Military Review

Popular Mechanics: How will Russian and American weapons match in the new Cold War

Increasingly, the predictions of a new Cold War and a new arms race between Russia and the United States are heard. This topic has attracted the attention of military experts and the general public. As a result, numerous attempts are being made in our country and abroad to compare the current situation and the potential of the two countries, and also to draw some conclusions. Consider one of these attempts.

1 last June, the American publication Popular Mechanics published an article by Joe Pappalardo entitled “How will Russian and American weapons fit in the new Cold War”). The heading fully reflects the author’s goals - he attempted to compare the existing military developments of the two countries and draw conclusions about the correlation of forces. It should be noted that a little more than a year has passed since the publication of this publication, which makes it possible to compare the conclusions of the American author with the results of further events.

At the beginning of his article, J. Pappalardo notes that when comparing the armed forces of Russia and the United States, it is difficult not to go back to the calculations of the times of the former Cold War, especially if we consider that a significant number of weapons of that era are still in use. In addition, Russia and the United States remain the largest sellers of weapons and military equipment, which is why quite old systems exist in the arsenals of a significant number of countries.

At the same time, the United States and Russia are currently developing new designs that will determine the appearance of a possible new Cold War and various future armed conflicts. In this regard, the author of the publication Popular Mechanics attempted to consider new promising developments and to determine which of the “competing” countries has advantages.

Robotic systems

J. Pappalardo recalls that in recent years, joint combat work of people and robotic systems has become the norm. The wheeled and tracked vehicles of this class were actively used by the American army in Afghanistan and Iraq for solving a wide range of tasks, including mine clearance, reconnaissance and destruction of various objects. Robotics in recent years received a significant impetus associated with the conduct of hostilities. As a result, in a relatively short time, many robotic complexes were created, from light 5-pound reconnaissance vehicles to tracked vehicles weighing 370 pounds capable of carrying machine guns and rocket launchers.

Russia, the author notes, also did not sit idle and was engaged in their own projects of military robots. In June last year, several new models of such systems were shown during the Army-2015 exhibition. The exhibition exhibits were automated mine sweepers, fire robots, as well as equipment armed with rifle and rocket weapons. Also, the leaders of the Russian Defense Ministry stated that by 2025, one-third of the equipment of the Russian armed forces would be robotic.

According to the American author, the leadership in the field of robotics is currently in the hands of the United States. This conclusion is due to the presence of a mass of projects of such systems, as well as extensive experience in their combat use. Also, the American industry has some advantage in the form of more advanced technologies.


Every year in May, Russia demonstrates the latest models of weapons and military equipment. In 2015, the latest armored vehicles took center stage in the parade on Red Square. Armored combat vehicles are considered by Russians to be a reason for pride, and they are also deservedly regarded as one of the main reasons and means of victory in World War II.

The foreign press immediately drew attention to the newest Russian main tank T-14 "Armata". Among other things, it is called the first Russian tank, created after the landmark T-72. Thus, for the first time since the seventies, Russian industry built a truly new tank. Tank T-14 is built using the most powerful crew protection, is equipped with a developed reservation and carries an uninhabited tower. The media actively discussed the possibility of equipping the Armata tank with an 152 mm caliber gun with a significant increase in firepower. As a result, the newest Russian tank is the “top predator”, which is extremely difficult to kill.

At the same time, the United States is preparing new projects that allow it to retain existing relatively old tanks. It is argued that the new American modernization projects are based on the expansion of opportunities in comparison with the current state of technology. The efforts of the industry are focused on ensuring that the existing M1A1 Abrams tanks remain a serious opponent in the future. The latest upgrade options for this technology included the use of new infrared systems, new instrumentation equipment for crew jobs and a remotely controlled combat module.

Popular Mechanics edition recognizes Russia as the leader in the field of tank building. He notes that the new is not always the best, and that the Russian defense industry cannot compare with the Soviet one. Nevertheless, an attempt to resist the new armored vehicles of Russia would be a bad idea. Tanks "Armata" look very effective, as well as equipped with modern armor and detection systems. All this makes the T-14 a dangerous adversary.

Rocket artillery and missiles

The “god of war” in the current situation can be multiple rocket launchers: hardly anything can compare with the rain from the warheads delivered by missiles. When using unmanned aerial vehicles capable of searching for targets and determining the results of a strike, artillery can increase its potential in counter-battery combat. For this reason, artillery, including reactive, must have a high mobility in order to timely escape from the retaliatory strike.

Both the United States and Russia are armed with self-propelled medium-range and long-range MRL systems. At the same time, however, the two countries created their complexes in accordance with their own views. So, the United States created the M142 HIMARS system. On the self-propelled chassis of this machine is installed a package of guides for six 227 mm caliber missiles capable of delivering cluster warheads with various submunitions to targets.

The HIMARS complex differs from other systems by high accuracy of hits. In addition, the American industry has created a similar system with high rates of firing - ATACMS. Also ATZMS type MLRS receives a missile with an 500-pound warhead. A characteristic feature of the American salvo fire systems is the possibility of using satellite-guided missiles capable of hitting various targets. According to reports, to date, the army in a combat situation were used 570 missiles of the ATACMS system. In addition, in May (2015 of the year), the company-developer and manufacturer of new systems, Lockheed Martin, received a new contract to continue production of missiles with a total value of 174 million dollars.

Russian creators of multiple rocket launchers use other ideas. Traditionally, the number of missiles in the salvo has a higher priority than their accuracy. The standard appearance of the Russian MLRS is as follows: a truck on which the launcher is mounted with a large number of guides for missiles. For example, the BM-21 “Grad” combat vehicle is built on the basis of a three-axle truck chassis, carries 40 guides and can use up all the ammunition load in a matter of seconds. Here J. Pappalardo recommends recalling the HIMARS system with a six-rocket ammunition and a little more accuracy.

Nevertheless, the Russian armed forces pay great attention to other missile systems. In service are mobile complexes with long-range missiles, which can be used to attack various objects in the territory of Eastern European NATO member countries. Special attention is given to the Iskander-M operational tactical missile system (according to the NATO classification - SS-26 Stone). After 20 minutes of training, such a combat vehicle can launch a rocket with a range of about 250 miles and a warhead weighing 880 pounds. At the same time, the rocket deviates from the calculated point of impact of just 15 feet. Russia regularly conducts exercises with the use of Iskander family complexes. In addition, these complexes are deployed in new areas. For example, the placement of "Iskander" in the Kaliningrad region can significantly expand their area of ​​responsibility.

According to the author, Russia is leading in the field of rocket artillery. Russian MLRS do not have high accuracy, however, the use of reconnaissance drones and spotters can significantly improve the efficiency of existing equipment. In the case of operational-tactical missile complexes, the Russian advantage is connected with the advantages of the “home field”. Russia has the ability to deploy missile systems in various areas, and also has a significant number of bases and the ability to supply them.

Barrel Artillery

J. Pappalardo recalls that artillery from the very moment of its appearance was the main threat to the enemy forces. The experience of recent conflicts, in which American and Russian troops had to take part, clearly demonstrated the importance of ground forces in general and “traditional” barreled artillery in particular. The guns of various classes played a crucial role in all recent conflicts.

To survive in the conditions of modern war, artillery requires high mobility. For example, the gunners of the US Marine Corps, operating the towed howitzers of the M777 type, can change positions with the use of MV-22 Osprey converters. Rotary-wing vehicles are able to raise guns with the calculation and deliver them to the desired area, compensating for the initial low mobility of the towed artillery. In addition, American troops have “big guns” on self-propelled chassis, but this technique is not new.

The main self-propelled artillery of the United States M109 Paladin was adopted in the 1969 year. Over the past decades, this armored vehicle has undergone several upgrades, the results of which are now the troops have an ACS of the M109A7 type. This modernization, completed relatively recently, implies the use of some new systems, including an updated power supply complex based on an auxiliary power unit. This improves the performance characteristics of the self-propelled gun, opens the way for new upgrades, and also improves the basic combat qualities. So, the M109A7 SAU is now capable of making up to four shots per minute.

Meanwhile, Russia is developing completely new systems. At the May 9 parade, the newest self-propelled artillery 2C35 "Coalition-SV" was shown. To improve the performance of the new system in comparison with the existing, various innovations are used. For example, it has become possible to use adjustable projectiles that are independently guided by a laser illuminated target. Another characteristic feature of the new Russian self-propelled guns is the possibility of using various types of ammunition loaded into automated styling. All operations with the ammunition at the same time carried out without the direct participation of people.

The author of the publication Popular Mechanics cannot determine which country has an advantage in the field of barreled artillery, as a result of which a verdict: draw. The United States gunners are able to move both around the battlefield and through the air, which seriously increases the mobility of the units and also allows for attacks from unexpected directions. This gives the American artillery certain advantages. Russian artillerymen may not fly in the area of ​​combat operations in order to find a comfortable position and strike. In addition, the Russian army has good combat vehicles. Nevertheless, the United States has good potential in tracking a land enemy and its subsequent destruction by air strikes.


The article "How Russian and American Weapons Would Be Up in a New Cold War" was published about a year ago, but on the whole it remains relevant. The weapons systems of the two countries reviewed by J. Pappalardo have not disappeared, and new projects have advanced even further. For example, US troops have already mastered the upgraded self-propelled guns M109A7, and are also preparing to receive the updated tanks M1A2 SEP v.3. In addition, the Russian T-14 tank is preparing for future mass production, and the troops have already received a significant number of MLRS of the Tornado family, which are characterized by enhanced characteristics.

However, over the past year, some events have occurred that could have affected the content of the Popular Mechanics article if it appeared later. So, the main sensation of last fall, which occurred during the Russian operation against terrorists in Syria, was the use of cruise missiles of the Caliber family. Such weapons were used several times with remarkable results by ships and submarines of the Russian naval fleet. It would be very interesting to see with what the American author would compare the Caliber rocket and what conclusions about it would be made.

Also in Syria, several types of aircraft showed their potential in real conflict situations: both the relatively old Tu-95MS, Tu-22М3 and Tu-160, as well as the latest Su-34 and Su-35С. This technique, capable of striking various targets with the use of a wide range of ammunition, could also fall into an interesting comparison.

Moreover, for some reason J. Pappalardo did not consider the mass of other types of weapons and equipment of the two countries that have appeared in recent years. It would be interesting to look at a comparison of the newest fighters of Russian and American production, submarines, ammunition of various types, etc. Nevertheless, it seems that the format of the article made it necessary to refuse to consider these samples.

The resulting comparison - even if abbreviated, as well as very conditional - can be a peculiar reason for pride. When comparing the potential of the two countries in four regions, it turned out that Russia won in two “nominations”, while the United States retains only one such victory, and the state of affairs in the field of barreled artillery does not allow one to accurately determine the advantage of one country. As a result, Russia defeats a potential opponent in a hypothetical Cold War with a total score of 2: 1.

Nevertheless, we should not forget that all such comparisons are very conditional and can not claim to be true. To determine the real situation with all its nuances, it is necessary to conduct more serious and in-depth studies, which, for obvious reasons, can hardly be published in open sources and in articles of the usual format. However, in this case, articles like "Popular Mechanics" are of particular interest.

The article "How Russian and American Weapons Would Match Up in a New Cold War":
31 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. inkass_98
    inkass_98 14 June 2016 07: 22
    As a result, Russia defeats a likely opponent in a hypothetical Cold War with a total score of 2: 1.

    God grant that these estimates remain only in theory, and not find application in the practical sphere. Events are developing so rapidly and unpredictably that the current "cold war" (the existing relations between Russia and NATO cannot be called anything else) may suddenly turn into a hot phase.
    1. alex-defensor
      alex-defensor 14 June 2016 11: 18
      In many ways, the author is mistaken, but too lazy to list, I will only point out that Russia should not be compared with the United States, but with NATO. For example, the USA is not a tank power, and the modernized Abrams look very disadvantageous even against the background of the modernized T-72s and, all the more so, the T-90AM.However, at the European theater, Russia will be opposed by LeClerc and Leopards 2A6 and 2A7 (2A7 +). And this is another matter.
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 14 June 2016 19: 44
        Quote: alex-defensor
        For example, the USA is not a tank power, and the modernized Abrams look very unprofitable even against the background of the modernized T-72 and, moreover, the T-90AM

        You're not right. The USA is not a LAND power, but just a tank one.
        So, in terms of the number of tanks the United States does not look so bad - about 6000 thousand Abrams. The latter have one very important advantage - they are constantly and massively updated. Earlier, DZ was only an advantage of Russian and Israeli tanks, now it is the memorable Abrams.
        In addition, the T-72B3 has not yet been brought to the final level - these vehicles differ from the year of manufacture in terms of completeness: the T-72B3 of 2016 should receive automatic transmission, lattice screens, Relikt DZ and a new Kord anti-aircraft machine gun (not not the fact that it will be remote control), but on the machines of the previous year - "Contact-5". Old "holes" in the location of the DZ in the bow (around the gun) and aft parts of the turret have not been eliminated. Unfortunately, we still haven't abandoned the non-mechanized ammunition rack in the rear of the turret, and there is no remotely controlled machine gun - only an open machine gun mount.
        The Yankees have already announced that a new version of Abrams will receive KAZ. Neither Arena nor Curtains appeared on the serial T-72B3, although the T-2013 and KAZ Arena-E (very compact) versions were already presented at exhibitions in 72.
        MBT "Armata" en masse will go to the troops only after the end of state tests - and this is not earlier than in 1-3 years. There is no T-90AM in the troops.
        So in tanks, we now have at best parity, not superiority.
    2. Igul
      Igul 15 June 2016 14: 56
      And if it goes hot, then they will no longer decide the tanks, but the means of delivery of nuclear weapons.
  2. Pitot
    Pitot 14 June 2016 07: 40
    Where is the most important indicator? The most important indicator is the Soldier's Spirit. Warrior Spirit. Willingness to sacrifice oneself. Note - show us, dear "partners", by some example, the military spirit of a homosexual? Although you can smell him in any outhouse at the station ...
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 14 June 2016 10: 10
      The Japanese also thought so, and what happened to them all know. Spirit is spirit, and weapons need the most modern and in the right quantities.
      1. slimp
        slimp 14 June 2016 17: 24
        That's just no need to juggle. Remember at least the feat of our paratroopers in Chechnya. The command certainly screwed up, but the guys are well done. If this were the case with mattresses, they would fill up all the screens with adaptations. Yes, only, apparently weak to them.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 14 June 2016 19: 49
          You yourself answered.
          If this happens with mattresses

          You see, it doesn’t happen to them, and that’s exactly what you need to go to, and not rely on pulling Avos out of the way, the guys will devour the land somehow, pay with blood and win.
    2. Kenneth
      Kenneth 14 June 2016 12: 00
      Yeah, there were smart people who took hostage digging digging trenches, rejection of the dense system because it violates the spirit. Yes, but not these chains went into attacks on machine guns.
    3. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 14 June 2016 19: 50
      Quote: Pitot
      And where is the most important indicator? The most important indicator is the Spirit of the Soldier. The Spirit of the Warrior. Willingness to sacrifice oneself.

      Before WWI, the French refused to dig trenches - the war had a bad influence on the Spirit. The Japanese did not experience any problems with the Spirit: bayonets, suicides, etc. But reality very quickly demonstrates that the swaggering hat and popularization of the "Spirit of War" in the absence of military-technical and military-industrial parity or superiority lead to the fact that the swagger is quickly buried.
      That the USSR, that the Germans, that the Yankees during WWII maintained a high spirit by the mass saturation of troops with normal weapons.
  3. AlmaAta
    AlmaAta 14 June 2016 08: 10
    Usa paper army ... the dollar is their main weapon
    1. Kenneth
      Kenneth 14 June 2016 11: 57
      Yes, and very effective.
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 14 June 2016 19: 51
        Quote: AlmaAta
        Usa paper army ... the dollar is their main weapon

        Wow, why did the USSR Armed Forces consider them to be an equal opponent?
  4. azer
    azer 14 June 2016 08: 21
    The main thing is that all these guns are silent and we live in peace.
  5. SeregaBoss
    SeregaBoss 14 June 2016 09: 15
    Mattresses will never understand that there is a big difference in fighting for someone else's land and fighting for their land. Nobody will ever conquer Russia mother, no matter what little balls come up in the near future.
    1. slimp
      slimp 14 June 2016 17: 40

      +1 to previous speaker
  6. Kenneth
    Kenneth 14 June 2016 11: 57
    The one who ensures supremacy in the air and information domination will prevail. Tank wedges and a shaft of fire are outdated.
    1. slimp
      slimp 14 June 2016 17: 11
      With the modern development of air defense / missile defense, in the event of a conflict between the countries that have it, aviation will be used very carefully, if at all. One downed plane is 20-30 tanks. So, tank wedges, perhaps, are not so much outdated yet.
    2. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 14 June 2016 19: 53
      Quote: Kenneth
      Tank wedges and a shaft of fire are outdated.

      That's just all modern conflicts (over the past 10 years) demonstrate the opposite. In addition, the civil war in Ukraine vividly demonstrated that effective air defense is quite capable of leveling the threat from the Air Force. Syria also testifies that without a strong ground force, the Air Force is not able to win the war alone.
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 15 June 2016 04: 34
        Quote: Blackgrifon
        In addition, the civil war in Ukraine clearly demonstrated that effective air defense is quite capable of leveling the threat from the Air Force
        The Ukrainian Air Force is a small number of planes and helicopters, with outdated weapons systems or simply not adapted to work on the ground. Imperfect weapons forced them to be deployed at slaughter distances under MANPADS. Without modern REP means, this was akin to suicide. In addition, they had no practical experience. the use of the Air Force in battle and they say that they didn’t fly much in training. And this will definitely lead to losses in the event of a real mess. The militiamen are good fellows, who correctly and effectively took advantage of the situation of a complete mess in Ukraine Sun, but this is not an indicator. Rather, a warning is not necessary.
        1. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 15 June 2016 18: 58
          Quote: Thunderbolt
          The Ukrainian Air Force is a small number of aircraft and helicopters, with outdated weapons systems or simply not

          The level of air defense of the LDNR was consistent with the level of air defense. At the same time, airborne air forces had, and, unfortunately, still have significant technical superiority (Su-25, MiG-29, Mi-24). The air defense of the militia, as you rightly noted, was based on MANPADS and old Cinderella, and the fact that they managed to stop the air threat is amazing.

          Quote: slimp
          One downed plane is 20-30 tanks.

          You will be surprised, but this ratio is even smaller: the Yugoslav armed forces were attacked by the NATO Air Force for several months, and according to the enemy’s calculations, they should have been multiplied by 0. But after the end of the campaign, it turned out that the losses of the Serbian aircraft from air strikes were minimal.
  7. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 14 June 2016 12: 52
    ... "It would be very interesting to see what the American author would compare the Caliber missile with and what conclusions would be drawn about it." ...

    The closest analogue is Tomahawk RGM / UGM-109D TLAM-D RGM / UGM-109E Tactical Tomahawk RGM / UGM-109H).
    The Tomahawk is inferior in speed to the final section (subsonic), and so far it has not been reported about the possibility of group distribution of targets, which is a serious minus. But this will be done in the process of modification. But to put an accelerator to achieve supersonic speed at the final stage is either to reduce the payload, or to the detriment of range.
    The advantages of a tomahawk are the presence of an infrared seeker, which should make it more noise-resistant when counteracting in the radar range.
    1. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 15 June 2016 09: 13
      The caliber in the version for attacking ground targets is also subsonic.
      Only the Caliber in the RCC version has a supersonic combat stage (and its range is not 2000 km but about 400)
  8. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 14 June 2016 14: 58
    Russian creators of multiple launch rocket systems use different ideas. Traditionally, the number of missiles in a salvo has a higher priority than their accuracy.

    This is not entirely true. Already there are modified MLRS in the troops where the calculation is made on accuracy. Thanks to the new fire control system, as well as new ammunition.
  9. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 14 June 2016 15: 04
    Popular Mechanics cannot determine which country has an advantage in the field of barrel artillery

    This is not surprising, considering whose medium the publication of this journal is financed. In the barrel artillery, Russia leads. And the superiority in the mobility of American systems can be called very conditional. Because if there are a sufficient number of air defense systems from MANPADS to mobile air defense systems of various ranges with the Russian armed forces, this conditional superiority can be leveled.
    1. Come on
      Come on 15 June 2016 01: 22
      Quote: wanderer_032
      And the superiority in the mobility of American systems can be called very conditional

      A very strange statement. Multiple superiority not only in mobile howitzers, but also equipping them with BIUS, a multiple number of "smart shells", long-range shells, and of such auxiliary "trinkets" as UAVs of different sizes and other "pointers" from an individual soldier to equipment, this is not a conditional nifiga, this is a problem. This is the speed of deployment-folding, accuracy, range, and, consequently, lower consumption of the BC.
    2. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 15 June 2016 09: 15
      More precisely, like this: in the field of towed artillery and UAS, the United States leads, in the field of self-propelled guns - Russia (and Germany)
  10. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 14 June 2016 15: 08
    Armata tanks look very effective, and are also equipped with modern armor and detection systems. All this makes the T-14 a dangerous adversary.

    And if good qualified crews and repair units are prepared for these new machines, then everything will be fine.
  11. Mwg
    Mwg 14 June 2016 15: 37
    I think that in the new Cold War, not tanks and artillery will be of key importance, but new types of strategic and tactical weapons (including strategic nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons) and their delivery vehicles (including hypersonic ones), as well as means counteracting them. And also, probably, electronic warfare and detection equipment. Indeed, in the event of confrontation, Russia will be opposed in the singular and the rest of the "civilized" Western world. And it doesn't matter where the starting points are, the main thing is that on our side there is a 100% chance of their defeat. And tanks can come in handy for clearing the launch area. There, the T-72 will do quite well, because especially active countermeasures are not expected due to attacks from our side on the places of deployment / concentration of enemy forces. Therefore, in addition to quality, the quantity of what we will resist will also be of great importance. And our people, due to their mentality, do not need to morally prepare for war, we are always ready)))) Even when we are fed up and live well ... And if we also drink well ... (this is a joke of humor)
  12. dmitriyruss
    dmitriyruss 15 June 2016 01: 01
    Our robots are our robots, as well as people will close embrasures with themselves ...
  13. dmikras
    dmikras 15 June 2016 19: 33
    Maybe I’ll say stupidity, but why in many translated articles and even not translated, pounds feet do not translate into kilograms and meters (at least in brackets)? It is inconvenient, however, to understand