Croatian military blogger Binkow considered a hypothetical situation in which Moscow and Washington are fighting against each other in terms of the existence of a common border between the United States and the Russian Federation.

Hello! I’m with you, Commissioner Binkow. What would happen if Russia and USA met on the artificial field of battle, where they would be located nearby? As usual, the nuclear arsenals of banned, and the moral side of the question is not provided.

First against the enemy, would involve missiles and aircraft. Russia has less cruise missiles and launch platforms for them, even though some of the range. Its tactical ballistic missiles is a mixture of large modern rockets and small missiles of the cold war era, the US — somewhere . Some are released at the points of supply, major army groups and well-known bases of the missiles “ground-air”, but the most obvious targets would be airfields.

A numerical inequality will also mean a large amount of neutralized Russian forces, especially aircraft, who are trapped in unusable airfields. The US has more combat aircraft, and they are all relatively new. American pilots are better trained, at that time, as Russia relies heavily on non-upgraded platform during the cold war. This can be attributed roughly half its aircraft, vehicles and ships.

The number of bombers, the two sides almost the same. In the air fleet of the USA, represented mainly multi-purpose aircraft, and Russia has only recently begun to use them in large amounts. Russia also has a shortage of modern weapons, especially long-range missiles of class “air-air” and guided aerial bombs. They began to use its air force only last year.

One of the areas where Russia has a clear advantage, are ground-based air defense systems. At that time, as the United States has by and large a system of anti-aircraft missiles “Patriot”, a Park operated by LA Russia is much more diverse. It also possesses a large Arsenal of rockets of a class “earth — air” medium-range missiles, and the United States, no such systems at all. The only missiles on arms of America — is install Avenger with tiny missiles “stinger”. Given that the US Navy has many ships, air defense, airspace of Russia will be, at best, limited. Russia would create a tiered network of missiles to break through the air defense zone of the attacker. The strikes on targets in the depth of the defense will cost US. In such circumstances, would’ve been better fighters-invisible, but not so much. The remaining air forces of the Russian Federation are likely to would prefer to return to their bases away from the front line and intercept or attack the enemy system satellite tracking and interception. And yet, the attack on the front would favour the US, considering the disparity of forces and the air force.

The Russian doctrine of the aircraft with rocket engines, flying from less advanced airfields, and a large number of these legacy bases would mean that the Russians would have continued to resist the invaders and to force them to use part of its military air fleet as cover. Thus, U.S. forces rarely dared to stick their noses over the line of the enemy for more than a few hundred kilometers. On the ground U.S. forces are more numerous and consist of employees of regular combat troops and Marines. a useful addition are trained for several weeks in the year when the forces of the national guard. Half of the Russian regular troops are recruits with less experience than professional soldiers. But the paramilitary forces of Russia are more numerous than in the United States. Due to the lack of adequate total combat experience, the latter is mainly used as defensive forces. Citizens of Russia must remain in the stock, but training is given to only a few. Equipment is stored in just 80 thousand people.

Both parties will, of course, to call in additional forces, with military experience and without it. The US has more opportunities, but it is unknown how many of these recruits will be ready for service during the year.

Only a few units of the US army have tanks and vehicles heavy-duty, doctrine of Russia provides for their presence almost every team. As for maneuvering forces in the regular army and the national guard, the United States, there are about 330 thousand soldiers, Russia — 230 thousand. This difference is again due to different doctrines.

Army units of the Russian Federation have more firepower and not loaded logistics. They are intended primarily for defensive operations and counter-attacks on its territory or near its borders. US forces are inherently more aggressive and independent from the point of view of logistics. In addition to stored for the reserve brigades of technology, Russia has a large number of weapons preserved from the Soviet era, some of which could be used to mobilize recruits. The only question is how many weapons you can enter in operation.

The relatively flat relief of the Western part of Russia was more precisely its army, relying on heavy equipment, but will also become a problem for the Russian air defense forces in favor of a strong US intelligence and blocking of tank counterattacks. Well protected from air strikes outnumbered the enemy forces US to take the initiative. Slowly and methodically, they will penetrate the defense of the enemy and lack of firepower will be offset by better situational awareness, support of the air force and higher mobility. The loss, however, will be significant.

The US has a lot more combat and transport helicopters and a high capacity transport aircraft. They can quickly deploy troops where necessary and to maintain a more numerous formations behind enemy lines.

As for the Navy, the conflict in the open sea would be for Russia a complete disaster. Its fleet is much smaller and the ships are pretty obsolete. Forces of the Russian Federation will stay closer to the shore, using their superior numbers to coastal forces and means. They could more effectively use non-nuclear submarines, mines, and ground-based coastal battery missile weapons. It may take months before the us Navy will find a way to land on Russian soil. This may mean that many Russian troops will defend the rear areas instead of trying to confront the main attack by the Americans.

Another important to the region would have the potential of intelligence gathering. The US advantage relative to available satellites and reconnaissance capabilities, whether optical or electronic.

Without a doubt, past the defenses, U.S. forces would be sent into the territory of Russia. Taking into account realistic climate conditions, their attack would slow down especially the Russian winter. Russia also would have the advantage due to its vast territory, being able to retreat and gain time, at the same time drawing out the enemy forces. Rapid onset USA deep into enemy territory, where the danger would be supply lines, it is unlikely. Hurry they won’t. For fear of large losses, they can make a choice in favor of the capture only of small areas. For the year under their control could be a good part of European Russia. And still an impressive part would remain unseized.

For US the scale of this war would be comparable with the Second world war, the number of casualties on each side would be estimated in hundreds of thousands. If it will last more than a year, the superiority of Economics and of the US population will continue. Ultimately, the small number and quality of Russian troops would lead to territorial losses and the defeat of Russia. United States of America would be the winner.

In the real world between two countries an ocean, and the US invasion of Russia would have completely different consequences. And the use of nuclear weapons and does not identify a clear winner.

Binkov”s Battlegrounds – Croatian, English-language channel devoted to the analysis of the simulated battles between the superpowers. Used translation of the Internet-project “the new York times.Ru”.