enemy defenses.

In summary, it can be noted that the US ground forces are superior to the Russian ground forces in terms of the number of personnel and in the number and variety of armored military equipment. The distinctive features of the ground forces of the two countries include the more developed air defense systems of the Russian ground forces. First of all, due to the numerous Buk-M1-2, Buk-M2 and Buk-M3 systems in service. At the same time, the United States has an overwhelming superiority in MRAP. The American infantry, when moving in a combat zone, is better protected precisely due to the massive use of such military equipment. Also an important distinctive feature is the presence of a powerful helicopter component in the US Army (more than 700 attack and about 3 thousand transport helicopters),while in Russia, attack and transport helicopters are subordinate to the Aerospace Forces (almost 800 helicopters, of which more than 390 are attack helicopters).


Author:
Yuferev Sergey

MRAPs are not military vehicles and would play no role in a US vs Russia situation... the Russian superiority is anti armour weapons and anti aircraft systems render American advantages to be moot and null.

Suffice to say if the fight takes place in Russia or on Russian borders, the Russians will kick American ass, but a fight anywhere else would be at Americas advantage... but the Russians have the capacity to do more damage and kill more Americans than any other enemy America has ever faced except the American civil war when all deaths and casualties were Americans of course.

Iskander is unstoppable, and 20 years ago I would say in terms of personal equipment the Russians were behind, but with Ratnik 2 on issue there is no backwardness there... unit commanders should be able to access the sensor information from UAVS and also attack helicopters and strike aircraft nearby to mark friendlies and also targets in their proximity...

I would not rate the stealth performance of the F-35 either considering the Russians can detect them from thousands of kms away (a radar in Russia detected F-35s on the border of Iran and Iraq and allowed Russia to warn Iran...).

Defence efforts in Northern Europe should focus on the near term

Russia’s means of power are limited compared to those of a united Western alliance, but the country could still pose a serious threat on NATO’s eastern flank. At the same time, Western defence efforts are likely to be constrained in the coming years. Improvements in the defence of Northern Europe should therefore focus on the near term, while still keeping an eye on the future. Relatively limited and inexpensive measures could make a considerable difference, according to researchers from FOI.

https://www.foi.se/en/foi/news-and-pressroom/news/2021-03-11-defence-efforts-in-northern-europe-should-focus-on-the-near-term.html

NOTE: The Swedish Defense Research Institute FOI have released two reports, which can be downloaded of the link above:

1. The first looks at the Russian - NATO military comparisons and potential conflict zones.
2. The second examines the Armed Forces of each Western European nation.

This so-called "united western alliance" can´t field more then 250.000 soldiers and 1.000 tanks in all of Europe. A paper tiger at best. And the "limited" russian means of destruction are enough to kill all of them in 5 to 6 days (if the russian army takes some tea breaks).

I tried to upload the first part where it is said they made a comparison with Russia but it doesn't work.

Have you uploaded it ? Is it worth reading ?

Last time I saw such report they were saying they were debating about S-400 real capabilities because they heard about radar horizon . I felt like they were actually totally stupid people.

Isos wrote:I tried to upload the first part where it is said they made a comparison with Russia but it doesn't work.

Have you uploaded it ? Is it worth reading ?

Last time I saw such report they were saying they were debating about S-400 real capabilities because they heard about radar horizon . I felt like they were actually totally stupid people.

Try downloading from this page. And I'm of the opinion everything is worth reading once, even if just to get an idea of how the other side is viewing things. I have uploaded both but have not gone through them completely yet. The second one deals with the present military org, strength and troop locations of each Western European country plus the US. The first one compares NATO to Russia in military capabilities. Again their viewpoint and the focus is on Russia attacking thru the Baltic states.

https://www.foi.se/en/foi/research/security-policy/northern-european-and-transatlantic-security.html

The fake neutral Sweden talking about the fake Russian threat is not something I am ready to lose time reading, though I have to agree franco in a general sense...

This piece was, I believe, also posted here and has very interesting data:

In addition, as a result of more than 149 medium and 17 large exercises in the period from 2014 to 2020 inclusive, the NATO command found that the operational limit of the Alliance in the transfer of troops is a one-time deployment of no more than 12-14 thousand personnel for at least 2 months. Moreover, before the start of concentration, the preparatory measures need at least 3 more months.

Plus, back in 2012–2014, it was established that the road network of Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and especially Poland, is completely unsuitable for the rapid movement of large masses of troops, military equipment and the required amount of supplies. To address this problem, NATO has approved an extensive road network modernization program for Eastern European countries by 2027. However, as of August – October 2020, the degree of its implementation did not exceed 11%.

As a result, in a speech before the Senate Armed Forces Commission, US Army Commander General Mark Milli admitted that "since recently, in the event of large-scale hostilities in Europe, Russia will have significant firepower."

As the exercises West 2019 and the Caucasus 2020 confirmed, the armed forces of the Russian Federation, by the end of the tenth day after the start of a major conflict, are able to deploy on any bridgehead an army of at least 50 thousand soldiers and officers, fully equipped with armored vehicles, artillery, covered with air defense means and provided aviation.

During the same time, the Alliance will manage to mobilize no more than two battalion tactical groups with a total strength of 1200-1800 soldiers, without heavy weapons at all. And if "give the Russians" 20-25 days, then, as the exercises in Belarus show, Russia is able to bring the number of an active combat group in a theater of operations up to 300-350 thousand.

Thus, in tanks, at any point of contact, Russia will have superiority over NATO 7 to 1, in infantry fighting vehicles - 5 to 1, in attack helicopters - 5 to 1, in barrel artillery - 4 to 1, in rocket systems - 16 to 1, in short-range air defense - 24 to 1, in long-range air defense - 17 to 1, in tactical and operational-tactical missiles - the superiority of the Russian Federation will be absolute.

https://qn7veek3vy676ftip3x3nsvd5y--russtrat-ru.translate.goog/analytics/9-fevralya-2021-0010-2930

So yes, please provoke Russia in Donbass as hard as you can and see what a real military is capable of...

Not the same report.

NOTE: Was not aware the NATO naval exercise was this large

Baltic Fleet ships go to the Black Sea amid NATO exercises in the region

In connection with the NATO exercises in the Black Sea, the leadership of the Russian Navy decided to send four ships of the Baltic Fleet to this region - the Kaliningrad (102), Minsk (127), Korolev (130) and the Boyky corvette ( 532). By noon on March 21, the ships passed the English Channel and headed south.

The dispatch of ships of the Baltic Fleet to the Black Sea is not accidental - 18 ships of the North Atlantic Alliance belonging to Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, the USA, Poland, the Netherlands, Spain and Turkey are participating in the NATO exercises Sea Shield-21 near the Russian borders. A variety of classes of ships are actively involved in maneuvers: corvettes, destroyers, cruisers, frigates, minesweepers and minelayers, sea tugs and a patrol ship.

2.4 thousand soldiers, 10 military aircraft and helicopters also take part in the "Sea Shield-21". In Romania, the ground part of the exercise will take place, in which mobile detachments of the Romanian Navy's missile forces and the Polish coastal missile battery will play an important role.

NATO admirals noted that the main objectives of the exercises are to increase the level of cooperation and interaction between the Romanian naval forces and other types of troops, various units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the navies of other NATO countries. The maneuvers should show the constant readiness of the Romanian army to strengthen the maritime positions of the North Atlantic Alliance in the changing security environment.

https://pll4mi3fskkynekzvxxr6u4ery--topcor-ru.translate.goog/19132-korabli-baltflota-idut-v-chernoe-more-na-fone-uchenij-nato-v-regione.html

Amusing that the recurring theme of HATO thinktanks is that Russia lacks conventional forces to be competitive against HATO... do they not appreciate the meaning of this and that for Russia the solution is not to enlarge their ground forces, but to simply adopt a larger inventory of tactical nuclear weapons.

Russia would not benefit from having more powerful ground based power... not in Europe and not anywhere else.

Enormous ground based forces cost money to operate and maintain and pretty soon you start getting involved in conflicts that are really none of your business just to justify having these forces... has HATO not woken up and smelt the coffee yet?

Russia does not need to build up conventional forces to face HATO... the best solution to HATO ships and MiG-31Ks with Kinzhals as well as Onyx and other ground and ship based missiles.

Building a large conventional force to face HATO would be an economic burden that Russia can simply do without.

Working smarter and not harder is the key.

GarryB wrote:Amusing that the recurring theme of HATO thinktanks is that Russia lacks conventional forces to be competitive against HATO... do they not appreciate the meaning of this and that for Russia the solution is not to enlarge their ground forces, but to simply adopt a larger inventory of tactical nuclear weapons.

NATO will respond by increasing their inventory of tactical nuclear weapons.

The reason why U.S/NATO wins wars against rivals like Syria or Iraq is not because they have the cushion of nuclear weapons thereby discouraging the adversary to strike back decisively. The reason they win is because their adversaries do not have access to safe, secure lines of communication.

This has always been the US strategy. Destroy, interrupt the adversary's communication network and you win the battle.

I´m curious, when did they win the war against Syria?

Hole wrote:I´m curious, when did they win the war against Syria?

Syria is in an extremely bad shape because of the western intervention. Western forces may not have won yet but they sure have not lost either. Instead they have reduced this country to a ruble much like Afghanistan. To be sure they didn't win in Afghanistan either.

My point was related to their (U.S/NATO) choice of enemies - Syria, Iraq, Somalia etc, countries whose communication system can easily be overwhelmed. Thereby making it difficult for their army to coordinate.

Its communications alright, but not military internal communications but rather the external lines of communications to friendly countries supplying the defender with arms and materiel. Having the capability to mainline on mainly Russian arms, a defender could exact heavy tolls on the invader forcing them to invest ruinous sums on ridiculous force protection measures or if that is not enough, make them resort to proxy warfare which can be beat by even smaller countries. Its for this reason alone what Syria still stands, even despite the collapse of its military as an organization which made it effectively a huge state backed militia in all but name, that is until the Russians came in and rebuild their army for them.

NATO will respond by increasing their inventory of tactical nuclear weapons.

They would likely do the same if Russia built up its conventional force to become an over powerful force against HATO.

Cheaper and quicker to build tactical nukes to deal with nearby threats.

Building a more powerful bigger ground force would simply confirm to HATO that Russia wants to fight them and invade HATO countries... but building tactical nuclear weapons shows they don't want to take new land to occupy but they want to be able to eliminate large conventional threats quickly and easily.

The reason why U.S/NATO wins wars against rivals like Syria or Iraq is not because they have the cushion of nuclear weapons thereby discouraging the adversary to strike back decisively.

No. The reason the west wins wars is because it picks small weak third world countries that it first isolates and impoverishes and creates coalitions of other countries to all gang up on the victim at once. The west consists of most of the imperial european powers and the US... of course it will be able to invade countries and crush armies and airforces... still they are not doing that great in Afghanistan...

The reason they win is because their adversaries do not have access to safe, secure lines of communication.

They only pick tiny insects to crush and they gather all their friends and neighbours to do so.

This has always been the US strategy. Destroy, interrupt the adversary's communication network and you win the battle.

You make it sound like they just have to choose to fight and automatically win.

How is the war on Drugs coming?

The war on Terror seems to involve supporting helping more terrorists than killing them.

The Iranian general they murdered did more to kill ISIS than the west has ever done.

Syria is in an extremely bad shape because of the western intervention. Western forces may not have won yet but they sure have not lost either

The west wanted Assad out... they lost.

They are losing in Afghanistan too and in Iraq their name is dirt... they are loosing the hearts and minds campaign all over that area...

My point was related to their (U.S/NATO) choice of enemies - Syria, Iraq, Somalia etc, countries whose communication system can easily be overwhelmed. Thereby making it difficult for their army to coordinate.

Weak small fragile countries, which is why they can't take on countries like Iran or China or Russia because they would get their asses handed to them.

That's stupid. Abrams was designed to have a crew in the turret. Reworking it to have nobcrew inside and move it foreward will increase the cost highly.

They need a new tank if they want unmanned turrets.

That's true for any tank.