Who has a more powerful military, Russia or Britain?

Question

I have been reading a lot of debate regarding this question. I want to hear what you think, and your rationale.

Answer 1

I hate the ruskies, they think they are so powerful and Putin is taking them back another 30 years...........as for the answer you seek, well, it is not about who is more powerful as far as military is concerned, but who is on who's side.....when there is conflict, it is your friends that are important........the ruskies fail here, they don't have any! China maybe, but will they be there for them if it comes to war?

One never knows the true standing of the military in each country as there is so much not really known!

Answer 2

Officially both Jane's and the CIA list the UK as having the second most powerful military in the World.

The UK is the only other country in the World other than the US to be able to carry out 2 or more consecutive long term missions more than 1000 miles from home.

Despite recent cutback the UK has the 2nd largest navy in the world and operates the largest Carrier fleet out side of the US.

The UK has the 2nd highest military budget in the world, spending rough;y 4 times that of Russia.

Other factors to consider are;

The UK is a fully professional force, Russia is around 85% conscripts.

The UK is more technologically advanced than Russia.

Much of the Russian equipment is very old, outdated and worn.

To give you an idea in the last 6 years Russia has had 7 fatal accidents involving submarines. The UK has had none.

Answer 3

Hmm. Define Powerfull.

Currently, the British Army is overstreched and underpowered, by trying to fight two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) with the smallest army in the history of it's existance.

Russia under Putin is a lone ranger. If Russia attacked England it would not be a one man fight, the UN would put in economic sanctions and NATO would come to our defence.

The field of battle that the other answers were talking of in a WW1 style, where armys' shoot from across the field is no longer likley to occur. An end would be swift and extreme. A Nuclear strike on Moscow Prehaps? Bear in mind that if Moscow and St Petersburg were taken out of the equation, a large percentage of the Russian Popultation is dead.

Manpower? Russia though. The largest langmass and a large popultation.

Answer 4

In terms of numbers of aircraft, soldiers, tanks etc.... the Russians win.
However, the only advantage in quality they have is their Su27 variant airframes.
British armour, jets, ships, soldiers and training is 1000x the quality of the Russians.
Its not about power and how hard you hit, its where you hit that counts. Despite the fact that our armed forces are poorly funded and have low numbers, we can project far more fire power then the Russians could even imagine.
The Russians only have one aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kusnetsov. It carries Su33's but these can only fly when armed for A2A combat. The cant get off the deck with bombs because it doesnt have any catapults.
So they dont have a projectable naval strike force. Their airforce could be brilliant if the avionics fit and tactical information systems the west have were implemented. Their TU160 Blackjacks are a ver impressive sight. Its a more powerful B1B. Unfortunately, I think the RAF, with the right tactics could hold their own against them.
The Army is in complete disarray. Its armour is outdated and so are its mobile missile systems. Russian training, though tough and brutal (which makes tough and strong soldiers) it isnt smart training. Man for Man, I dont think they would stand a chance against the British army.

In terms of raw firepower, complete explosive potential of their weapons, the Russians come top.
But the British armed forces would hit the right targets with the best possible weapons, accurately. I would take that strategy any day.
So I say the Brits. Better equipped, better trained, higher quality throughout. They just lack sheer numbers.

Answer 5

All different aspects contribute to the idea of 'powerful'. Yes, Russia has more manpower and more equipment than Britain, and with all due respect to one of the previous people answering, you may know hardship but you do not know what it is like to have sustained combat, Chechnia doesnt even cut it.

The majority of the tanks, ships and aircraft in the Russian arsenal is extremely outdated, for use during the cold-war. This is somewhat true for the Royal Navy, the bulk of our fleet is designed as anti-submarine, but since the 90s we have been changing that, with the replacement of the 42s with the 45s, even though we are stretched thin, we can still mobilize a formiddable force, with many ships in mothballs ready to be recalled to service crewed with reserves.

Russia has the power and force to take out the british military, but does not have the ability to, i.e they lack the finances and facilities.

Oh and to those refering to the Nukes, Russia wouldnt use them, it would spell their own destruction.

Answer 6

Allowing for all the deviations from the question that have been made the answer must be Russia. The question was not in comparison with any other country for either Russia or Britain. In nuclear capability alone Britain is far outclassed.

Answer 7

that's not sensible. the only continent now which could pull this out is Europe considering they already all started with the ecu. that's posible to unify Europe under a million flag, distant yet posible. ecu replaced into formed not for defense rigidity motives yet low-fee. u . s . a . is an excellent best buddy of Europe yet bussiness sensible nicely we are all capitalist so thats why the union replaced into formed. Individualy no ecu u . s . suits the u . s . a . yet blended is a distinctive tale. Union of Russia and u . s . a . o u . s . a . and Chinas protection rigidity dont even makes sence, first they have distinctive rules and standards. Uniting the international nicely we want extraterrestrial beings for that like somebody reported right here LOL. Britain and France sharing protection rigidity nicely I dont understand yet this smells slike one among the two will come forward in this transaction yet we can see.

Answer 8

I suspect we have no idea of the extent of Russia's military capability but I would not wish to but it to the test. Britain is now a relatively minor military nation but we remain active in two main areas of conflict. If Russia pressed a little button I suspect our little island could vanish from the map of the world.

Answer 9

There are two very important factors that would benefit the UK and handicap Russia.

The British have a professional military -- highly trained and with centuries of tradition and Esprit De Corps. The Russians have a conscript army with little to be proud of -- only a few decades ago an officers job was to shoot retreating soldiers, not to lead. In wars past this was roughly a factor of 15 force multiplier. E.G. 1 professional division roughly equal to 15 conscript divisions on the battlefield.

The British have the GDP on their side by about 12% (2T UK, 1.75 Russia). Most people never think of this, but when it comes to mobilization, it is the logistics that win or lose the war, even though the Army wins or loses the battles. If the UK can pump out more beans and bullets faster, they will triumph over Russia -- assuming they don't do something really stupid to mess it up.

However, if it came down to a fight between the two -- the UK wins without contest. They are part of NATO, and that means the United States has got their back.

And we really are the biggest, baddest, meanest, motherfucker on the block.

Answer 10

Difficult one to answer. For sheer numbers it has to be Russia. For quality it is the UK. Sadly, the Labour Govt has seen to it that our conventional forces have been rendered impotent by starvation of funding and a steady decline in platform numbers which despite the BS that they spout, has hurt our capability enormously. This is particularly the case with the Royal Navy.
I would dispute Lavadog's little table. The UK's forces are on a par with France at least and nowhere does it mention that we have 4 Vanguard submarines armed with 16 Trident D5 showstoppers a-piece. All other nuclear nations were credited with that unfortunate accolade however.

Answer 11

Well in a toe to toe fight,Britain would be overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers alone.Russia has a more than substantial military.

However in a contested area,with both Britain and Russia only able to deploy small forces in equal numbers...i honestly believe the British have an advantage over the Russians.

Soldier Training

At the individual level,a British soldier is far better trained than his Russian Opponent...The ability to fire a rifle is just one aspect of being a modern soldier.Having your troops multi-traded and flexible is an absolute God-send for a commander,and British troops are trained to do each others role in emergency.

The weapons used by Infantry might not be a huge difference between the two forces,but the way they are used is more important.British Soldiers are taught individual marksmanship to a high standard,with extensive leaning towards small self contained fireteams ( approx 5 man teams ) that prove far more effective in combat.

Russian Infantry are very much less effective in small teams,until recently they trained and operated in old style Platoon sized shooting and attacks.

Again with individual NBC training the Brits have the advantage with the worlds best NBC suits ( military issued ) and good skills down to the single infantrymans level.

Leadership

British Doctrine fully encourages ALL its soldiers to think for themselves,( believe it or not )that is why any member of a section can give fire orders if required.....and also the British Armys ace...Its NCO's cannot be bettered.They work as a team,but also train to continue the fight if isolated and make " command decisions " using their initiative.......quite simply,there is not a massive reliance on Officers.

The Russian Army is the exact opposite,They have very many fine and experienced officers/nco's and privates...but they are not encouraged to think outside their command structure..individual initiative is not exactly flavour of the month.

Experience

The British Army is the most widely deployed and active Army in the world when you take its size into account......Ignoring completely what one previous poster stated about them being " deployed in a couple of hotspots ",they have extensive anti-insurgency experience originating from their radical approach started in Burma to this threat,and honed and perfected in the Dozens of conflicts since...including the " training teams" active during vietnam ( only the Aussie SAS had better kill ratios )

Other hints at their expertise and reputation Bosnia and Kosovo,They were by far the most effective troops in Bosnia while waiting for it to go over to NATO command,and in both theatres they had the largest and most dangerous areas to Police.

Armour

Quick one on tanks,Challenger 2 is an exceptional Main Battle Tank,The new armour is far more effective than that carried on the Abrams,one on one there isnt another tank to better it( Leopard 2 newest variant in honesty is pretty stunning )
Assuming equal numbers of tanks....they have a good advantage here

To sum up,The Brits have a small Army...but that Army is highly experienced and active with substantial knowledge.In a equal fight they can hit damm hard.