Ukraine-in-a-thread

[a completely inoffensive name]

What a wonderful example of a serious discussion turning into a big circle jerk over our respective regions. And here I thought would take the notion that an out of touch, power hungry dictator in control of several thousand nukes would make people just a tad bit more restrained.

Can't wait for when my generation realizes the draft never went away, it's just called the selective service.

[a completely inoffensive name]

"Hitler was legitimatly elected chancellor of Germany." Nope. Hitler was called by Hindenburg, Hitler was never elected in fact.

COuld have sworn it was only like a month or two ago, I said this exact same thing to GC in a thread about something...

[Ironside]

"Hitler was legitimatly elected chancellor of Germany." Nope. Hitler was called by Hindenburg, Hitler was never elected in fact.

Hindenburg was elected legally. Hitler got votes legally. Hinderburg did a legal coalition with Hitler, who had the second largest party.
It's similar to when the loser in the US presidential election got the vice-president position. It's the following power expansion/abuse when things starts to really get out of hands.

Technically, The Swedish people never elects our prime minister. We elect the parlament (riksdagen), whose spokesperson picks a prime minister that riksdagen approves of.

[Husar]

At the edge - from the Crimea. If it's Russia-proper, forget about it - the strike craft won't be able to make it.

We are not talking about WW2-era airplanes here, modern jets and especially bombers have quite a bit more range than prop planes had back then.


If the US intervened that fleet would be on the bottom of the ocean before anybody knew what was going on. Fortunately for Russia, we probably won't intervene. Targeted stealth asswhoopings are something we've still got the edge on. One B2 flying waaay up there with a payload of smartbombs is all it would take.

Apart from Pape's hilarious answer, I think you may overestimate the stealth technology a bit. Even stealth missions are carefully planned to avoid air defenses because stealth doesn't equal complete invisibility. And for bombs you have to fly right over your target, makes one wonder why so many nations invented anti ship missiles with hundreds of kilometers of range. Those stealth bombers have also not been up against a proper, modern russian air defense network as far as I'm aware. It's possible that your 737 million $ bomber would just end up as scrap metal on the bottom of the black sea.


And here I thought would take the notion that an out of touch, power hungry dictator in control of several thousand nukes would make people just a tad bit more restrained.

Indeed, when are they going to impeach Obama!?!

[Fisherking]

Thankfully military intervention is off the table at this time.

The West is stronger on paper but they are not ready and the forces are of the wrong composition to fight a conventional war.

If the US were to take charge of the planning and leadership of such an intervention it would only exacerbate the problems.

For all their rhetoric about smart bombs and so on the US Air Force in Kosovo managed to take out a company of APCs and a Company’s worth of tanks. Not much bang for the buck was it?

Have they improved? Who knows, do you really want to find out?

It would seem that we are once again caught preparing for the wrong war.

All of our light infantry, drones, and special forces are not going to beat a Russian mechanized army.

[Myth]

Russia has no reason to invade Serbia. The most prized asset of Serbia are their gorgeous women. However I am sure you are all aware that Russia has a very large stock of those as well (cold war stockpiling I guess). Also, the Serbians had the gigantic balls to stand up to the USA, take the bombing (lol nice smart missile useage guys. You sure did a number on all those empty fields and non essential bridges) AND dance a traditonal balkan dance called horo on top of a feleld F-117 Stealth Jet. Of course that jet went down due to a technical malfunction, God forbid if they admitted that it got shot down by cold war era ground-to-air missiles.

Bulgaria also has a great stockpile of gorgeous women which are also doubled with many beach resorts and cheap Alchohol. Thus, the German and British invasion is an ongoing, annual process. Still, the majority of our tourism comes from Russia. And the Russians are the ones who come with money. Our western overlords send their broke 20 year olds who go to all inclusives and don't spend much outside that.

Also, with all these liberal movements, I suppose Germany is now even more inclined to invade if promised some Balkan sausage. However, we are Orthodox Christians and we don't swing that way, so we will be uniting with Putin to make a new Orthodox Christian block of homophobes.

Of course, Sarmatian knows well our true motives. We are all secretly Tengri horselords and are planning to form the Great Bulgarian Khaganate. Serbia will be the first to be incorporated, because we want their womenfolk (the appetites of horselords are vast) and their pastures. Even after US bombing there are plenty of green fields for our herds!

Now on a serious note:

To get to join NATO (which I don't see as a positive thing) Bulgaria had to dismantle and destroy its armed forces and defensive positions. In 1990 we had a 150,000 army with a reserve that could go up to 400,000. Every eligible male had gone through 1.5 or 2 years of mandatory service.

We had launch sites for the infamous SS-23 missiles, aimed at Turkish dams and nuclear power plants. Of course we had to cut them into scrap on orders from Washington.

If Russia wants to take Bulgaria it will waltz through the Danube and rush on from Ruse through Pleven and they will probably stop when they reach the Balkan (Stara Planina) since the passes are tremendous choke points and no amount of zerg rushing will speed up the process of going through. Of course, in a matter of weeks they'd be marching across Sofia. I personally am more interested in what will happen with all the US airbases sprinkled around our sovereign territory. I do NOT want Bulgaria to be bombed because the bombers (stealth or otherwise) are flying from here.

The Black Sea is important but let's not kid ourselves - Turkey and Russia are not on the best of terms and anyone who dismisses a 90 million country so easily needs to think again.

Also, I still think that the US Navy is still the best naval force in the world by a large, large margin. I am more interested in this question: we're talking tanks and paper armies and such. What about the 8300 nukes that Russia has? And the 7800 that the USA has? And the 300 that France has? And the 250 that the UK has? How far will the tanks go until these weapons are being considered? Cuz that's where it gets really scary for me.

18th, 19th or 20th century dictators cannot exist any more because the nukes exist.

[Gilrandir]

Didn't you oust him? After that, you created a new government. Why, if Yanukovich was the problem? But, ok, let's say there weren't enough indications that the old government would hold fair and transparent elections. In that case you set up an interim, technical government which only deals with day to day management of the country until the first moment elections could be held. Why? Because that government is ILLEGITIMATE! It wasn't agreed on by the people or their elected representatives, so that government simply doesn't have the mandate to do anything else.

OK,let's get technical. When Yanukovych was elected in 2010 his powers were constitunionally limited to offering some ministers (internal affairs, defense,foreign) to be approved by the parliament. The cabinet of ministers was to be formed by the parliament as well as the prime minister was to be the leader of the parliamentary majority coalition. Yanukovych, having the Constitutional Court in hand, made such an arrangement void as it was ostensibly introduced in 2004 with some violations of the adoption procedures. But the Court couldn't just return the Constitution to what had been before 2004, it is not in its power, it could just proclaim some decisions constitutional or non-constitutional (are you still following me?). So a stalemate occured:the new constitution was wrong, but the old one couldn't be returned to either. So what was the way out for Yanukovych? Easy and ingeniuos - he ordered the text of the Constitution on his official website to be "edited" the way he wanted. So he could now appoint the whole cabinet of ministers, the prime-minister, the prosecutor general, all the judges around the country... The people of Ukraine entrusted him with no such powers when he was elected president. Was this editing a legitimate decision? So technically, Yanukovych was a president with illegitimate powers.
As for the government we are having, it IS an interrim one until the new president is elected and the new parliament is elected (supposedly in October). Turchinov claimed he was ready to step down the moment it is expedient. According to the constitution you can't have both presidential and parliamentary election on the same day. They had to choose and since the president couldn't evidently be kept they decided to keep the parliament and re-elect it later.

[Kagemusha]

I think last night and this day has been somewhat better then yesterday and i have to applaud both armed forces for their composure, while the situation remains very troubled indeed. Today we have heard about warning shots, cyber attacks and possible problems with Gas distribution from Russian side with of course the very interesting speech of Mr.Putin.

At the West, it would seem that US is taking very active stance for Ukraine. Very complicated day, but i sincerely hope that both sides will understand that it is the negotiating table, where things should be decided and nowhere else. I feel there is lot of propaganda flying both ways, but my cautious optimism is somewhat returning and i hope the most tense days are over, but who knows..

[Myth]

http://news.msn.com/world/us-prepares-dollar1b-aid-package-for-troubled-ukraine

So the country which is billions (they call them trillions) in debt and which basically gave up on Detroit is now giving 1 billion to Ukraine?

[rvg]

So the country which is billions (they call them trillions) in debt and which basically gave up on Detroit is now giving 1 billion to Ukraine?

Jealous?

[Myth]

No, it just doesn't make sense.

edit: ok now it does.

http://www.dnes.bg/world/2014/03/04/gazprom-spira-gazovite-otstypki-za-ukraina.217770 (in Bulgarian)

Gazprom is discontinuing the discounts for gas deliveries to Ukraine. Ukraine is 1.2 billion in debt towards Russia for gas delivers for the past 2 years. Putin is considering giving them 3.2 billion to handle that payment to Gazprom.

Lol, so in effect, the US aid can go as payment to Gazprom. Guess they settled it like gentlemen.

[rvg]

Also, I still think that the US Navy is still the best naval force in the world by a large, large margin. I am more interested in this question: we're talking tanks and paper armies and such. What about the 8300 nukes that Russia has? And the 7800 that the USA has? And the 300 that France has? And the 250 that the UK has? How far will the tanks go until these weapons are being considered? Cuz that's where it gets really scary for me...

The nukes will start flying as soon as someone decides that humanity has had a good run but its time is up. Might as well clear out the planet for the next dominant species. Personally, I'm rooting for dolphins.

[rvg]

double post

[Sarmatian]

OK,let's get technical. When Yanukovych was elected in 2010 his powers were constitunionally limited to offering some ministers (internal affairs, defense,foreign) to be approved by the parliament. The cabinet of ministers was to be formed by the parliament as well as the prime minister was to be the leader of the parliamentary majority coalition. Yanukovych, having the Constitutional Court in hand, made such an arrangement void as it was ostensibly introduced in 2004 with some violations of the adoption procedures. But the Court couldn't just return the Constitution to what had been before 2004, it is not in its power, it could just proclaim some decisions constitutional or non-constitutional (are you still following me?). So a stalemate occured:the new constitution was wrong, but the old one couldn't be returned to either. So what was the way out for Yanukovych? Easy and ingeniuos - he ordered the text of the Constitution on his official website to be "edited" the way he wanted. So he could now appoint the whole cabinet of ministers, the prime-minister, the prosecutor general, all the judges around the country... Was this editing a legitimate decision? The people of Ukraine entrusted him with no such powers when he was elected president. So technically, Yanukovych was a president with illegitimate powers.
As for the government we are having, it IS an interrim one until the new president is elected and the new parliament is elected (supposedly in October). Turchinov claimed he was ready to step down the moment it is expedient. According to the constitution you can't have both presidential and parliamentary election on the same day. They had to choose and since the president couldn't evidently be kept they decided to keep the parliament and re-elect it later.

Forget about Yanukovich, he's out, not a part of the equation any more. What I'm saying is what you could have done AFTER ousting Yanukovich to avoid the situation you're in currently.

Interim government, by the simplest and most accurate definition, is a government established to prepare for elections. That is its only purpose. It can only concern itself with elections as soon as possible and with day-to-day running of the country, like making sure taxes are still coming in, pensions going out, schools and government offices are opened and working and so on. It should not, under any circumstances, attempt to radically change domestic and foreign policies. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

This Maidan government didn't act like an interim government, no doubt about that.

What I'd like to hear from you, as a Ukrainian, is do you consider the deal I mentioned in the previous post acceptable?
In short, new (true) interim government, anything done by Maidan government null and void, more autonomy for Crimea, especially and new elections. Would it be acceptable to you personally, and your opinion of would it be acceptable to Ukrainians in general. What would be the reaction if Russia would offer a similar deal?


I feel there is lot of propaganda flying both ways, but my cautious optimism is somewhat returning and i hope the most tense days are over, but who knows..

I share similar sentiments. The worst part is over. That doesn't mean things can't get ugly later on, however.

[Kagemusha]

Nokia still exist...?

We sold anything worth a dime from it to the Yanks. See the Serbian strategy for becoming non interesting target for invasion. Once this ordeal in Ukraine is over we will continue building up for our invasion of your country and immediate surrender afterwards. Then you have certainly some people to use your excess oil money..~D

[Fisherking]

Nukes are (hopefully) to modern war what poison gas was in WWII. You have it but it makes no sense to use it.

Though if the US Navy massed a fleet to enter the Black Sea I would not take any bets one way or the other. It also makes more sense to dominate the area from the air.

The US has no tanks in Europe any longer. They are not air deployable so you are talking weeks. Also there are so very few trained tank crews. Most US combat brigades are either light infantry or Stryker Brigades.

A Stryker Brigade makes a nice speed bump for an armored force. Light infantry is hardly noticeable.

Their advantage over the Armored Brigades is that they have sufficient infantry for sustained operations.

Since the 1980 the US adopted organizations that fit the toys but not the requirements of battlefield sustainment. They created many officer slots but got rid of trigger pullers. They bought overpriced equipment that didn’t match the tasks. Their best pieces of hardware, the M-1 tank they keep trying to get rid of, along with the A-10 which the Air Force had dumped at last.

The leaders have a puffed up view of their capabilities because they have not had to fight a 1st class organization with out a vast technical advantage.

Their military begets have been about making manufacturers rich and giving top offices a job on retirement. Not building a war fighting and war winning force.

Drowns and helicopters do not take and hold ground. Light infantry or Strykers can’t hold against tanks. Most of their AT missiles are over rated.

I think the US and most of the west is going to have to get their butts kicked before they wake up and smell the coffee.

[rvg]

Tanks dominate the field, but most warfare nowadays is urban. Tanks are not very well suited for this kind of warfare. As for field battles, that's where A1 Warthog comes in. He eats tanks for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

[Fisherking]

Only if there is down right air supremacy. They are slow and just about anything will take them down.

You can’t say most war is urban. It depends on where you are going and what you want to do.

That is why you need infantry. But tanks can support infantry in cities. Just not lead the way as they do in the open field.

[rvg]

Only if there is down right air supremacy. They are slow and just about anything will take them down.
Absolutely. Without air supremacy we're screwed. But we are pretty good in the air.



You can’t say most war is urban. It depends on where you are going and what you want to do.
Sure. Then again, if there's a huge enemy army in the field, why engage it on the ground? It's practically begging to be bombed into smithereens.


That is why you need infantry. But tanks can support infantry in cities. Just not lead the way as they do in the open field.
Exactly. So why engage in the open field where the enemy can dominate? Stick with cities and largely nullify the tank advantage.

[Kagemusha]

Tanks dominate the field, but most warfare nowadays is urban. Tanks are not very well suited for this kind of warfare. As for field battles, that's where Puff the Magic Dragon comes in. He eats tanks for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

In mechanized warfare in Urban enviroment. One leaves tanks behind and before them are infantry and IFV´s. Tanks only come forward, when the force makes contact with something that the infantry with its indirect fire support cant take out. With a modern mechanized force one has three layers of AA support, from auto cannons of IFV´s and man portable short range AA missiles, to middle and long range AA missiles fired from mobile platforms, ending into your own fighter aircraft. The first layer can take out enemy helicopters efficiently and have effect on enemy jets, but the other two are the ones really for the jets / attack aircraft.

The thing is that what we have seen in recent wars are either one force fighting another that is seriously outdated or a force fighting one hand behind their backs, because of the level of intensity of conflict or other factors. I think Fisherking is talking about an real all out war with modern equipment. Basically we have not even witnessed a modern AA in action in recent conflicts. Thus we cant say for sure how well it can defend friendly armored forces, but im fairly certain the capability is fairly better then we have witnessed from out of date AA.

[Husar]

Jealous?

1 Billion is a joke. Putin wanted to give them 15 (one source says 18) billion and the EU wanted to work with the IMF to provide an aid package of 20 billion.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fec6c296-9c4b-11e3-b535-00144feab7de.html#axzz2v0gZV8iV


Before Mr Yanukovich backed out of signing an integration treaty with the EU in November, a U-turn that triggered months of protests which led to his removal, the EU was prepared to join the International Monetary Fund in an aid package worth as much as €20bn over seven years, according to documents seen by the Financial Times.

That still wouldn't have made Mr. Yanukovich happy, who had somewhat more...ambitious plans:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/12/11/uk-ukraine-eu-azarov-idUKBRE9BA08O20131211


Yanukovich has said his country needs $20 billion a year until 2017, and a total amount of $160 billion.

:rolleyes:

[rvg]

The thing is that what we have seen in recent wars are either one force fighting another that is seriously outdated or a force fighting one hand behind their backs, because of the level of intensity of conflict or other factors. I think Fisherking is talking about an real all out war with modern equipment. Basically we have not even witnessed a modern AA in action in recent conflicts. Thus we cant say for sure how well it can defend friendly armored forces, but im fairly certain the capability is fairly better then we have witnessed from out of date AA.
Sure, we're theorizing. We can look at what has worked as recently as 1991 and 2003. Granted, Russia is lightyears ahead of Iraq in terms of AA capabilities, but that doesn't mean that our tactics are somehow invalid. If an an actual combat engagement proves the tactics unsustainable, we'll adjust them. Our military folks are pretty good at learning from their mistakes.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If the US intervened that fleet would be on the bottom of the ocean before anybody knew what was going on. Fortunately for Russia, we probably won't intervene. Targeted stealth asswhoopings are something we've still got the edge on. One B2 flying waaay up there with a payload of smartbombs is all it would take.

Absolutely. You can argue that we are too feckless in our commitment to allies. You can argue that we fail to plan for the aftermath of a military operation worth a damn. You can argue that we get the humanitarian/state interest thing hopelessly muddled and inconsistent in our foreign policy. You can argue that our efforts to suppress insurgencies are hideously expensive and no more effective than less costly approaches.

But busting up high-priced military targets? THAT we can do really well.

Which is the reason that we seldom get to do anything but fight grinding insurgency attrition campaigns (our opponents aren't stupid and refuse to play our best game by our rules) and send highly-trained and effective tankers like GelCube out into the desert as unspecialized light infantry.

[Kagemusha]

Sure, we're theorizing. We can look at what has worked as recently as 1991 and 2003. Granted, Russia is lightyears ahead of Iraq in terms of AA capabilities, but that doesn't mean that our tactics are somehow invalid. If an an actual combat engagement proves the tactics unsustainable, we'll adjust them. Our military folks are pretty good at learning from their mistakes.

Of course warfare is mostly about adjusting. There is no simple cure for everything.Otherwise all would be using such. What i am saying is that you still need a real ground component, for combined arms. There is no such thing as one trump card for all situations and enviroments.

[rvg]

1 Billion is a joke. Putin wanted to give them 15 (one source says 18) billion and the EU wanted to work with the IMF to provide an aid package of 20 billion.

The difference is that our billion comes with no strings attached unlike the billions from the EU or Russia. And if they need more, we'll consider it.

[Gilrandir]

What I'd like to hear from you, as a Ukrainian, is do you consider the deal I mentioned in the previous post acceptable?
In short, new (true) interim government, anything done by Maidan government null and void, more autonomy for Crimea, especially and new elections. Would it be acceptable to you personally, and your opinion of would it be acceptable to Ukrainians in general. What would be the reaction if Russia would offer a similar deal?

I may be wrong in terms applied to the acting government but I (as well as many here) consider it a technical government to manage day-to-day affairs including both presidential and parliamentary elections until the latter are held in fall. Then the new majority (or coalition) in the parliament may (and must) be formed which is to appoint the real government.
Proclaiming anything done by the present government void may be a dangerous precedent to awake tensions that will have hopefully calmed down by fall. By the way the acting president vetoed the notorious language law repeal which means returning to 2013 status quo. The important move was (to my mind) appointing two tycoons (which you dislike so much) the heads of Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regional administrations. They come from those regions and hold them in sway, so to say. One of those is the head of the Jewish community of Ukraine, by the way (talking of Nazis in the new government). This should demonstrate to the locals that the persons they respect so much are ready to cooperate with the new government and that the new authorities are not going to send any outsiders to rule them. People in the East of Ukraine are very distrustful of strangers and one of their greatest fears is (or hopefully was) that some Bandera-followers will come to rule them. Though, that was what Yanukovych did exactly:I live in central Ukraine and the head of the local administration was sent here (and almost all over the country) from Donetsk. There was a joke that people in Donetsk are afraid to leave their residence after dark as they are hunted, captured and sent to other regions of Ukraine to rule there.
As for the Crimea, frankly, I am not eager to keep it (in which I may be at odds with the popular sentiment in Ukraine). I did not feel there at home when came there before and I see no point in trying to persuade (or force) the people who are ever looking east to stay within Ukraine. Let them sail away Russiawards if it makes them happier (at least they believe so). I feel for Tatars, though: they will find it hard to put up with those who sent them away once from their land.

[rvg]

Of course warfare is mostly about adjusting. There is no simple cure for everything.Otherwise all would be using such. What i am saying is that you still need a real ground component, for combined arms. There is no such thing as one trump card for all situations and enviroments.

Ground component is paramount, no question about that. I only question the tank part of it. Mech infantry is indispensable and absolutely critical. Tanks? Not so much. You can find yourself in a situation where you don't need tanks; you are much less likely to find yourself not needing infantry.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Fisherking:

The tanks are air-deployable, it is just hideously expensive and inefficient, since the C5 cannot load more than 3 if I recall, and can only do 2 without range reduction.

The aviation side of things would probably do better against the Russian fleet than it would against the Russian ground forces. It is far more difficult to hide a frigate than to hide a tank. Moreover, the targets could be attacked at range and from flatter angles since there would be far fewer terrain obstacles to skulk around in. In short, it is exactly the kind of fight the USA can excel in because most of the answers have already been funded -- and any problem we can throw money at instead of blood is our kind of problem.

I do not care to calculate the cost per vessel destroyed -- and our cost per tank or apc destroyed would probably require scientific notation.

[Sarmatian]

As I've always said, and been quoted by many - no plan survives contact with the enemy. :D

Kidding aside, I don't doubt a new high intensity war between world powers would leave many military experts flabbergasted how their expensive toys are rendered useless by most mundane things and some original thinking.

Funny how in later part of the bombing, we knew when the bombs would start dropping even before the air raid sirens gave us a warning. A few dozens seconds before, the dogs would get restless, and start howling in a very distinctive way. It was uncanny. After that, you knew the planes are near and it was only a question of whether the bombs would be first or sirens.

Enemy planes would waste their anti radar missiles shooting fake radar signals emitted from trucks that were driving around aimlessly. Wanna see how American pilots go berserk? Shine some light on a paper model of a newer Russian SAM system. Military geeks would know many more examples like that.

[Kadagar_AV]

Ground component is paramount, no question about that. I only question the tank part of it. Mech infantry is indispensable and absolutely critical. Tanks? Not so much. You can find yourself in a situation where you don't need tanks; you are much less likely to find yourself not needing infantry.

I wouldn't want to be in a mech battalion facing down a tank battalion...

[Kagemusha]

Ground component is paramount, no question about that. I only question the tank part of it. Mech infantry is indispensable and absolutely critical. Tanks? Not so much. You can find yourself in a situation where you don't need tanks; you are much less likely to find yourself not needing infantry.

Tanks are quite cost efficient way to dispose mech infantry, IFV´s and other tanks and in similar sense useful in ground support for them. Specially for troops that cant rely on absolute air superiority. The thing is that both IFV´s and infantry are rather easily disposed. Tanks quite lot harder. Call me old fashioned, but i think infantry can use of bit of punch in form of tanks. Of course i am hailing from heavily covered terrain and not been bombed to stone age by anyone, so mine like anyone elses opinion is biased. :yes:

[rvg]

I wouldn't want to be in a mech battalion facing down a tank battalion...

Certainly not, but nobody would expect you to face a tank battalion in the open field. In cities though things are different.
Here's an example of an overwhelming tank force being whipped by ragtag rebels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(November_1994)).

"On the morning of 26 November, the Russian and their Chechen allies entered the capital in the motorised columns advancing from two directions, Nadterechny District and Urus-Martanovsky District, supported by several unmarked federal attack aircraft. According to Chechen commander Dalkhan Kozayev, the coup force in Grozny numbered 42 T-72 main battle tanks, eight BTR-80 armoured personnel carriers, various other vehicles, a number of aircraft, and more than 3,000 men.[5] Russian sources give similar figures of about 40–42 tanks (by one count, 14 of them manned by the Chechen opposition and the rest by Russians[3]), supported from air by six helicopters[3] and six Sukhoi Su-27 air superiority fighters,[6] but give much lower figures of no more than 1,000–1,500 allied Chechen militiamen (including Labazanov's 30 remaining fighters after his militia was defeated at Argun[3]). The attack was met with an improvised but fierce defense of the Chechen government forces and loyalist militias (prominently the battle-hardened Abkhaz Battalion[3] made of veterans of the War in Abkhazia and led by Shamil Basayev) in the city center, including an ambush near the Chechen presidential palace and the fighting at the State Security headquarters, the railway station and the television center. Soon the assault turned into a disaster as the defenders burned or captured most of the attacking armored vehicles, capturing scores of Russian servicemen in the process (mostly after having trapped a large group of them in Kirov Park, Leninsky district), and completely routed the opposition."

[Husar]

Tanks dominate the field, but most warfare nowadays is urban. Tanks are not very well suited for this kind of warfare. As for field battles, that's where A1 Warthog comes in. He eats tanks for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

The A-10 was about to be phased out in the early 2000s or so, was saved because it was useful as scole air support and has now finally fallen victim to the recently released military budget cuts if I'm not mistaken. It is fairly well-armored but it's questionable how long it will survive against modern SAM systems.


Sure, we're theorizing. We can look at what has worked as recently as 1991 and 2003. Granted, Russia is lightyears ahead of Iraq in terms of AA capabilities, but that doesn't mean that our tactics are somehow invalid. If an an actual combat engagement proves the tactics unsustainable, we'll adjust them. Our military folks are pretty good at learning from their mistakes.

So are the russian military folks. And yes, they're lightyears ahead compared to Iraq in almost everything.

[Fisherking]

Fisherking:

The tanks are air-deployable, it is just hideously expensive and inefficient, since the C5 cannot load more than 3 if I recall, and can only do 2 without range reduction.

The aviation side of things would probably do better against the Russian fleet than it would against the Russian ground forces. It is far more difficult to hide a frigate than to hide a tank. Moreover, the targets could be attacked at range and from flatter angles since there would be far fewer terrain obstacles to skulk around in. In short, it is exactly the kind of fight the USA can excel in because most of the answers have already been funded -- and any problem we can throw money at instead of blood is our kind of problem.

I do not care to calculate the cost per vessel destroyed -- and our cost per tank or apc destroyed would probably require scientific notation.

I have the greatest respect for our military and their ability to improvise and overcome.

I don’t have the same to say about the top brass and military planers at the pentagon, however.

Once political aims and procurement enters the equation it seems to do a bad job at best.

You can send the best of the best to do the job but something happens to them very quickly. They either do as they are told or are washed out double quick.

Draw your own conclusions.

Sinking a fleet is the easy part. Getting there with the resources to do it would be the problem.

M-1 tanks are not air transportable. Too heavy to lift. The M-60A3 could be carried one per plane but it took all the Air Force had to move one Battalion if every plane was operational. It was never done.

Listen to Sarmatian. We did rotten in Serbia. We may, may, maybe, have gotten better but they were not the most sophisticated of enemies and look at the costs.

I think we would be embarrassed and humiliated if we took on the Russians. It would not be a one sided air battle and a one sided land battle. Maybe NSA could disable of lot of their trick stuff, but maybe Russia could do the same to us.

If we do it, do you suppose they don’t?

[Kagemusha]

Certainly not, but nobody would expect you to face a tank battalion in the open field. In cities though things are different.
Here's an example of an overwhelming tank force being whipped by ragtag rebels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(November_1994)).

"On the morning of 26 November, the Russian and their Chechen allies entered the capital in the motorised columns advancing from two directions, Nadterechny District and Urus-Martanovsky District, supported by several unmarked federal attack aircraft. According to Chechen commander Dalkhan Kozayev, the coup force in Grozny numbered 42 T-72 main battle tanks, eight BTR-80 armoured personnel carriers, various other vehicles, a number of aircraft, and more than 3,000 men.[5] Russian sources give similar figures of about 40–42 tanks (by one count, 14 of them manned by the Chechen opposition and the rest by Russians[3]), supported from air by six helicopters[3] and six Sukhoi Su-27 air superiority fighters,[6] but give much lower figures of no more than 1,000–1,500 allied Chechen militiamen (including Labazanov's 30 remaining fighters after his militia was defeated at Argun[3]). The attack was met with an improvised but fierce defense of the Chechen government forces and loyalist militias (prominently the battle-hardened Abkhaz Battalion[3] made of veterans of the War in Abkhazia and led by Shamil Basayev) in the city center, including an ambush near the Chechen presidential palace and the fighting at the State Security headquarters, the railway station and the television center. Soon the assault turned into a disaster as the defenders burned or captured most of the attacking armored vehicles, capturing scores of Russian servicemen in the process (mostly after having trapped a large group of them in Kirov Park, Leninsky district), and completely routed the opposition."

This a great example of dedicated infantry fighting a defensive battle, but if those Chechen´s would have had to attack the Russian force? As even in defensive warfare if one wants to win one has to attack at least locally. Unless we are talking querilla warfare, which leaves your entire civilian population on the mercy of the invader. How do you feel what would have been the turn out of if the Chechen´s had to attack similarly armed Russian armed force, even if Russian force was fraction of that strength?

[rvg]

How do you feel what would have been the turn out of if the Chechen´s had to attack similarly armed Russian armed force, even if Russian force was fraction of that strength?

Allahu Akbar!!!
*pulls the pin on the suicide vest*

[Husar]

Concerning the "lightyears ahead" thing, I just had an interesting thought.

Let's assume you could fire the projectiles of an AA gun faster than the speed of light. Wouldn't that mean that you have to aim behind the airplane because the bullet would travel back in time and hit the airplane where it was before you pulled the trigger? And wouldn't that also mean that the airplane would explode before you pulled the trigger which might trigger you not to pull the trigger which in turn would not make the airplane explode? Is that why most projectiles only travel at 1-5 times the speed of sound?

[Husar]

The difference is that our billion comes with no strings attached unlike the billions from the EU or Russia. And if they need more, we'll consider it.

No obvious strings, since when it capitalist-land the new mother theresa?
Of course you expect something in return even if you would never say so.

[rajpoot]

Concerning the "lightyears ahead" thing, I just had an interesting thought.

Let's assume you could fire the projectiles of an AA gun faster than the speed of light. Wouldn't that mean that you have to aim behind the airplane because the bullet would travel back in time and hit the airplane where it was before you pulled the trigger? And wouldn't that also mean that the airplane would explode before you pulled the trigger which might trigger you not to pull the trigger which in turn would not make the airplane explode? Is that why most projectiles only travel at 1-5 times the speed of sound?

12383


Just to be clear, no disrespect meant to Mr Hawking, who is a brilliant man.


Also regarding the ongoing discussion, isn't everyone attributing too much military might to Russia. Last I heard their army was a shadow of its former self and far worse equipped when compared with the US. If it comes to a fight, they will have the advantage of fighting on their home turf, but that can only take you so far.

[Kagemusha]

Apparently minister level talks between Russia and Ukraine have started. Very promising.

[Fisherking]

Also regarding the ongoing discussion, isn't everyone attributing too much military might to Russia. Last I heard their army was a shadow of its former self and far worse equipped when compared with the US. If it comes to a fight, they will have the advantage of fighting on their home turf, but that can only take you so far.

The US Army has the best reflective pt belts in the world. DoD gives our service members the most expensive equipment in the world. Some of it might even work.

They are very well educated in what ever this weeks social engineering project as dictated by the executive branch.

I am sure the announcements of pay and benefit cuts and force reductions have had the hoped for effect on troop morale.

I think we have exactly the military capabilities our president has been looking for.

[Kadagar_AV]

Certainly not, but nobody would expect you to face a tank battalion in the open field. In cities though things are different.
Here's an example of an overwhelming tank force being whipped by ragtag rebels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(November_1994)).

Tanks are rocks and mech is scissors. Cities are paper.

So yes, mech wins defending cities.

With that said: In a combat operation on the scale Ukraine would be, if it escalated, I for one would SURE bring a few rocks. It is, contrary to popular opinion, not all about the cities. There are several strategical objectives a tank force excels at taking.

Like, anything not surrounded by a city.

EDIT: Even in cities you will want tank support. The tanks ALSO in turn have to be supported of course... But I honestly think few soldiers have ever thought "Waoh, I wish we didn't have any friendly tanks around!"

[The Lurker Below]

Eh. I say America lets it happen. Let the EU defend its own territorial integrity, preferably with stuff they bought from us.

I'm all for America stepping down from world policing, and going back to profiting from European conflict as a nuetral. :creep:

closet libertarian?

[rvg]

Tanks are rocks and mech is scissors. Cities are paper.

So yes, mech wins defending cities.

With that said: In a combat operation on the scale Ukraine would be, if it escalated, I for one would SURE bring a few rocks. It is, contrary to popular opinion, not all about the cities. There are several strategical objectives a tank force excels at taking.

Like, anything not surrounded by a city.

Ukraine mostly open plains. That kind of terrain is awesome for tanks. It's even more awesome for anti-tank aircraft.
The world has changed. Warfare has changed. Tanks today are like knights in the 16th century: not irrelevant, but facing rapidly changing methods of warfare.
The days of driving over trenches and busting machine gun nests are mostly over.

[Kadagar_AV]

Ukraine mostly open plains. That kind of terrain is awesome for tanks. It's even more awesome for anti-tank aircraft.
The world has changed. Warfare has changed. Tanks today are like knights in the 16th century: not irrelevant, but facing rapidly changing methods of warfare.
The days of driving over trenches and busting machine gun nests are mostly over.

You are pretty much wrong.

Aircraft need dominance in the air to attack tanks. Before they have air supremacy, they don't even field anti-tank weapons.

A campaign like this would mean that "The West", APART from the whole logistical nightmare of sending an adequate airforce, would STILL need a few weeks to control the air, and that is the best case scenario. Odds are they won't ever get full air dominance.

This means tank / mech / infantry battalions can push relatively unhindered for at least a few weeks. How long do you think it would take the 150.000 Russian prepared soldiers to fulfill their objectives?

If you start to ship an invasion force over, Russia will surely attack. They will also have plenty of time to set up defensive positions. Western forces then have to attack an entrenched Russian military might with all of its capabilities.

Two thumbs up?

[rvg]

You are pretty much wrong.
:inquisitive:


Aircraft need dominance in the air to attack tanks. Before they have air supremacy, they don't even field anti-tank weapons.
Of course it is. Nothing happens before air supremacy is achieved. And if air supremacy is not achieved then the campaign might as well be abandoned.


A campaign like this would mean that "The West", APART from the whole logistical nightmare of sending an adequate airforce, would STILL need a few weeks to control the air, and that is the best case scenario. Odds are they won't ever get full air dominance.
No air supremacy --> no ground campaign. Heck, when was the last time we attacked without air supremacy? WWI I think.


This means tank / mech / infantry battalions can push relatively unhindered for at least a few weeks. How long do you think it would take the 150.000 Russian prepared soldiers to fulfill their objectives?
Let them fulfill their objectives. Once the air belongs to us we will fulfill ours.


If you start to ship an invasion force over, Russia will surely attack. They will also have plenty of time to set up defensive positions. Western forces then have to attack an entrenched Russian military might with all of its capabilities.
Entrenched where exactly?

[Kadagar_AV]

Entrenched where exactly?

My guess is that they would be entrenched at the most strategical positions. You have a better guess?

Oh,and the Russians will be first to the party to bring AA (and hide it, and put up dummies) you know... That's kind of a force multiplier, no?

The rest of your arguments I give even less for.

[rvg]

My guess is that they would be entrenched at the most strategical positions.
Such as?

[Fisherking]

Ukraine mostly open plains. That kind of terrain is awesome for tanks. It's even more awesome for anti-tank aircraft.
The world has changed. Warfare has changed. Tanks today are like knights in the 16th century: not irrelevant, but facing rapidly changing methods of warfare.
The days of driving over trenches and busting machine gun nests are mostly over.

They have been heralding the end of the tank since the first anti-tank gun.

The day might come but I wouldn’t recommend holding my breath.

The best anti-tank aircraft ever built was the A-10A. It is being removed from service, still the A model.

It beats all the helicopters or fixed wing munitions packages to date.

It is not being replaced. Other fixed wings have proven pretty ineffective, mostly due to speed.

It was commissioned by the army and was a plane the Air Force never wanted. It was moved to the Air National Guard until desert storm and scheduled to be taken out of service then.

We see what normal fixed wing craft did in Serbia. I wouldn’t bet my bottom dollar on jets sweeping the field of armored vehicles either.

[Kadagar_AV]

Such as?

I'm sure Russian generals have an idea or two.

I am also sure it would beat both yours and mine best idea.

[rvg]

The best anti-tank aircraft ever built was the A-10A. It is being removed from service, still the A model.
It's being replaced by something shinier, is it not?

Seriously though, is there a better terrain than open plains for popping tanks from the air?



I'm sure Russian generals have an idea or two.

I am also sure it would beat both yours and mine best idea.

Maybe. Maybe not. Can't be cities though, because then we're back to the rock/paper/scissors scenario that does not bode well for tanks.

[Brenus]

Allahu Akbar!!! *pulls the pin on the suicide vest*: Not efficient at the end, as defensive or offensive tactic. The Kamikazes were more numerous than every suicide bombers together and achieved absolutely nothing. Slow down a little bit the US, but nothing. The problem with suicide attacks is at one moment you are running out of combatants.

[Kadagar_AV]

It's being replaced by something shinier, is it not?

Seriously though, is there a better terrain than open plains for popping tanks from the air?

1. You need to control the air first.
2. You need to control the air first.
3. You need to control the air first.

My point is that you wont be able to control the air anytime soon. And definitely not before Russia has turned Ukraine into a very unfriendly territory to fly over.

[Myth]

You are pretty much wrong.

Aircraft need dominance in the air to attack tanks. Before they have air supremacy, they don't even field anti-tank weapons.

A campaign like this would mean that "The West", APART from the whole logistical nightmare of sending an adequate airforce, would STILL need a few weeks to control the air, and that is the best case scenario. Odds are they won't ever get full air dominance.

This means tank / mech / infantry battalions can push relatively unhindered for at least a few weeks. How long do you think it would take the 150.000 Russian prepared soldiers to fulfill their objectives?

If you start to ship an invasion force over, Russia will surely attack. They will also have plenty of time to set up defensive positions. Western forces then have to attack an entrenched Russian military might with all of its capabilities.

Two thumbs up?

12 aircraft carriers and military bases in Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. Commence dropping half a million bombs on said entrenched positions for the next 6 months.

And somewhere someone would be going: "Boy, I sure am glad I own a corporation which happens to manufacture bombs!"

[Fisherking]

It's being replaced by something shinier, is it not?

Seriously though, is there a better terrain than open plains for popping tanks from the air?


It is not being replaced by anything. Just taken out of service and the pilots will move to fighters and given a multi mission role.

Sure, open ground is good for seeing what ever moves. If it can be seen, it can be hit and if it can be hit it can be killed.

Also opens up a great opportunity for friendly fire incidents. The air forces of the world excel at that.

[rvg]

1. You need to control the air first.
2. You need to control the air first.
3. You need to control the air first.

Did I ever say otherwise? Of course you need to control the air first, and we will do that before we do anything else.


My point is that you wont be able to control the air anytime soon. And definitely not before Russia has turned Ukraine into a very unfriendly territory to fly over.
So what you saying is that air superiority is unachievable. Why? We have air bases all over Europe today.

[Husar]

No air supremacy --> no ground campaign. Heck, when was the last time we attacked without air supremacy? WWI I think.

I think in Korea and Vietnam you had supremacy of sorts but the skies weren't all yours. The German air force also wasn't fully beaten until the end of the war. The difference being that none of these conflicts infolved modern ground-based missile systems like the ones Russia has.

In Vietnam some early ECM and some luck were enough to avoid most S-75s which were not only guided by badly-trained troops but also had relatively primitive guidance systems. I do not think the S-300/S-400 and similar systems will make it that easy nowadays.

[rvg]

I think in Korea and Vietnam you had supremacy of sorts but the skies weren't all yours. The German air force also wasn't fully beaten until the end of the war. The difference being that none of these conflicts infolved modern ground-based missile systems like the ones Russia has.

In Vietnam some early ECM and some luck were enough to avoid most S-75s which were not only guided by badly-trained troops but also had relatively primitive guidance systems. I do not think the S-300/S-400 and similar systems will make it that easy nowadays.

My point is that our military tactics revolve around air superiority. this of course is a weakness if air superiority cannot be achieved. If however it is achieved, then I pity da foo on the receiving end.

[Kagemusha]

It's being replaced by something shinier, is it not?

Seriously though, is there a better terrain than open plains for popping tanks from the air?




Maybe. Maybe not. Can't be cities though, because then we're back to the rock/paper/scissors scenario that does not bode well for tanks.

My bet would be that once in their goal. The Russian forces would spread out. Column of armored vehicles great target, single one not so great. Also they would build decoys to waste ammo into. They would spread AA evenly all around to become a nuisance and as the the attacking US air crafts would have to spread out. They would counter attack with their fighters creating local aerial superiority situations, thus causing losses. Once Western ground forces would appear they would hug you more tight then your own women after long absence, thus rendering air superiority more or less waste. Once they had hugged your forces to death, because of their superior firepower at ground, they would spread again.

This might give them some time of success, but in the long run, once the Western economy would have been geared for war. It would be only matter of time they would loose via attrition.

Just one speculation.:shrug:

[Kadagar_AV]

So what you saying is that air superiority is unachievable. Why? We have air bases all over Europe today.

Even with those air bases, it would take the US quite some time to get ready for operations. Look at Serbia, how long it took there. Then factor in that Russia have, like what? A hundred times better AA than Serbia?

Also, Russia will be supported by their own jets, that actually is on a comparable scale to what the The west would be able to muster anytime soon.


Don't get me wrong, I very well think "The West" would win a prolonged conflict. But if it gets to a prolonged conflict, we might as well bring out the nukes for all the damage it would cause the world.


So simply: The West don't have the ability to intervene here, short of starting WWIII. And I don't think many western nations are ready to do that over Ukraine.

[rvg]

So simply: The West don't have the ability to intervene here, short of starting WWIII. And I don't think many western nations are ready to do that over Ukraine.

Well that's a given. That of course nullifies all of the discussion about conventional warfare anyway. Fortunately the situation can be handled without ever firing a shot: Russian regime can function without popular support, it can function without freedom, but it cannot function without money. It is pretty much entirely dependent on the EU for its gas exports. Change that and Putin will feel the pain. More importantly the entire kleptocratic establishment under him will feel the pain. And if he cannot alleviate their pain they will find someone who can.

[Beskar]

The EU forces are more worried by balance of sexual minorities and tax cuts, so they have absolutely NOTHING to send.

This is not the case at all, and the more you mention it, the more I think you are deluding yourself.

[Kadagar_AV]

This is not the case at all, and the more you mention it, the more I think you are deluding yourself.

I was of course exaggerating.

However, Ukraine has SURE been a hell of a wake up call as to what really matters.

[The Lurker Below]

Sure, open ground is good for seeing what ever moves. If it can be seen, it can be hit and if it can be hit it can be killed.

Suddenly open ground feels safer and much less open than being in the air, anywhere.

[Husar]

I was of course exaggerating.

However, Ukraine has SURE been a hell of a wake up call as to what really matters.

Less antagonism towards a huge northern nation that sees itself more and more isolated by nations that do not want to let go of old prejudices? What happens when you force a bear into a corner?

[Kadagar_AV]

Less antagonism towards a huge northern nation that sees itself more and more isolated by nations that do not want to let go of old prejudices? What happens when you force a bear into a corner?

I don't disagree,

[rvg]

Less antagonism towards a huge northern nation that sees itself more and more isolated by nations that do not want to let go of old prejudices? What happens when you force a bear into a corner?

What corner? Bear is angry because he has no friends. he has no friends because he's so damn angry all the time.

[Kagemusha]

What corner? Bear is angry because he has no friends. he has no friends because he's so damn angry all the time.

My take would be that Bear has been hibernating for a while and now that it has awaken. It witnesses that the Eagle and its friends have taken most of its territory and it just cant tolerate them taking any more. My bet is that now that the Bear has knowledge of how alone it is. It will start making better friends with Panda and Elephant..

[rvg]

My take would be that Bear has been hibernating for a while and now that it has awaken. It witnesses that the Eagle and its friends have taken most of its territory and it just cant tolerate them taking any more. My bet is that now that the Bear has knowledge of how alone it is. It will start making better friends with Panda and Elephant..

Eagle is cool, Eagle can fly, Eagle is in debt up to his eyeballs to Panda: there is no way Panda will go against Eagle. Elephant hates Panda, but does a lot of business with Eagle. If Bear wants to be friends with Panda and Elephant, that's quite alright, but they will not stop being friends with Eagle.

[Brenus]

“12 aircraft carriers and military bases in Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. Commence dropping half a million bombs on said entrenched positions for the next 6 months” How much time for the Russians to take Bulgaria, Rumania and Bulgaria? Last time they did it in around 1 month against a skillful and well equipped enemy. As dropping half a million bombs, err, we don’t have enough, sorry…

Then why do you suppose the Russian Air Force (or missile) won’t answer? How many hit on Bucharest, Budapest and Sofia before the countries ban any attacks from their territory? How many missiles on St Francisco before the US stop to do the same (or grenades on Anchorage)?

Ok: With complete air superiority (350 planes vs 16). NATO (480 attacks a day) destroyed the impressive quantity of 14 Serbian tanks. All right, NATO destroyed a lot of stoves and plastic silhouettes of tanks and an awful number of decoys. The most successful air attack was done by the Serbian Air force on Tuzla in a sky owned by the AWACS. So, forget about movies and we speak of war against a modern army. What saved NATO was the total impossibility of Serbia to answer (remember when they took two US soldier prisoners in Macedonia, what an outrage… They were off-limits!).
So leave behind the Air superiority and other flying tanks killers because, well it didn’t work.
However, still a lot of fun to read books and reports written after…

[Kagemusha]

Eagle is cool, Eagle can fly, Eagle is in debt up to his eyeballs to Panda: there is no way Panda will go against Eagle. Elephant hates Panda, but does a lot of business with Eagle. If Bear wants to be friends with Panda and Elephant, that's quite alright, but they will not stop being friends with Eagle.

Of course there could not be a better thing if only Eagle, Panda, Bear and Elephant could just all get along. When they are many times acting like six year old´s at sandbox, other animals in the forest may have hard time breathing freely...If only.~:)

[Sarmatian]

Yeah, yeah, yeah... Aesop called, he wants his job back.

[rvg]

Of course there could not be a better thing if only Eagle, Panda, Bear and Elephant could just all get along. When they are many times acting like six year old´s at sandbox, other animals in the forest may have hard time breathing freely...If only.~:)

That day will come, maybe sooner rather than later. Peace will be established when Panda eventually kills everyone. Or Camel kills everyone, but my money is on Panda.

[Myth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=O6Xo21L0ybE

Bear say hi. Bear like you. Bear like everyone. Except for dirty capitalist eagle. Eagle turning into GMO monkey with grenade. Bear like that even less.

[Kagemusha]

:laugh4:

[rvg]

Bear say hi. Bear like you. Bear like everyone. Except for dirty capitalist eagle. Eagle turning into GMO monkey with grenade. Bear like that even less.

It's more like this:
"Bear say hi. Bear hate you. Bear hate everyone. Especially that dirty capitalist eagle. Eagle turning into GMO monkey with grenade. Bear hate that even more."

[Fisherking]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=O6Xo21L0ybE

Bear say hi. Bear like you. Bear like everyone. Except for dirty capitalist eagle. Eagle turning into GMO monkey with grenade. Bear like that even less.

Hay! I know those bears. They are old friends and neighbors. http://www.olygamefarm.com/

Capitalist Bears.

The eagles of the area are a little suspect though.

[Sarmatian]

12 aircraft carriers and military bases in Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. Commence dropping half a million bombs on said entrenched positions for the next 6 months.

And somewhere someone would be going: "Boy, I sure am glad I own a corporation which happens to manufacture bombs!"

Don't forget one very important fact - when the enemy is in range, so are you.

[Myth]

I wasn't trying to say the USA would win with bombs alone. I was trying to predict what they would do and who would profit from it.

[Kadagar_AV]

I wasn't trying to say the USA would win with bombs alone. I was trying to predict what they would do and who would profit from it.

I think the world at large has become aware that when the US bombs - someone profits.

I haven't yet in my life seen it being the average USAnian taxpayer.

Nor of course the people being bombed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

“12 aircraft carriers and military bases in Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. Commence dropping half a million bombs on said entrenched positions for the next 6 months” How much time for the Russians to take Bulgaria, Rumania and Bulgaria? Last time they did it in around 1 month against a skillful and well equipped enemy. As dropping half a million bombs, err, we don’t have enough, sorry…

Then why do you suppose the Russian Air Force (or missile) won’t answer? How many hit on Bucharest, Budapest and Sofia before the countries ban any attacks from their territory? How many missiles on St Francisco before the US stop to do the same (or grenades on Anchorage)?

Ok: With complete air superiority (350 planes vs 16). NATO (480 attacks a day) destroyed the impressive quantity of 14 Serbian tanks. All right, NATO destroyed a lot of stoves and plastic silhouettes of tanks and an awful number of decoys. The most successful air attack was done by the Serbian Air force on Tuzla in a sky owned by the AWACS. So, forget about movies and we speak of war against a modern army. What saved NATO was the total impossibility of Serbia to answer (remember when they took two US soldier prisoners in Macedonia, what an outrage… They were off-limits!).
So leave behind the Air superiority and other flying tanks killers because, well it didn’t work.
However, still a lot of fun to read books and reports written after…

Bulgaria's army was not doing well and Romania switched sides. This time, those countries are in NATO, that means they should have US Air Cover - and Western European Troops should be able to get there before Russia can cross Ukraine.

The USAF can attack ground targets without Air Superiority, the UK did it in the Falklands.

Of course - the US may decide that supporting it's European allies isn't worth it, like they always do.

[Kadagar_AV]

Bulgaria's army was not doing well and Romania switched sides. This time, those countries are in NATO, that means they should have US Air Cover

I think all soldiers know, the support you should have is not always the support you get. Seriously, what is your time expectation before Western forces have amassed an air force in operational range to threaten Russias? And remember, while the clock is ticking, Russian battalions will entrench and fortify. With some SERIOUS AA.

I'm absolutely no expert on aviation warfare, but even I know that if two air forces of comparative strenght meet above territory held by AA, the defending side will win.




- and Western European Troops should be able to get there before Russia can cross Ukraine.

Russia have 150.000 men _on_the_border_. Well equipped, trained and supported. You seriously think the West can gather a force to stop that, before the Russians have swept through Ukraine. Heck, Russia already do what they want with pretty many military bases, keeping them surrounded.




The USAF can attack ground targets without Air Superiority, the UK did it in the Falklands.

The forces in the both examples are not comparable, nor the logistics or the situation at large. If you want the air battle to be a meat grinder, then sure, go for ground targets without air superiority.

I do however think the middle-class moms who have sent their hero kids away, will rebel, when the pilot deaths are starting to be counted in the hundreds, and thousands.

Also, it would totally go against modern USAnian military doctrine, of securing air superiority first and foremost.


Of course - the US may decide that supporting it's European allies isn't worth it, like they always do.

You expect a capitalistic state to wage war without it being in a capitalistic interest?

[Papewaio]

Air to ground can partially be covered by drones. So it isn't definitely a meat grinder.

Of course it would be at that point that all those strange viruses that have infiltrated drones and drone command would turn up to be Russian controlled.

[Kadagar_AV]

Air to ground can partially be covered by drones. So it isn't definitely a meat grinder.

Of course it would be at that point that all those strange viruses that have infiltrated drones and drone command would turn up to be Russian controlled.

The West have a drone program to deal with terrorism, not massive warfare.

Also, I'm pretty sure a high-tech nation with more than 15 years warning will have an effective weapon vs drones. I know the Swedish army had some hush hush stuff about breaking communication between the drone and base station. I have no idea however how it went, nor if Russia has implemented it or something like it.

If your drone program worked that well, you wouldnt train pilots.

"But we use LOTS of drones" You say?

Yeah, but it's only because you are set to handle the war on terror - no own casualties allowed and the enemy has no/low-tech.

[Papewaio]

With image recognition software they could make the weapons auto target...

Of course two things will happen:
1) it will hit the Ukraine tanks
2) any Chinese embassies in the vicinity. :drumroll:

More seriously no one wants a conflict nor understands how bad it will get nor who is best prepared.

If there is to be one, it really is up to the EU to fight it or defuse it. Ukraine isn't part of NATO so USA isn't bound to join in, China might actually ally with Russia.

Only prediction I will make is that a rash of applications to NATO is forthcoming.

[Kadagar_AV]

With image recognition software they could make the weapons auto target...

Of course two things will happen:
1) it will hit the Ukraine tanks
2) any Chinese embassies in the vicinity. :drumroll:

More seriously no one wants a conflict nor understands how bad it will get nor who is best prepared.

If there is to be one, it really is up to the EU to fight it or defuse it. Ukraine isn't part of NATO so USA isn't bound to join in, China might actually ally with Russia.

Only prediction I will make is that a rash of applications to NATO is forthcoming.

Nah. The US is yesterdays news...

I think people today would rather ally with less a extremist and warmongering nation. Ukraine will look to strengthen EU ties, first and foremost. Don't get me wrong, they will sure yell for the US to come, white hats and all... I talk about the aftermath.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Fisherking:

The C-5 can (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/c5/)carry two Abrams in transport mode (needs a few hours re-assembly etc. on far end) or one Abrams and two Brads. Apparently they have to be in transport mode or they put too much weight on one specific section of the airframe. The C-17 can carry one, also in transport mode.

So -- ridiculously inefficient and one brigade would monopolize most of our airlift -- it is possible.

I wasn't trying to argue in favor of our ability to use high tech stuff to hammer low tech units on the ground in close terrain. I was suggesting that all of our nice toys work at their best against things like fleets and bases -- it is what they were designed to do. Swatting trucks with cruise missiles -- or lobbing them at terror-training camps -- is the height of "throwing money at the problem." Sadly, we'd probably do better by dumping the same amount of cash over the enemy forces and letting them bug out with lots of spending money. We would probably neutralize more of them that way than by shooting the spendy ordinance at trucks and RPG teams.

[Strike For The South]

Nah. The US is yesterdays news...

I think people today would rather ally with less a extremist and warmongering nation. Ukraine will look to strengthen EU ties, first and foremost. Don't get me wrong, they will sure yell for the US to come, white hats and all... I talk about the aftermath.

Like whom? Russia, China, and India are all worse that the US. I mean seriously

This whole thread has devolved into a regional circle jerk and (as usual) most of you are just masturbating to your own thoughts. Frankly I think some of you should have been committed along time ago.

This isn't about the unshakable Russian military (which has made strides but is no were NEAR its "10 year plan", I mean, maybe the S-400 counts. but I digress) nor is it about this odd strawman of the US military some of you seem to be arguing against. Make no mistake in a gloves off conventional war The USA kicks these Russians teeth in, and it's not even close. This is quite literally what the US military is built for, it's what it's been waiting 70 years for.

Russias interests simply out weigh our own and they are, quite frankly, in the better position right at this moment. I hope someone at the state department is looking at the situation and thinking "country split 50-50, our guy is a proto-fascist, and we're only talking about this quagmire only to check the Reds....I KNOW HOW THIS PLAYS OUT"

As of this moment Obama should simply realize his bluff has been called and fold, play a better hand another day. If not, he better take the gloves off.

[Kadagar_AV]

Like whom? Russia, China, and India are all worse that the US. I mean seriously



EU?

"Like whom?" as in the very specific power block I clearly stated in the post you answered to?

Didn't exactly nail it there, did you?

[a completely inoffensive name]

EU?

No one wants to be allies with a warmonger, but neither do they want to be allies with a total pussy....

[Brenus]

“There's enough Abrams in Germany to set Russia back decades in defense spending.” I lost contact with tanks long time ago, however, I remember that French tank crews were not impressed by the Abrams (too high, too slow, which would be a real dis-advantage on Russian steppes: The Germans tried it with the Tiger and we know the result: the low cost but faster T34 won).

“There is no EU military power bloc on that scale, since the only EU military forces worth talking about are dependent on US logistics, US units in Europe, and US plans”: Yeap. Hopefully, this will teach the European a lesson. But it won’t because US are too interested to sell their product and will buy any European Politicians in order to make profit (as they did with Sarkozy in France who shut-down of French Military Factories in order to by US).

“Make no mistake in a gloves off conventional war The USA kicks these Russians teeth in, and it's not even close”: On Russian soil and on Russian Terms: Not even close. Do you remember the race to Bagdad, when a simple militia attack on your logistic put quite a fear on the operation? (and I don’t want to speak of the shameful “liberation” exploitation of the US female prisoner).

[Fisherking]

There are not hundreds of M-1s sitting around Europe. Not any more. They really did take them all home.

A couple of months ago they shipped back about 46 for special training exorcizes. Not even a standard Battalion. That is all there is. There may still be prepositioned stocks on that little island off Africa but who can say what these people have done in the last few years.

Now, I am not putting down other peoples equipment but the Leclerc is not much faster than the M-1

It does 71kmph. The M-1A2 is listed as 67kmph but that is a governed speed. I know I have had them above 100kmph without tinkering with them. It is a bit on the tall side but better than the last US tank.

[Husar]

The C-5 can (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/c5/)carry two Abrams in transport mode (needs a few hours re-assembly etc. on far end) or one Abrams and two Brads. Apparently they have to be in transport mode or they put too much weight on one specific section of the airframe. The C-17 can carry one, also in transport mode.

So -- ridiculously inefficient and one brigade would monopolize most of our airlift -- it is possible.

I think that counts as airmobile as much as being able to load a tank onto a container ship counts as a rapidly deployable marine asset. ~;)


There's enough Abrams in Germany to set Russia back decades in defense spending. They won't be used though, short of ww3, and there'd be plenty of German tanks along for the ride in that case. Easy to forget Germany is one of the elite Tank powers, but they are.

We were, you still live in the cold war it seems. Ever since the cold war ended we have started to outsource our tanks to other European taxpayers who we have brought under our control through EU integration. It's a bit like drones, they're supposed to do what we want but in the end you have more control if you sit in it yourself. ~;)

Oh and we also sold some to dictatorships all over the world.


Like whom? Russia, China, and India are all worse that the US. I mean seriously

Really? Why? How is India worse than the US?


This isn't about the unshakable Russian military (which has made strides but is no were NEAR its "10 year plan", I mean, maybe the S-400 counts. but I digress) nor is it about this odd strawman of the US military some of you seem to be arguing against. Make no mistake in a gloves off conventional war The USA kicks these Russians teeth in, and it's not even close. This is quite literally what the US military is built for, it's what it's been waiting 70 years for.

The US have abandoned a myriad of 10 year plans over the past few years. You sound like you're a victim of US propaganda and the "we are always first/best" complex that plagues a lot of the USA. For most of these 70 years the US knew that its only hope was the use of tactical nukes, not exactly conventional warfare. US tank development for many of these years was merely a reaction to what new doom tank the soviets came up with. Take the M103 for example, that was a reaction to the fact that you had no tank that could stop the soviet T-10. Especially in the earlier cold war there were numerous occasions where NATO found out that it had no gun to penetrate the front armor of soviet tanks. And then all the guns on your most successful tanks in the middle and late phases of the cold war up until today were european designs.

This whole rhetoric about kicking Russia's teeth in sounds nice to Americans but has nothing to do with reality.


As for the tank speed discussion, the Leopard 2 can go 70km/h backwards so it doesn't have to show its rear like the abrams when it runs away from the red tide. :creep:

[Gilrandir]

I would like to tell all interested about the lingustic situation in Ukraine which would perhaps explain some of the tensions of today.
You must have seen maps showing division of Ukraine into Ukrainian-speaking and Russian-speaking parts. But such maps may be called not accurate in some aspects.
First of all, many Ukrainians are bilingual (especially in the central part). Secondlly, the division may be called accurate as far as the urban population is concerned. The majority of rural dwellers are Ukrainian speakers all over the country. The exceptions are the Crimea, of course, and eastern regions (mostly Lugansk and Donetsk) as they originally were very sparsely populated steppe areas which started to develop when coal began to be mined. So villages over there are in fact small settlements of miners and not traditional Ukrainian villages.
The language policy in Soviet Ukraine (as much as in other national republics of the Soviet Union) had an aim of turning the population into Russian-speakers. It was called "the creation of the Soviet pan-ethnicity". School teachers of Russian got a bonus to their salary (in comparison to the teachers of national languages) which in the times of Russian Empire was officially admitted payment for russianization of locals. In Soviet time the offensive name was dropped but not the bonus itself. Russian and Ukrainian were taught at schools but the educational process itself was predominantly in Russian.
My city is situated in central Ukraine and marked on maps as a Ukrainian-speaking one. But even if we admit bilingualism (50/50 percentage of Ukrainan and Russian-speakers) it was not reflected in the language of teaching at school: out of 34 high schools of the city in 1989 only three were Ukrainian language schools. It is true, though, all rural schools were Ukrainian. Even if you graduated from a Ukrainian language school and entered a university again you would have to switch to Russian as university education was in Russian as well. All textbooks, classes, projects and exams were in Russian.
So Ukrainian was being deliberately turned into some kind of Latin for doctors: all doctors understand it, may write a prescription in it, but no one ever thinks of speaking it, even among doctors themselves. Moreover, peolpe who stuck to Ukrainian in all spheres of communication (except TV announcers and Ukrainian language teachers) were either looked down upon as uncultured peasants who are yet to learn "the real human language" or suspected of being "Ukrainian bourgeois nationalists".
So after gaining independence Ukraine faced the task of reviving the language. As far as I know, something like that happened to the Czech language after the collapse of Austro-Hungary. People spoke mostly German, the national language used in rural areas didn't have any standard literary norm, so the new government had to esablish new norms borrowed from as far back as the 16th century which explains somewhat antique form of the language introduced then.
I think essential progress has been made on the way and the disbalance I spoke of has corrected. People speaking literary Ukrainian are no longer despised, they are rather envied. I admit, though, that this revival process went to the extremes sometimes, but talking of forbidding people speak the languages they want is ridiculuos. People in the East and South still use Russian as much as they want. You may often hear a person saying something in Ukrainian and the other answering in Russian and both are OK with that. I would say that the language issue is stressed upon by the politicians eager to play on the extant differences to get electoral support. Though some people are ready to paly this game too: journalists spotted the same two women who spoke of terrible linguistic oppression against them at meetings first in Odessa, then in Kharkiv and later in the Crimea. Perhaps such gigs pay well.

[Husar]

Oh yeah, in case I wasn't clear enough on the topic of "US superiority" and who would really get their teeth kicked in, I just found this gem on another forum:


Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"

By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.

In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.

Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern designs (such as the T-90, the T-95 and mysterious Black Eagle) to replace the, surprisingly, still effective Soviet era tanks. These tests will do much to discount the argument of the “Lion of Babylon” (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military’s best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex."

[Fisherking]

You don’t need to make things up to let people know that Germany has the best tank in the world.

It is.

The Abrams is a good tank too. Both of them owe much to C.W. Abrams, who insisted on crew survivability. And both derived, directly or indirectly from the MBT-80 project the two countries did together.

Now, on to other points.

The US had a powerful military. It has been transformed into something else.

They have more wantabe Rambos than anyone else. They have a pretty good navy, even though it is down to about 250 ships, from the 600 of the Reagan era.

We have about 1500 tanks but we don’t have men to put into them. We have a lot of light infantry and a couple of division worth of Stryker forces (of dubious use, anywhere). One of our two so called armored divisions is equipped with these exclusively.

This is not the army you saw in desert storm or going into Iraq. They have combat experience but it is all as light infantry.

Recall the reaction when the prez wanted to send them to Syria. Now with benefit cuts, pay caps of 1%, and the elimination of important services… Then there are the projected troop cuts. 6 regular combat brigades, I think one of the air combat brigades, and another 40,000 or so support troops just from the army. All in all about 100,000 GI Joes are going to join the unemployment line while their brothers take a pay cut and their dependents lose insurance and the commissary. It reduces it to levels around what we had in the 1930s in case there was a Banana War.

All branches are cutting troops. All are subjected to varying of social engineering and political correctness. If you are looking for highly motivated professionals, that is not going to cut it.

I would guess that under the current conditions we could whip Mozambique but you would want to think hard before you took on a power like Egypt.

[Kagemusha]

I am in bit of a hurry and will comment more later, but like Fisherking and Husar already stated. Some of our American friends are bit out of touch concerning US forces in Europe. Here is what US Army Europe consists of these days:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/US_Army_Europe_OrBat.png

Basically a Striker Brigade, Airborne Brigade, Combat Aviation Brigade and Engineer Brigade + supporting troops (Aka light troops, with missile and Combat aviation support ). Not much to brag about and definitely not something to smash Russia back ten years of their military spending.

[Husar]

You don’t need to make things up to let people know that Germany has the best tank in the world.

I didn't, I just thought someone else knew better than me. If it can't go that fast backwards that would be wonderful news indeed because it sounds cheesy and that's why I only mentioned it in combination with it having to run away. I also do not think it's the best tank in the world, the T-90 is.


The Abrams is a good tank too. Both of them owe much to C.W. Abrams, who insisted on crew survivability. And both derived, directly or indirectly from the MBT-80 project the two countries did together.

MBT-70


We have about 1500 tanks but we don’t have men to put into them. We have a lot of light infantry and a couple of division worth of Stryker forces (of dubious use, anywhere). One of our two so called armored divisions is equipped with these exclusively.

Including the tanks you have "in storage", I think you have around 8000 Abrams.
Whether they are outdated or not is another question of course.

As for the cuts, it was about time.

[Fisherking]

That all depends. These are not the first troop cuts.

If the US is intent on a wider role in world security, cutting troops is wrong.

It doesn’t cut the expenditures. It cuts troop numbers and pay not what they spend on expensive gadgets.

They are just buying stuff with no one to pull the triggers. They are also cutting reserves. Sure they have a vast stockpile of equipment and no one to use it.

No prepositioned stocks in Europe. Maybe none anywhere. A large command structure, just no one to lead.

What is in storage doesn’t count for much.

[TiagoJRToledo]

In response to OP, I say that there's nothing really that anyone can do. If Russia wants to re-annex Ukraine, there is nothing that anyone can do. Do you still remeber those two guys that thought "Hey, let's invade Russia"?

[Husar]

In response to OP, I say that there's nothing really that anyone can do. If Russia wants to re-annex Ukraine, there is nothing that anyone can do. Do you still remeber those two guys that thought "Hey, let's invade Russia"?

Yeah, I think the Mongolian guy was more successful than the Swede.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I remember a class in security policy I had at George Mason, taught by General Pustay (USAF ACS). He noted that the accepted formula for deterrence of another party could be rendered as follows:

Deterrence = capability * will

Putin does not really doubt our capability.....

[Ironside]

Yeah, I think the Mongolian guy was more successful than the Swede.

Hey, we got invited when we did our tour to Moscow.

That second attempt ended up touring Ukraine.

[TiagoJRToledo]

Yeah, I think the Mongolian guy was more successful than the Swede.

The Russia that Swedes and Mongolians knew isn't the Russia that Napoleon, Hitler and we know. The land mass and the manpower guarantees a war of attrition, and we should know better than to fight Russians with attrition.

[Tellos Athenaios]

No one wants to be allies with a warmonger, but neither do they want to be allies with a total pussy....

Well, the French and the British are still quite happy to go play at soldiers or at least their governments are. The problem with the EU as a military ally of anyone today is not really what it can or cannot do; not even what it will or will not do.

Rather, we have lots of small little armies that don't make much sense (Netherlands, Belgium, etc.), and a few bigger ones that have some real capabilities but not enough to act confidently on their own beyond the immediate vicinity of their own borders (French, UK, Germans). So the EU has scale, has capability but it lacks the economies of scale that the USA or Russia have because there are X chains of command instead of 1, because there are X independent logistics efforts instead of 1 and finally because there are X parliaments and governments to placate instead of 1. That means you cannot rely on the EU to act as a single powerful bloc.

So we're not going berserk just yet because of the repercussions of a semi-successful putsch. The Germans have too much sense to allow it.

[Pannonian]

Yeah, yeah, yeah... Aesop called, he wants his job back.

Skydiving?

[naut]

That means you cannot rely on the EU to act as a single powerful bloc.
Brussels and a single EU Army reform. :wink2:

Don't tell Farage.

[Brenus]

“Its a battle tested tank that can one-hit-kill anything on the modern battlefield from as far away as the natural curvature of the earth will allow, while on the move, and we have thousands of them.” Can you tell against which modern army having access to the same capacity? The Abrams was proved in battle against T55, 62 and 72 (perhaps 80), with the full advantage of satellite (so knowing were the targets were) and new technology (GPS, computer) and total supremacy on the battle field.
As far a I know, all tank are equipped of one-hit-kill capacity, as it will be very difficult to sell a tank telling that it would need 3 hit to kill the enemy. That would be silly.

“Who cares what the french think about the Abrams?”: Who cared what the French were telling about the WMD? Well, you should have.:yes:
The Abram is too big, too slow (according the crew to whom I spoke with), and if you want to fight in a landscape of hills and woodland you will prefer a smaller tank and faster. I was not in Battle Tanks but in APC and was in charge of 2 anti-tank missiles Milan. My job was to destroy 1 tank, run away to the next hill top, do the same etc. The goal was to be not out run by the tanks (and not to be kill as well), reason why we were equipped with APC (because I was in a Mechanised Infantry Regiment). The Soviet tanks at that time were quite speedy and the sheer mass of them was making my life expectancy quite short (I speak of the 80’s): Now, slower and bigger the tank, better for the anti-tank weapons. You can’t shoot what you can’t see. The Israeli discovered that the main distance of engagement for tanks is 600 metres, so a gun able to reach 4 km is very rarely used at this distance.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

“Its a battle tested tank that can one-hit-kill anything on the modern battlefield from as far away as the natural curvature of the earth will allow, while on the move, and we have thousands of them.” Can you tell against which modern army having access to the same capacity? The Abrams was proved in battle against T55, 62 and 72 (perhaps 80), with the full advantage of satellite (so knowing were the targets were) and new technology (GPS, computer) and total supremacy on the battle field.
As far a I know, all tank are equipped of one-hit-kill capacity, as it will be very difficult to sell a tank telling that it would need 3 hit to kill the enemy. That would be silly.

No, that would be WoT.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

http://news.msn.com/world/us-prepares-dollar1b-aid-package-for-troubled-ukraine

So the country which is billions (they call them trillions) in debt and which basically gave up on Detroit is now giving 1 billion to Ukraine?

Exactly.

[Brenus]

They might, but their opponents as well.

[Husar]

We should work towards a Russian EU membership. Then our EU army will be mighty and strong.

[Husar]

Any modern tank should be able to one hit kill on the move, 3 or more km out.

By all my love for stabilizers on modern tanks, do you know how just a fraction of a degree difference in the gun angle can affect aiming at these distances? And even the best stabilizer cannot see every bump coming or adjust tank shaking with 100% accuracy. I know there are some other measures such as delayed firing, where the computer delays the firing until the gun is in the right position but I doubt these systems provide laser accuracy on the move out to 3km. Maybe if you're driving on a concrete road or something.

Not to forget that Russian tanks might just shrug the hit off at 3km given the energy loss of the projectile.

Oh and despite the stabilizing fins, projectiles from smoothbore guns do lose a bit of accuracy at extreme distances anyway.


The Abrams is a bit dated, but the gun is still top notch.

Of course, the gun is a german design after all. And yet we have an even toppier and notcher design by now with the L/55.


We have Stryker units equipped with the same gun that serve as mass produced tank destroyers.

The same gun?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1128_Mobile_Gun_System

That one has the 105mm gun based on the British L7, which was also used in the first Abrams models, the M60 and countless other tanks all over the world. Surely a good gun for its time but not exactly top notch any more and certainly not the same.

There's a new magic XM360 120mm gun being tested for the MCS and the Abrams for which I can only find the following propaganda:
The 4,100-pound XM360 is about one-third lighter than the 120mm cannon on the Abrams tank, thanks to a special steel wrapped in composites, yet is designed to hit targets up to 8 kilometers away on the move and up to 12 kilometers while stationary, far more than the Abrams’ 4-kilometer range. Each gun will be expected to fire about 12,000 rounds during its lifespan.
and:

The XM360 is intended to go on the MCS, one of eight 27-ton vehicles under development for the Future Combat System. Putting such a powerful gun on a relatively light vehicle required innovation.

According to this pdf, the MCS is not a Stryker but more of an IFV, more like a replacement for the Bradley with all kinds of fighting vehicle variants:
www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/WednesdayReunionDavidSmith.pdf‎

That still looks like future stuff though, not something you could deploy in Ukraine tomorrow. And I wonder whether the gun could actually penetrate an MBT at 8-12 kilometers or just crush a truck or an APC.

[Fisherking]

Brenus


Funny thing about data. Reading the stats the Leclerc is 2.92m height, while the Abrams stands 2.44m high.

The speed of the Abrams is governed at 67kmph, while Leclerc travels at 71kmph.

Perhaps your friends happened to hop on a real dog with clogged filters, or what ever but there just is not that much difference.

The T-90 is 20cm shorter than the Abrams but slower than the western tanks. It mounts a gun-missile system good out to 5km. The US dropped all its AFVs with such a system. The M-1A2 is said to have an anti-ATM system but I am not familiar with it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We should work towards a Russian EU membership. Then our EU army will be mighty and strong.

Appeasement doesn't work.

There are three strategic questions.

1. What does Putin want?

There are three answers:

A: All the Rus - i.e. Ukraine and Belerus.

B: the former Warsaw Pact.

C: As much of the map as possible.

A is most likely, B is plausible but unlikely and C is unlikely, mostly because it would be more trouble to run such a large Empire than it would be to take it. Putin already struggles to rule Russia effectively.

2. Can we stop Putin?

There's only one answer to this - Yes, we can. World War I showed that you don't have to invade the enemy to win, you have to outlast him. Ultimately NATO forces are of better quality and generally better equipped, in a shooting War NATO will come out on top - we also have greater industrial capacity.

3. Is it in our strategic interest to stop him?

This is the real question - and the answer depends on the answer to question 1, arguably we can (strategically) let him have Ukraine, but not any of NATO's members. A successful annexation of Ukraine would result in a new Cold War and a fortification of NATO's border.

That doesn't benefit Putin, currently.

[Brenus]

“That's the point, its the gold standard. Read man...” I did. And we are going to “we will win because we are awesome” to “we might have to fight with an equal enemy”. You carefully avoid answering the question about the former opponents of the Abrams and its battlefields experience because you know that the circumstances were not what a potential Russian War would offer. And it is fair enough.

An operation in Crimea: How many shots did the Russian suffer of: Zero, as much as I am aware. So, imagine US and EU finally succeed to form an army, then in order to avoid more tension just land in Crimea. Who told you that you would be welcome by the locals? They didn’t resist the invasion, these locals, not a shot, even not the Ukrainian soldiers, not a shot. So instead to have, like in Iraq, a welcoming population and tired and low-moral badly leaded armies, you might have to fight a very well under your lines guerrilla with front lines armies at least equivalent of yours, without the disparity, formations and tactics of yours. Unity of command in one side, much more difficult in the other… Mmmhhh… Then you will have the problem of logistic. If you don’t want to escalade, you can’t attack Russian Territory. So, look at a map, and tell me who will have the advantage?

Do you know how the Russian killed a Chechen warlord? They phone him, satellite picked the signal and a laser guided bomb hit him. This could happen to any aircraft carrier in the Black sea or Mediterranean Sea. This could be done from a submarine or a naval base, or even from Russian Main Land: done with the Air cover from the seas. Now, all Russian planes are designed to operate from field airports. They can disperse and change the location at will, so the NATO’s Kosovo tactic won’t apply. And as the Russians know when yours satellites pass over them, just have to move after.

The problem here is not only the need to intervene but we don’t have the means any more. The tactical advantage is Russian. Putin is a better chest player than the Extreme Right Ukrainian Parties.

[Brenus]

"A successful annexation of Ukraine would result in a new Cold War and a fortification of NATO's border." Don't underestimate the appeal of the Wild Gaz...
I remember politicians and businesses swearing they will not invest in China after Tian' Anmen.

[Brenus]

"Reading the stats the Leclerc is 2.92m height, while the Abrams stands 2.44m high" Didn't say the Leclerc was a good tank. Cut in budget...

[TiagoJRToledo]

Appeasement doesn't work.

There are three strategic questions.

1. What does Putin want?

There are three answers:

A: All the Rus - i.e. Ukraine and Belerus.

B: the former Warsaw Pact.

C: As much of the map as possible.

A is most likely, B is plausible but unlikely and C is unlikely, mostly because it would be more trouble to run such a large Empire than it would be to take it. Putin already struggles to rule Russia effectively.

2. Can we stop Putin?

There's only one answer to this - Yes, we can. World War I showed that you don't have to invade the enemy to win, you have to outlast him. Ultimately NATO forces are of better quality and generally better equipped, in a shooting War NATO will come out on top - we also have greater industrial capacity.

3. Is it in our strategic interest to stop him?

This is the real question - and the answer depends on the answer to question 1, arguably we can (strategically) let him have Ukraine, but not any of NATO's members. A successful annexation of Ukraine would result in a new Cold War and a fortification of NATO's border.

That doesn't benefit Putin, currently.

Well, technically Belarus is in as "unofficial" State Union under Russia... And to be honest, what would really be the problem in letting Russia re-annex Ukraine? Rights of the people? Lol, yeah, the EU and the USA really care about the people, just look at Greece and Arizona...

The real problem would be that Russia would control all of the streams from which they export natural gas. And the EU gets this resource mainly from Russia.

If Russia would've invaded Georgia again, I guarantee that the commotion wouldn't be as large as it is now. And btw, everyone already forgot about Syria!

[Beskar]

https://i.imgur.com/j8frxK1.jpg
Crimea River (http://youtu.be/DksSPZTZES0?t=1m30s)

[TiagoJRToledo]

https://scontent-a-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/1508175_2149404021781504_213707068_n.jpg

[Fisherking]

MCS (fcs)
I thought I had heard that the project was canceled, but who knows. They always find ways to spend money.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs-mcs.htm

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/WednesdayReunionDavidSmith.pdf

Russia
Putin’s goal seems to be rebuilding the Russian Empire via a Eurasian Union much like the European one. Of course he seems more in to coercion than not. Whether this would be a lose federation or just a reconstruction is anyone’s guess.

Some see Russia as a threat, others less so. Putin won’t be leader for ever but maybe for a long time.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Husar, they used to have 120s but they would tip over when fired. :no: On the upside, the 105s allow for an autoloader. They really cant be used as IFVs like other Strykers because the gun mechanism takes up most of the vehicle, and unlike the Abrams it shouldn't fire on the move. I only brought it up to highlight how the Army is still adapting its forces. En masse those would devastate an enemy tank force before being wiped out in short order themselves, or retreating.

One notes that it is a rifled gun - because the 120 smoothbore on the Abrams is, frankly, somewhat sub-par. They were going to mount that same gun on the Challenger - which would have been a shame.

FYI - to date the only thing capable of knocking out a Challenger II Tank is another Challenger II - the combination of rifled gun and superior armour makes it the best combat tank.

[Papewaio]

The other things that can take out a tank, challenger or not:

Helicopter
Plane
Supply Chain
IED

[Empire*Of*Media]

```

[Papewaio]

So if Detroit wants a $1B package all they have to do is say Canada has threatened to invade.

[rvg]

So if Detroit wants a $1B package all they have to do is say Canada has threatened to invade.

Detroit doesn't deserve a penny of federal money. Zip.

[rvg]

I really need to buy that fallout bunker. Or move to Hawaii.

[Papewaio]

Detroit doesn't deserve a penny of federal money. Zip.

You took that away from my one liner? You must be fun at comedy festivals.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The other things that can take out a tank, challenger or not:

Helicopter
Plane
Supply Chain
IED

It has to be a really big IED

and I meant to say, "The only tank..."

[Papewaio]

It has to be a really big IED

and I meant to say, "The only tank..."

I know. But war doesn't work that way. And the IEDs don't need to destroy the tank, just the tracks and then you have all the tactics have to change to deal with the IEDs.

Given a lot of the orginal IEDs came from tank mines, I assume those would be used too.

Tanks are great. Combined arms is greater.

[naut]

Putin is a better chest player
Yes. Yes he certainly is.

https://i.imgur.com/oVhwveJ.jpg?1

[Husar]

One notes that it is a rifled gun - because the 120 smoothbore on the Abrams is, frankly, somewhat sub-par. They were going to mount that same gun on the Challenger - which would have been a shame.

FYI - to date the only thing capable of knocking out a Challenger II Tank is another Challenger II - the combination of rifled gun and superior armour makes it the best combat tank.

Oh please, not that old story again...

1. the L7 is outdated, not even the British use it anymore. It's not a bad gun but it won't kill dozens of soviet tanks as Cube suggests because it simply cannot provide such great penetrations anymore.

2. The old British myth about smoothbore guns is complete rubbish and the Challenger 2 is more like a design nightmare than a great gun system. The armor may be good but it's hard to say really when most of it is classified. If certain armor schemes from certain tank simulations are to be believed, it has quite a few weakspots while the rest of the armor is comparable or just slightly better than that of the Abrams and Leopard 2.

3. The 120mm smoothbore is not sub-par, it is quite superior to the British L30 rifled 120mm gun and british ammunition is mostly sub-par as far as I'm aware. The rifling gives the projectile some stability and thus accuracy but smoothbore guns make up for that with fin-stabilized projectiles. The rifling does however result in lower penetration capabilities because the drag slows the projectile down and additionally some projectiles such as HEAT do not work very well when they're spinning like crazy. Then you have the fact that the British gun uses two-part or even three-part ammunition (I'm not entirely sure whether the third part is that relevant) which not only makes loading slower but also limits the length of the penetrator rod, which is a huge problem regarding the maximum penetration capabilities. And that's exactly why the British army considered UPGRADING to the smoothbore gun but the project was cancelled because it would have required completely new turrets to store the larger one-part ammunition for the smoothbore gun and that was deemed too expensive.

4. Either way the Abrams and especially the Leopard 2A6 with the longer L/55 smoothbore gun have far superior penetration to the British rifled gun, the only ones who believe and say otherwise are deluded British patriots and nationalists or British people who just don't know better. Oh, and a guy called TankNutDave who spreads his propaganda all over youtube and his own website.

5. If you think the Challenger 2 is such a great tank, ask yourself why it has only two users, Britain and Oman, and why even former British colonies decided to get other tanks instead.

[rvg]

You took that away from my one liner? You must be fun at comedy festivals.

Better luck next time.

[Husar]

The secret sauce in the Abrams and the Stryker MGS is the ammo. Our Sabots fly farther, faster, and penetrate everything. Its the only reason the MGS is even a viable weapons system.

Every country likes to think their tanks are more survivable, and that makes great propaganda, but in a real tank war everyone's life expectancy is very short and offense wins the day.

The DU ammo is superior with the L/44 but the L/55 achieves a higher penetration with our tungsten sabots because of the increased muzzle velocity and it also provides some room for improvement because it allows for higher gas pressures. I don't think a DU penetrator will allow the L7 to penetrate the newest Russian tanks, the Abrams was upgraded from the L7 to the L/44 for a reason.

[Kadagar_AV]

The secret sauce in the Abrams and the Stryker MGS is the ammo. Our Sabots fly farther, faster, and penetrate everything. Its the only reason the MGS is even a viable weapons system.

Every country likes to think their tanks are more survivable, and that makes great propaganda, but in a real tank war everyone's life expectancy is very short and offense wins the day.

I'm no expert, but an expert I talked to shrugged his shoulders and did a 50/50 sign when I asked which tank was the best. I know Sweden choose German Leopards over USAnian Abrams. We also put our own Ericsson special made communication device on it, as well as some sort of a "net" (term used vaguely) around it to soak up the first charge, in a two charged weapon system deviced to penetrate the active armor.

So yeah, Sweden wins this battle, hands down.

As to the bolded part. In a real whatever war, the side able to sustain losses and carry on wins the day.

If I remember correctly, I believe the US met its limit during Vietnam, censoring their free press from showing the US bodies. The idea that US morale is high enough to go into an attrition war vs Russia, over Ukraine, is laughable.

PS... And the EU doesn't penis measure in the same way, thus we over here are largely unaffected. We know/believe we will work out a functional agreement with whatever side wins.

[Kadagar_AV]

Ya good for sweden. Not sure what you're arguing about, since I didn't take the position that war is likely. At all.

I argued we in Sweden have the best tanks, of course.

My post might have slided towards Re: What can "The West" do if Russia expands? though... As in the topic... Obviously my bad.

[rvg]

PS... And the EU doesn't penis measure in the same way, thus we over here are largely unaffected. We know/believe we will work out a functional agreement with whatever side wins.

I suggest the Munich accord. It worked out so well last time around.

[rvg]

I said quite a few posts back that many countries have tanks comparable to or individually better than the Abrams. What makes it, as I said, the Gold standard is that there are so many of them and that they've more than proven themselves over the last twenty years. Most of what makes a modern Leopard, Challenger, or even Leclerc seem better are the results of expensive over-engineering. The Abrams was the over-engineered wonder tank of the early 90s, but these days its more comparable to other great American tanks of the past: Its a good tank, and we have more of them than anyone could ever ignore. As many as 4000-8000 depending on who you ask. They'll be relevant well into the future, until future "tanks" that fire smart-rounds from far enough away to count as indirect become the norm, so probably another twenty years at least. :shrug:

I think KAV's problem with Abrams is mostly due to the fact that it's an American tank. It could shoot stealth bombers out of the sky and it still wouldn't be good enough.

[Beskar]

Being honest, the most of what Russia has is initiative and the initial first strike, it could end up backfiring from their own mishandling. We have seen Putin jump in with two feet, and he has made a step-back already. It could be simply to ease tensions or it could be something more underlying such as domestic and local support, Ukraine isn't rolling over too easily.

At how things are looking, we are looking at an independent Crimea being the end-result so far, it would the most face-saving solution for the Russia's and if delivered in the right way, the West will concede with no harm really done as long as it sticks to that. Ukraine may not easily forgive them and makes them jump in bed with NATO. Russia can push for more, but doing so will punish it more severely, a risk it might not be wanting to stomach.

All-out war will make Russia lose far more than it would gain, and even though people have been attacking the 'West' for a will to fight, the one with the real will which might triumph over the Russians is the Ukrainians themselves.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think KAV's problem with Abrams is mostly due to the fact that it's an USAnian tank. It could shoot stealth bombers out of the sky and it still wouldn't be good enough.

Huh? I very well know it's a sterling piece of machinery. Worst thing I have said about Abrams, is that it was comparable to another damn great tank.

1 vs 1 I honestly think USAnian or European tanks would win against whatever Russia puts up.

My point was that warfare isn't about 1 vs 1 fights. Let me stress the point, people actively engaged in war will quite often go out of their way to avoid 1 vs 1 fights.

[rvg]

Huh? I very well know it's a sterling piece of machinery. Worst thing I have said about Abrams, is that it was comparable to another damn great tank.

1 vs 1 I honestly think USAnian or European tanks would win against whatever Russia puts up.

My point was that warfare isn't about 1 vs 1 fights. Let me stress the point, people actively engaged in war will quite often go out of their way to avoid 1 vs 1 fights.

If you're going to reply to my posts, you could at least have the courtesy of not distorting what I have typed.

[Kadagar_AV]

Ya, and us "USAnians" are the only ones with enough modern tanks to sustain the kinds of inevitable losses you would see in a real Russia vs The West doomsday scenario.

No.

In a doomsday scenario Europe is impregnable. We can spit out troops and equipment, and we have quite some special nation equipment and techniques working in our local geography.

Gebirgsjäger will supply the enemy with as much avalanches and rock slides as they can handle in the alps, while Norrlandsjägare harass supply lines in -45 degrees.

I'm not joking. Europes offensive capabilities will take decades to build up. Our defensive ability though, is just as I mentioned, impregnable.

Or more easily put: We are too diverse to coordinate an offensive, but that we are diverse plays in our hands when it comes to defending. We have covered a vast geographical landscape all with specialized soldiers, equipment and training... Since centuries if not millenniums!!

[Kadagar_AV]

Well I hope you're right. Doesn't look like we'll be around to protect Europe much longer.

Nah, you'd rather ally with no one.

Or Russia?

Or China? Africa? India?

What would the alternative be?

EDIT: Remember, Europe protect YOU too. And from the looks of it, you have more enemies currently. Sure you want to give up on EU support just like that?

[rvg]

I think the president has made it clear that our military interests just aren't in Europe any more. Europe should get working on those offensive capabilities.

We need to make sure that the next prez isn't Kenyan-born.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think the president has made it clear that our military interests just aren't in Europe any more. Europe should get working on those offensive capabilities.

Yeah.... This is what you don't get.

Remember this thing called TW? It was a game you could play. Along with all the military options, there was also a diplomacy tab.

THERE you have Europes offensive capabilities. Heck, we even had the US clean up our own dirty back yard not long ago (Serbia).

Honestly speaking, I much prefer to be militarily unthreatening but impregnable. "You can't beat us, but we can be your friends".

How is the US policy going for you lately? Much in national debt yet?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ya, and us "USAnians" are the only ones with enough modern tanks to sustain the kinds of inevitable losses you would see in a real Russia vs The West doomsday scenario.

Truth.

I'm not going to argue the tank thing any more - but the challenger II is about 15 years newer, has better armour and can lob a Hesh round about 8Km - it doesn't fire HEAT.

So, I dunno if any of that matters - Abrams is much quieter and I heard it can run on fish oil.

The Challenger is disadvantaged because the Americans opted for a smoothbore gun, which means the British are the only nation which produces ammunition compatible for the L30 gun.

I tend to agree with HUSAR though - trying to make tank-hunters out of Strykers using guns pulled from old Abrams tanks doesn't seem too clever any way you slice it.

[Husar]

I'm no expert, but an expert I talked to shrugged his shoulders and did a 50/50 sign when I asked which tank was the best. I know Sweden choose German Leopards over USAnian Abrams. We also put our own Ericsson special made communication device on it, as well as some sort of a "net" (term used vaguely) around it to soak up the first charge, in a two charged weapon system deviced to penetrate the active armor.

So yeah, Sweden wins this battle, hands down.

No.
The expert was right though.

Your "net" seems to be just slat armor aka spaced armor, which is not exactly a new invention or in any way unique to Sweden.


The Stryker MGS is a money saving measure. Lots of my old Army buddies are serving on those now. They are a legit modern TD, but no replacement for the Abrams.

I still don't see how the MGS is a TD unless you're facing more asad babils or other badly armored tanks by modern standards. This page has some interesting info: http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2583.html


The 105 mm M68A2 rifled gun is based on the M68A1 barrel but now has an integrated pepperpot muzzle brake, muzzle reference system, standard bore evacuator and a thermal sleeve. It should be noted that its primary role is to support infantry, not engage threat armoured fighting vehicles.

Incidentally it also touches slat armor:


In early 2007 a decision was made by Canada to cancel the acquisition of 66 MGS and instead procure Leopard 2 MBTs.

The first of these, Leopard 2A6M CAN, was handed over to the Canadian Army late in July 2007. These are upgraded German Army Leopard 2A6M with a number of enhancements including slat armour for deployment to Afghanistan.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Stryker MGS is a money saving measure. Lots of my old Army buddies are serving on those now. They are a legit modern TD, but no replacement for the Abrams.

Yeah - but you still need more tanks - and so do we. We've gone from 4 armoured regiments 20 years ago to 1.

[rvg]

Yeah - but you still need more tanks - and so do we. We've gone from 4 armoured regiments 20 years ago to 1.

Instead of trying to out-tank the Russians it might be better to utterly outplane them. Their tanks won't mean diddly squat if we own the skies. I see no reason to tackle their tanks head on.

[rvg]

It'll be interesting to see if that changes pending further Russian aggression though... lotta people would be perfectly happy to go back to the cold war, especially in the military.

The world was a simpler, more honest place back in the cold war days.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Instead of trying to out-tank the Russians it might be better to utterly outplane them. Their tanks won't mean diddly squat if we own the skies. I see no reason to tackle their tanks head on.

You need to be able to do both.

Fighting Russia will be a real war - your Air Force will be used to keep the Ruskies off your tanks and your tanks will be used to keep their tanks off your infantry.

[rvg]

A brief study of the air war vs. Saddam's tanks in '91 should dispel this notion. Air superiority is a war winner, no doubt, but at the end of the day tanks kill tanks. Air, light infantry, scouts, mines, all these things can harass or deter tanks but not reliably stop them.

Air superiority also means drones with hellfires patrolling the skies 24/7. Drones were not a factor back in '91.

[Kadagar_AV]

Instead of trying to out-tank the Russians it might be better to utterly outplane them. Their tanks won't mean diddly squat if we own the skies. I see no reason to tackle their tanks head on.

You really ought to send this to HQ at once. I am sure they will be flabbergasted and regret the last decades of policy.

[rvg]

I honestly think the Russkies have spent more time on the conventional use of drones than we have, strategy-wise. They're really more of an intel thing than anything else, and they'd be fodder for enemy fighters or SAMs.

How would they be fodder for their fighters or sams if we utterly suppress their air defense capabilities? Russians might have good AA, but they cannot ignore the laws of numbers: if we emphasize our air power (and by "we" I mean "NATO") Russian AA will get crushed. From then on it's drones galore until some yahoo decides that "password" is an adequately secure passcode for the remote control of the drones.

[Kadagar_AV]

How would they be fodder for their fighters or sams if we utterly suppress their air defense capabilities? Russians might have good AA, but they cannot ignore the laws of numbers: if we emphasize our air power (and by "we" I mean "NATO") Russian AA will get crushed. From then on it's drones galore until some yahoo decides that "password" is an adequately secure passcode for the remote control of the drones.

And this makes sense because aircrafts is a sure way to battle anti-aircraft.

I think that post failed as much in a linguistical sense as a military sense.

[Graphic]

Remember this thing called TW? It was a game you could play. Along with all the military options, there was also a diplomacy tab.

THERE you have Europes offensive capabilities. Heck, we even had the US clean up our own dirty back yard not long ago (Serbia).

If sitting by and doing nothing while people die is a form of diplomacy, then yes that was a master stroke of diplomatic scheming by Europe.

[rvg]

And this makes sense because air power is a sure way to go up against AA?

Not to you. You can go ahead and advocate sending sending tanks against the AA. I hear they're really good at taking out jet fighters and chasing mobile AA platforms.

[Husar]

If sitting by and doing nothing while people die is a form of diplomacy, then yes that was a master stroke of diplomatic scheming by Europe.

You're right, Russia acted and ended the violence.
And now people whose heads are stuck in the 1950s have a problem with that.

[rvg]

You're right, Russia acted and ended the violence.
And now people whose heads are stuck in the 1950s have a problem with that.

There are lots of Russians and Russian speaking people living in Germany and they might need protection. You know what I'm saying?
~:)

[Husar]

There are lots of Russians and Russian speaking people living in Germany and they might need protection. You know what I'm saying?
~:)

You're saying we have an anti-russian neo-nazi revolution?
In that case you would be wrong.

[rvg]

You're saying we have an anti-russian neo-nazi revolution?
In that case you would be wrong.

I'm not saying anything. Mr Putin might see things differently though. But he's a reasonable guy, I trust his judgement implicitly.

[Kadagar_AV]

Not to you. You can go ahead and advocate sending sending tanks against the AA. I hear they're really good at taking out jet fighters and chasing mobile AA platforms.

Tanks against AA actually sounds like a brilliant idea. It would be a rather one sided conflict, don't you think?

So yeah, I would advocate it.

Even better though, would be to have a force of combined arms. Kind of like Russia.

But you can go with your "air superiority vs AA idea", and see how far it takes you.

[rvg]

Tanks against AA actually sounds like a brilliant idea. It would be a rather one sided conflict, don't you think?
:laugh4:


But you can go with your "air superiority vs AA idea", and see how far it takes you.
You're right. We used flying tanks to suppress Libyan AA back in 2011.

[rajpoot]

This thread makes for a very entertaining read in the morning with some coffee. Perfect mix of humour and information. :2thumbsup:

[Kagemusha]

Any modern tank should be able to one hit kill on the move, 3 or more km out. The Abrams is a bit dated, but the gun is still top notch. We have Stryker units equipped with the same gun that serve as mass produced tank destroyers.

The Abrams does just fine around small hills Brenus. Its also very quiet and very nimble for such a big tank. :shrug:

Abrams have older version of Rheinmetal gun compared to new leos.

[Kagemusha]

One notes that it is a rifled gun - because the 120 smoothbore on the Abrams is, frankly, somewhat sub-par. They were going to mount that same gun on the Challenger - which would have been a shame.

FYI - to date the only thing capable of knocking out a Challenger II Tank is another Challenger II - the combination of rifled gun and superior armour makes it the best combat tank.

There is a number of Russian AT marked missiles that can defeat challenger and several Western products that can do the same. While Saddam had nothing to defeat it.It does not mean there is no such thing. Dont buy into propaganda.:yes:

[Kagemusha]

I'm no expert, but an expert I talked to shrugged his shoulders and did a 50/50 sign when I asked which tank was the best. I know Sweden choose German Leopards over USAnian Abrams. We also put our own Ericsson special made communication device on it, as well as some sort of a "net" (term used vaguely) around it to soak up the first charge, in a two charged weapon system deviced to penetrate the active armor.

So yeah, Sweden wins this battle, hands down.

As to the bolded part. In a real whatever war, the side able to sustain losses and carry on wins the day.

If I remember correctly, I believe the US met its limit during Vietnam, censoring their free press from showing the US bodies. The idea that US morale is high enough to go into an attrition war vs Russia, over Ukraine, is laughable.

PS... And the EU doesn't penis measure in the same way, thus we over here are largely unaffected. We know/believe we will work out a functional agreement with whatever side wins.

And Finland just bought the entire tank fleet of Netherlands upgraded Leo 2a6`s for practically free and Dutch and Danish MRLS´s systems with same breath and cruise missiles from USA as we are stuck with "cold war" thinking. Does not feel that bad at this moment.

[Kagemusha]

This is Russia today and only the army. They have large land components also attached to their navies. At this point i am fairly certain that indeed most of the "unidentified armed men" at Crimea are indeed 810th Naval infantry Brigade and 382nd separate battalion Marines, with thrown in some Airborne guys from Moscow military district.

This is Russia today: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Russia_Army_New.png

Understand that each Motor Infantry Brigade has a tank battalion and only reserve Brigades are equipped with outdated equipment. In total: 455 upgraded T-72´s upgraded to modern standards. 4500 T-80´s and 743 T-90´s.....

[Kagemusha]

T 72s of any kind are inferior to any Abrams, Leo, Leclerc, Challenger, or even Stryker MGS. T-80s are comparable to an Abrams in full scale battle but inferior individually, and I actually don't know much about the newer ones. Those are crazy numbers though for a failing nation.

T-72 of Iraq has little to none to do with T-72B2 and B3 their armor,fire control and sights have been updated. In matter of fact the vaunted T-90 is continuation of T-72 while T-80 an independent progress somewhat (Im sure Hus as tank nerd can tell it better). All in all after ten years of upgrades the Russian army is just a mad beast compared to what it was. Its all just madness...

[Kagemusha]

We've got plenty. They'll keep in storage until we need to upgrade the whole fleet, something we won't see any time soon. Abrams keep in storage pretty well. Even at our reduced active number we can look after our own vital interests as defined by the current administration.

It'll be interesting to see if that changes pending further Russian aggression though... lotta people would be perfectly happy to go back to the cold war, especially in the military.

To me what world really needs is at least decade of US isolationist policies. So the rest of us will understand that we cant depend that US will take care everything and we the rest can spit on them afterwards. It is no surprise that also in these forums it is the soldiers who are the most pacifist.:bow:

[Brenus]

“if we emphasize our air power (and by "we" I mean "NATO") Russian AA will get crushed.” How many times I will have to tell: “YOU DIDN’T SUCEED TO DO IT AGAINST SERBIA, A COUNTRY OF 8 MILLIONS”. So except in movies, how do you plan to do against Russia?

[Fisherking]

How is the US policy going for you lately?

What US policy would that be? The policy of “we had no idea” or “we’ll have to look into that” or was it the policy of “we’ll have to do something”.

How is it that we spy on everyone, including our own citizens but everything that happens is a surprise and our only policy is a reaction to what someone else has done. Obviously, forewarned is not forearmed. US policy is wait and see what happens, then send drones and Special Ops maybe, throw money maybe, sanctions maybe, oh, just let someone else do it! And give a speech about how great we are.

Meanwhile the EU looks on.

This may blow over in the Ukraine, or maybe everyone will just ignore it like what happened in Georgia. It is either the West gets some spine or they get to act surprised when Russia, China, or North Korea makes some provocative move again.

Rinse and repeat.

[Kagemusha]

Apparently Russian EW (electronic warfare) guys have been doing their job and of course as we are living days of social media so they leaked it. Part of conversation between EU official and Estonian minister of foreign affairs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCn5iwvOvm8

the full discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CQHcYVCKR0

I think it shows very well also that the Western media is very silent about this. In the discussion the foreign minister of Estonia concludes that the snipers of Maidan square were hired by the pro western faction. In another words self provocation. I am personally really starting to loose faith to this "peoples revolution"...

[Fragony]

I have absolutily no idea

[Myth]

I came to post this, I'm glad someone else found it already. As I said, revolutions are always directed by someone's interests. I won't be surprised if foreign agencies are also linked in with this. The people will believe whatever you brainwash them to believe. Yell it loudly enough through a megaphone, pay off the barking media and suddenly the moral justification is on your side. Your end goal is to take the bone from the other dog and gnaw upon it yourself. And this plays well into the interest of the larger dog who wants your end of the alley as his turf. And this plays into the interest of the even larger dog which wants to give you several billions in loans and to decommission your military. So on and so forth.

And the miserable SOBs on the square actually are convinced that the EU/NATO will give them a better standard of living. Protip: it won't.

[Fragony]

Check this as well http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rQnXo2HMriQ <- completily insane europhile in Kiev.

We didn't elect him. I will never vote on a christian party because europhiles don't get struck by lightning when they say 'democracy'

Total freak. Also seems to freak out the Ukrainiens. Padded walls, good idea?

[Kagemusha]

This entire thing is starting to show in entirely different light. Who were the "good guys" again?

[Fragony]

This entire thing is starting to show in entirely different light. Who were the "good guys" again?

From what I didn't get from quality-media (hi Hussie) the nationalists have some VERY dubious movements, and as Horrie hinted at earlier in a different thread, the ordinary Ukarinians seem to just want indepence. Not EU-membership like the bedroomstory-moms that is 'quality media' wants us to think.

[Kagemusha]

Crimea has just sent a formal proposal to Russia to be annexed as part of Russia. I guess the putsch did not go quite like as planned. I can only continue praising the Russian and Ukrainian service men who restrain themselves from doing anything that cant be taken back. While the bastards on both sides in power play their games.

[Myth]

The regular people want an end to being boned by super rich corrupt gluteus maximus holes. They have a poor choice of it: either the super rich corrupt guy who lives in a mansion with fricking panthers and lions and is supported by like minded russian oligarchs, or the super rich (wannabe) corrupt people who want to have the opportunity to steal enough of the people's money so they too can live in such a mansion. These guys are supported by the west and will be given such a chance in exchange for getting their country to join NATO and possibly the EU, a process which itself is profitable to said countries (and probably will not be for Ukraine). The people? Who cares about them!

[Fisherking]

It is the only safe move for the Russians after going in.

If they just wait and let a new government take over there is the likelihood down the road that Ukraine won’t let them renew the basing agreement. You could see it coming and one of the oldest political ploys in the books.

Next, does Russia fall to economic sanctions or does the EU need Russian oil and gas more.

[Kagemusha]

It is the only safe move for the Russians after going in.

If they just wait and let a new government take over there is the likelihood down the road that Ukraine won’t let them renew the basing agreement. You could see it coming and one of the oldest political ploys in the books.

Next, does Russia fall to economic sanctions or does the EU need Russian oil and gas more.

Have you checked the thread i posted? I am quite sure the popular opinion concerning pretty much everything concerning this crisis is about to take a drastic turn.

[Sarmatian]

There are a few interesting things we found out from this conversation:

1) Members of Parliament were bullied and threatened, that there were people coming over to their houses at night, probably threatening their families as well
2) That the snipers were most likely used by the protesters themselves to incite further riots and not Yanukovich.
3) Most importantly, that EU and West don't care about what kind of fascists and murderers they support, as long as it is in their interest.

I knew about 1) and 3) and was suspecting 2).

This should have been a "stop the presses" kind of news, because it fundamentally changes the very nature of the conflict.

Now, where's rvg to explain the connection between NATO and freedom again...

[Fisherking]

Well, who knows. Is this just a provocative clip with part of a larger discussion.

It could be correct or misinformation or a deflection of some sort. Who knows who is behind it?

All sides can have motives for causing more trouble.

[Kagemusha]

Well, who knows. Is this just a provocative clip with part of a larger discussion.

It could be correct or misinformation or a deflection of some sort. Who knows who is behind it?

All sides can have motives for causing more trouble.

Estonia is a NATO and EU country. Both sides of the discussion have been identified. This is as real as it gets. It is slowly appearing all over the news at least here in Finland. Maybe West just forgot that they are not the only ones with abilities for surveillance. Apparently Russians caught it, because the EU woman was at Ukraine and stupidly called from un secure line to the Estonian minister.

[Sarmatian]

And, that is most probably it for Crimea. Ukraine can kiss it goodbye.

The Russians played this one perfectly. Taking control of the entire peninsula without having (officially) a single Russian soldier there, without firing a single shot, without anyone getting killed and winning the propaganda battle. A freakin' masterpiece of strategy, even though I, personally, would have liked that Ukraine managed to keep its territory intact.

[Fisherking]

Have you checked the thread i posted? I am quite sure the popular opinion concerning pretty much everything concerning this crisis is about to take a drastic turn.

Yes, and I take the long view. People think they are right from their side, and often think the ends justify the means.

I don’t believe in good guys and bad guys anymore. Just who’s self interest is it in and could it still have been someone with another motive.

I worked for the government to long to take a simple view of anything.

[Fragony]

There are a few interesting things we found out from this conversation:

1) Members of Parliament were bullied and threatened, that there were people coming over to their houses at night, probably threatening their families as well
2) That the snipers were most likely used by the protesters themselves to incite further riots and not Yanukovich.
3) Most importantly, that EU and West don't care about what kind of fascists and murderers they support, as long as it is in their interest.

I knew about 1) and 3) and was suspecting 2).

This should have been a "stop the presses" kind of news, because it fundamentally changes the very nature of the conflict.

Now, where's rvg to explain the connection between NATO and freedom again...

Question on nr2, why did you suspect that?

[Kagemusha]

Yes, and I take the long view. People think they are right from their side, and often think the ends justify the means.

I don’t believe in good guys and bad guys anymore. Just who’s self interest is it in and could it still have been someone with another motive.

I worked for the government to long to take a simple view of anything.

I dont believe in good or bad either in these kind of cases. Thats why i used " " World politics do not operate on morals but necessities. Still under all the crap there are real people most of the time suffering from these chess games, whether it was civilians shot in the left eye at Maidan square or service men ordered in harms way by politicians or the gazillion rest of alternatives.

[Sarmatian]

And the miserable SOBs on the square actually are convinced that the EU/NATO will give them a better standard of living. Protip: it won't.

Ukrainians need to learn that there is no such thing as a free lunch, whether it's paid by a Russian or a westerner. Both expect something in return.

They need to understand that they themselves need to get their country in order since no one will do it for them.


Question on nr2, why did you suspect that?

Because snipers are not an effective crowd control method. You can't stop 100,000+ angry people by killing a few dozens with snipers. You can only make them angrier. There was no logic behind it, no motive.

[Pannonian]

That's the problem when you decide to throw out the basic rule of democracy. You may decide on a new set of rules, but until things settle down, someone with backing may decide they may not want to play by your new rules. And you can't complain, since you've already discarded the previous mutually agreed on rules. Be strong enough to enforce your new set of rules, have the backing to enforce it, or play by the agreed on rules. The Ukrainian protestors rejected the third, are dubious on the first, and are looking for the second, whereas the pro-Russians seem confident on the second.

Also, I note that you pointed out the Ukrainian Parliament voted to impeach the old president, with the argument being that the replacement of that government was backed by democratic legitimacy. If so, would the Crimean regional government, similarly democratically elected, have democratic legitimacy in saying they want nothing to do with the rest of Ukraine? Both political bodies have democratic credits in their own way, and the rules concerning the status of government have already been dismissed, so they're free to define the new rules. The Ukrainian parliament defined it by legitimising the replacement of the previous government, whereas the Crimean region have defined it by declaring their independence from the rest of Ukraine. Is one right and the other wrong?

"A government minister in Kiev said they believe it would be unconstitutional for Crimea to join Russia." (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26465962)

Someone doesn't like the new rules.

[Fisherking]

Did I miss something?

So, someone from the new interim government or a political party sent the snipers.

The government isn’t or is interested in investigating this. (one said not the other said there was)

Just how does this shake out that the EU is behind it?

It sounds like people talking realistically about a tragic mess. Not making secret plans to take over the country.

The EU can offer aid, the Russians can offer aid.

Maybe the government tossed out was not as bad as some wanted them to believe.

Other people are now in, or have a chance to gain power. And one or more is willing to kill to get it.

[Kagemusha]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/05/world/europe/ukraine-leaked-audio-recording/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

It is not so much about EU, but about the illegal in my mind now government of Ukraine. Was it one of our British members that used as his argument that the legitimacy of the past Ukrainian government flew out of the window, with those shots in the crowd? Now it seems the case was actually quite the contrary.

[Fragony]

Because snipers are not an effective crowd control method. You can't stop 100,000+ angry people by killing a few dozens with snipers. You can only make them angrier. There was no logic behind it, no motive.

Never being safe sounds like a good motive, it must have enourmous psycholical impact if you can be shot from anywhere. Not questioning what you say but I can find some logic in using them if you are an absolute jerk.

[Sarmatian]

Did I miss something?

So, someone from the new interim government or a political party sent the snipers.

The government isn’t or is interested in investigating this. (one said not the other said there was)

Just how does this shake out that the EU is behind it?

It sounds like people talking realistically about a tragic mess. Not making secret plans to take over the country.

The EU can offer aid, the Russians can offer aid.

Maybe the government tossed out was not as bad as some wanted them to believe.

Other people are now in, or have a chance to gain power. And one or more is willing to kill to get it.

It appears, with the help of Kagemusha article in the previous post that foreign minister of Estonia was giving an assessment of Olga Bogomolets, one of the chief doctors who organized field hospitals for the protesters. Based on her evidence, he said it is becoming clear that Yanukovich is not the one who ordered sniper attacks, but the opposition, which is even more likely as the opposition government isn't even trying to investigate sniper attacks.

Ashton than said "that is interesting, we will have to look into it more".


Never being safe sounds like a good motive, it must have enourmous psycholical impact if you can be shot from anywhere. Not questioning what you say but I can find some logic in using them if you are an absolute jerk.

Not being safe whether you do something or not makes you more likely to try to remove the threat rather than do nothing.

[Fisherking]

It appears, with the help of Kagemusha article in the previous post that foreign minister of Estonia was giving an assessment of Olga Bogomolets, one of the chief doctors who organized field hospitals for the protesters. Based on her evidence, he said it is becoming clear that Yanukovich is not the one who ordered sniper attacks, but the opposition, which is even more likely as the opposition government isn't even trying to investigate sniper attacks.

Ashton than said "that is interesting, we will have to look into it more".



Not being safe whether you do something or not makes you more likely to try to remove the threat rather than do nothing.

Sure!

It points to one of the groups in government as does the uninvited visitors.

The tactics are too obvious. But I will wait and see.

Lots had motive and opportunity. I could be anyone. Even the US or Russia.

A big mess offers political opportunities and none of them are concerned with the cost in life when you get to the bottom line.

[Husar]

Yeah, so how is that an evil EU plot again?

I always knew that Estonians wanted to kill Ukrainians via the EU so that they don't have to pay for an army because Estonians are all pussies like everyone in the EU which just proves how evil the EU is!!!!!1111

[Kagemusha]

Yeah, so how is that an evil EU plot again?

I always knew that Estonians wanted to kill Ukrainians via the EU so that they don't have to pay for an army because Estonians are all pussies like everyone in the EU which just proves how evil the EU is!!!!!1111

We here in Finland support what ever our kraut overlords say or dont say....Estonia is only good for importing cheap beer back to Finland that has been exported there from Finland with export subsidiaries. :yes:

[Husar]

You're right. We used flying tanks to suppress Libyan AA back in 2011.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-libyan-air-defense-system-libya-s-surface-to-air-missile-sam-network/23841

The following strategic SAM systems are currently serving within the Libyan Air Defense Force: S-75 (SA-2 GUIDELINE), S-125 (SA-3 GOA), and S-200 (SA-5 GAMMON).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina
In service 1957-present

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-125_Neva/Pechora
In service 1961–present

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-200_Angara/Vega/Dubna
In service 1967-present

Yeah, because Libyan air defenses are totally representative of modern russian air defenses!

Not like they're all systems from the Vietnam-era or like you had control of the seas and could use cruise missiles or like France and Britain were actually the ones to attack Libya first...


T 72s of any kind are inferior to any Abrams, Leo, Leclerc, Challenger, or even Stryker MGS. T-80s are comparable to an Abrams in full scale battle but inferior individually, and I actually don't know much about the newer ones. Those are crazy numbers though for a failing nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72#Estimated_protection_level

The protection with Relikt is actually on par or even better than all of the NATO tanks you mention, the modern T-72 is called T-90 and is not really inferior anymore. And that failing nation on the other side of the atlantic has even crazier numbers of everything, 10 carrier groups but 47.6 million people on food stamps: http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Yearly.jpg

[rvg]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-libyan-air-defense-system-libya-s-surface-to-air-missile-sam-network/23841


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina
In service 1957-present

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-125_Neva/Pechora
In service 1961–present

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-200_Angara/Vega/Dubna
In service 1967-present

Yeah, because Libyan air defenses are totally representative of modern russian air defenses!

Not like they're all systems from the Vietnam-era or like you had control of the seas and could use cruise missiles or like France and Britain were actually the ones to attack Libya first...

And? The point is that we used air power to suppress their AA.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I may be wrong, but I believe his point to be that Russian AA will be adequate enough to suppress your planes. Which, if true, should dispel your notion of using the planes to suppress the AA.

[Husar]

We here in Finland support what ever our kraut overlords say or dont say....Estonia is only good for importing cheap beer back to Finland that has been exported there from Finland with export subsidiaries. :yes:

I just read about how Merkel is not fond of Putin.

Because Merkel once got bitten in the knee by a dog and since that day she is afraid of dogs. And when she visited Putin in 2007 or so, a huge black dog walked into the room and Putin smiled and straddled it. And this despite Merkel's staff telling everyone in advance that there should be no dogs because the mighty evil EU conqueror Merkel is afraid of dogs. Putin is so mean... :dizzy2:

I mean if that doesn't make you believe in true evil among our leaders, what else could?

[Husar]

I may be wrong, but I believe his point to be that Russian AA will be adequate enough to suppress your planes. Which, if true, should dispel your notion of using the planes to suppress the AA.

Exactly.

[rvg]

I may be wrong, but I believe his point to be that Russian AA will be adequate enough to suppress your planes. Which, if true, should dispel your notion of using the planes to suppress the AA.

You may be wrong or you may be right. Nobody knows for sure though.

[Husar]

You may be wrong or you may be right. Nobody knows for sure though.

That's what Hitler said before he invaded Russia.

[rvg]

That's what Hitler said before he invaded Russia.

He didn't take into account the famous Siberian Bear Cavalry

12385

[Fragony]

Yeah, so how is that an evil EU plot again?

I always knew that Estonians wanted to kill Ukrainians via the EU so that they don't have to pay for an army because Estonians are all pussies like everyone in the EU which just proves how evil the EU is!!!!!1111

The EU is too stupid to be evil, the EU is too stupid to be anything. These pencil-lickers and Godwin-cannons are way over their head here. Oh how they want to have a historical role...

[Fisherking]

I just read about how Merkel is not fond of Putin.

Because Merkel once got bitten in the knee by a dog and since that day she is afraid of dogs. And when she visited Putin in 2007 or so, a huge black dog walked into the room and Putin smiled and straddled it. And this despite Merkel's staff telling everyone in advance that there should be no dogs because the mighty evil EU conqueror Merkel is afraid of dogs. Putin is so mean... :dizzy2:

I mean if that doesn't make you believe in true evil among our leaders, what else could?


The message there couldn’t be much clearer, unless he had put glowing red contacts on the dog and sicked it on her.

He seems to do things to get Obama to cancel meetings. Wonder what that means? :laugh4:

[rvg]

He seems to do things to get Obama to cancel meetings. Wonder what that means? :laugh4:

Probably served him watermelons and fried chicken for dinner.

[Fragony]

And it happened, Russia expanded. Crimea is now Russian. Looks like the international-socialism and the Ukrainian Hitler-fanboys aren't getting their fourth reich yet.

[rvg]

And it happened, Russia expanded. Crimea is now Russian.

Neville Chamberlain can breathe a sigh of relief: the aggressor has been pacified, at least for the moment.

[Fragony]

Neville Chamberlain can breathe a sigh of relief: the aggressor has been pacified, at least for the moment.

Kinda rooting for Russia here, they could use the Crimea ports until 2048 (lol@year) because in the North the sea freezes in the winter. They would never give that up, they can't.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Interesting.

It could be the new Coalition - note the Minister says *somebody* in the Coalition appears to have ordered the attacks.

That's possible - there are several other explanation, including Russian snipers or someone from within Yanakovich's Berkut Police going a bit nuts.

Putin is certainly ruthless enough to order it - I'm not sure if he would though. On the face of it, the snipers caused the collapse of his puppet government but conversely that gave him an opportunity to invade Crimea.

So the question is how long a game was Putin playing?

[rvg]

Kinda rooting for Russia here, they could use the Crimea ports until 2048 (lol@year) because in the North the sea freezes in the winter. They would never give that up, they can't.

But that's just not true: contrary to popular belief the mainstay of the Russian navy in Europe is not the Black Sea or the Baltic. It's the Arctic base of Severomorsk in the Barents Sea near the Norwegian border. It's completely ice free all year round and always has been. Furthermore, unlike the Baltic or Black Sea puddles, Russian Northern fleet is free from all the tonnage or nuclear restrictions there. They can have carriers, nuclear subs (which they do), etc.
The much talked about Black Sea Fleet is a joke compared to the Arctic navy. The base is just a pretext for a land grab.

[Fragony]

Gotcha, gracias

[TiagoJRToledo]

He didn't take into account the famous Siberian Bear Cavalry

12385

I see your Siberian Bear Cavalry, and raise you a Walrus Backed Nanookwaffe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsqZ1k9ZPHE

[Beskar]

It could be a mix of both.

Putin might actually know the truth, so whilst the pro-Kiev forces ordered the sniper attacks, he knew it was them, allowed them to seize control, then he could use this information against them, which makes it easier to put his man back upon the throne.

There are many opportunities for both side, but once you walk down certain roads, you are shooting yourself in the foot, over and over.

[Fisherking]

I am wondering a bit more about the government in Crimea. There were big shakeups there too. 77 members of the ruling party left and became independent. The leader of the government, from what I glean was replaced by a Russian Business Tycoon (note I did not say Russian-Ukrainian) a few days before the intervention. They announced they would boycott national elections and now they decide they are joining Russia.

Ukraine calls the government of Crimea illegitimate and the Russians call the Ukrainian government illegitimate. Maybe they both are.

It all seems a bit to pat. As Crimea is autonomous what shakeup forced the government to go haywire?

Now, today the parliament of Crimea is supposed to be unanimous in their decision to join Russia.

They seemed to be hopelessly divided a short time age, but suddenly they are unanimous.

Isn’t that sweet?
:inquisitive:

[Hax]

Kagemusha: Finnish is basically just drunk Estonian. That's what you get for importing cheap Saku beer from Tallinn.

Right now I'm actually in Estonia, and it's not really a big secret that people are a bit suspicious of Russia in general. Interestingly, it should also be noted that only 6 out of 21 members of Keskerakond (an Estonian political party, often described as pro-Russian) signed a letter expressing sympathies for the situation in Ukraine. The Estonian political landscape is a bit divided between politicians stressing Estonia's relationship with the rest of Europe, whereas others seek thorough reconciliation with Russia.

I just read the article in Postimees, and basically it says that Urmas Paet hasn't responded so far, because he didn't hear the conversation himself yet. I'm wondering what kind of repercussions this will have for the situation there. People are tense here though.

[Pannonian]

It could be a mix of both.

Putin might actually know the truth, so whilst the pro-Kiev forces ordered the sniper attacks, he knew it was them, allowed them to seize control, then he could use this information against them, which makes it easier to put his man back upon the throne.

There are many opportunities for both side, but once you walk down certain roads, you are shooting yourself in the foot, over and over.

I am wondering a bit more about the government in Crimea. There were big shakeups there too. 77 members of the ruling party left and became independent. The leader of the government, from what I glean was replaced by a Russian Business Tycoon (note I did not say Russian-Ukrainian) a few days before the intervention. They announced they would boycott national elections and now they decide they are joining Russia.

Ukraine calls the government of Crimea illegitimate and the Russians call the Ukrainian government illegitimate. Maybe they both are.

It all seems a bit to pat. As Crimea is autonomous what shakeup forced the government to go haywire?

Now, today the parliament of Crimea is supposed to be unanimous in their decision to join Russia.

They seemed to be hopelessly divided a short time age, but suddenly they are unanimous.

Isn’t that sweet?
:inquisitive:

Like I said, the protesters opened the door when they toppled the previous democratically elected government. However corrupt it was, they demonstrated that the old rules didn't apply any more, when elections produced a government, that lasted until the next elections. With the old rules gone, whoever is strong enough to back their version of legitimacy is free to do just that. Both the Crimean and Ukrainian governments have their own degree of democratic legitimacy, and neither respects the old version of legitimacy in full.

[Fisherking]

I will say this again here, in hopes that someone has a clearer answer than I can find.


I am wondering a bit more about the government in Crimea. There were big shakeups there too. 77 members of the ruling party left and became independent. The leader of the government, from what I glean was replaced by a Russian Business Tycoon (note I did not say Russian-Ukrainian) a few days before the intervention. They announced they would boycott national elections and now they decide they are joining Russia.

Ukraine calls the government of Crimea illegitimate and the Russians call the Ukrainian government illegitimate. Of course they recognize Crimea as the peoples representatives.

It all seems a bit too pat. As Crimea is autonomous what shakeup forced the government to go haywire?

The ruling party has a name that would tend to make you believe that they support Ukrainian unity.

It is the Party of Regions, which just merged with the Strong Ukraine Party.

Now, today the parliament of Crimea is supposed to be unanimous in their decision to join Russia.

They seemed to be hopelessly divided a short time age, but suddenly they are unanimous.

Isn’t that sweet?

I am not saying I got this right either. It is a bit complicated to follow it with news reports. Most in languages I don’t read or by Russian sources only.

Who has a clue?

Also the referendum is scheduled for March 16th!

Would anyone believer the results? Should they?

This smacks of soooooooooooo much Hog Wash!

[rvg]

Now, today the parliament of Crimea is supposed to be unanimous in their decision to join Russia.

Maybe they are held at gunpoint.

[Fisherking]

Like I said, the protesters opened the door when they toppled the previous democratically elected government. However corrupt it was, they demonstrated that the old rules didn't apply any more, when elections produced a government, that lasted until the next elections. With the old rules gone, whoever is strong enough to back their version of legitimacy is free to do just that. Both the Crimean and Ukrainian governments have their own degree of democratic legitimacy, and neither respects the old version of legitimacy in full.

Well, that is not exactly how it went down!

The Parliament asked the guy to step down.

The demonstrators seemed fairly happy with early elections.

There is a lot going on but governments can remove heads of state without being illegitimate.

It is not the protesters running the country, or have you not noticed?

[Ironside]

It could be a mix of both.

Putin might actually know the truth, so whilst the pro-Kiev forces ordered the sniper attacks, he knew it was them, allowed them to seize control, then he could use this information against them, which makes it easier to put his man back upon the throne.

There are many opportunities for both side, but once you walk down certain roads, you are shooting yourself in the foot, over and over.

He is certainly willing to burn a lot of goodwill and long term economics over this (I expect independence from Russian gas to be a strategic issue from now).

It's suprisingly little it changes the current narrative.

Yanukovich are burned. Too corrupt.
Putin always called it a facist coup. Bit more valid if it was facist rented snipers, but ignores the revolutionary part of it.
Doesn't change the invasion of Crimea. It's a different game field. Same field counter play would implicate a major chunk of the new parliment (even if it only was a small part even aware of it) with the sniping.

What it changes is the need to get an independent investigation to root out that kind of corruption.

[Fisherking]

BBC: Armed men in Crimea seize TV transmitters, disconnecting Ukraine's 5 Kanal TV and One Plus One TV, and launch Russian Rossiya 24 TV broadcasts

Guess they were not saying what the masters wanted them to.

[Beskar]

Interesting solution would be if the UN had a mandate where it could de-facto run a country during an election cycle. By this, the UN basically safeguards a nation whilst an election takes place with UN observers to check the validity of the voting and assist in appointing a new government.

Crimea does seem a lost cause, and their application to Russian Federation is a wild card. To my knowledge, the Russians haven't agreed to anything, but they could say 'no' then support an 'independent' Crimea still.

[Fisherking]

I am pretty sure the demonstrators received aid in one form or another from western governments.

Who did the sniper work for? No idea.

Russia in Crimea? Phony as a $3 bill.

What happened in Georgia? Same thing.

[TiagoJRToledo]

Maybe they are held at gunpoint.

Or maybe they just really want to join Russia.

[rvg]

Or maybe they just really want to join Russia.

It's possible. I'm skeptical though, considering that normally vehemently anti-Russian Crimean Tatars suddenly became pro-Russian.

[Husar]

Not really. Georgia shot at Russians who then retaliated.

What happened to Pakistan? I hear there is some rogue country firing missiles as Pakistani citizens all the time.
There was even an event where soldiers of that rogue country entered Pakistan and shot people there, just entering already constitutes an invasion as we established before. So if this rogue country starts to criticize Russia, I am reminded of the great picture story Tiaexz posted. (Crimea river)

[Beskar]

It's possible. I'm skeptical though, considering that normally vehemently anti-Russian Crimean Tatars suddenly became pro-Russian.

They only make up roughly 10% of the population, so if they are going for the 51% rule and 60% of the population are classified as 'Russians' by Ukraine census, they do not really have much chance if the 'Russian' population are unanimous in their support.

[rvg]

They only make up roughly 20% of the population, so if they are going for the 51% rule and 60% of the population are classified as 'Russians' by Ukraine census, they do not really have much chance if the 'Russian' population are unanimous in their support.

There are also Ukrainians. Besides, even ethnic Russians are unlikely to be united in their desire to join Russia. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess, provided that voter fraud does not become an issue.

[Brenus]

And when I told everybody that the Putin will play Kosovo story, I didn’t think to be right THAT fast…

[rvg]

Not really. Georgia shot at Russians who then retaliated.

What happened to Pakistan? I hear there is some rogue country firing missiles as Pakistani citizens all the time.
There was even an event where soldiers of that rogue country entered Pakistan and shot people there, just entering already constitutes an invasion as we established before. So if this rogue country starts to criticize Russia, I am reminded of the great picture story Tiaexz posted. (Crimea river)

If what he's doing is a'okay with you, then there's nothing to worry about. After all, we don't share a land border with Russia. EU does.

[Fisherking]

There are also Ukrainians. Besides, even ethnic Russians are unlikely to be united in their desire to join Russia. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess, provided that voter fraud does not become an issue.

LOL I am sure they could have given you the vote count yesterday.

[rvg]

LOL I am sure they could have given you the vote count yesterday.

I share your skepticism.

[Brenus]

“Neville Chamberlain can breathe a sigh of relief: the aggressor has been pacified, at least for the moment.” If you want to understand Munich, I suggest looking at the state of the French and UK armies and theirs air-forces in 1938. That is if you want to really understand, out of Clichés, that, like today in front of Russia, theses 2 countries were not able to fight Germany. Reseach for Amiot 143, ANF Les Mureaux or Bloch MB 210 for the French. At the same time, Me 109, 110, Ju 88, He 111 and others for Germany…

[Fisherking]

Not really. Georgia shot at Russians who then retaliated.

What happened to Pakistan? I hear there is some rogue country firing missiles as Pakistani citizens all the time.
There was even an event where soldiers of that rogue country entered Pakistan and shot people there, just entering already constitutes an invasion as we established before. So if this rogue country starts to criticize Russia, I am reminded of the great picture story Tiaexz posted. (Crimea river)

Yep, Georgia fell for the bate.

Sure. That is why two wrongs make it right.

Revenge, tit for tat, and so on. All those enlightened diplomatic ideas.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I may be wrong, but I believe his point to be that Russian AA will be adequate enough to suppress your planes. Which, if true, should dispel your notion of using the planes to suppress the AA.

AA has historically been shown to be more of a nuisance than anything - interceptors do the killing, AA is the distraction that gets you killed.

The US B-1 and B-2 Bombers have mission profiles for taking out AA.

Ultimately - though - we don't know how to fight a major war - the closest thing was the Falklands, where AA was largely ineffective, and the infantry were assaulting trenches with bayonets.

It seems most likely that our fancy stuff will be cancelled out by their fancy stuff and it'll come down to scared young men with pointy sticks, like it always does.

[Husar]

Yep, Georgia fell for the bate.

Sure. That is why two wrongs make it right.

Revenge, tit for tat, and so on. All those enlightened diplomatic ideas.

I didn't say two wrongs make a right, I said Matthew 7:5 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-5.htm).

Russia finally does what America does all the time, might makes right and all that, and now America is trying to say that's immoral.

Crimea river.

[Beskar]

the Ukrainian Hitler-fanboys aren't getting their fourth reich yet.

Yes, the possibility of not joining the Russian Federation would be a blow to them.

[Beskar]

And when I told everybody that the Putin will play Kosovo story, I didn’t think to be right THAT fast…

That is exactly what I thought when I heard about the referendum, Kosovo.


There are also Ukrainians. Besides, even ethnic Russians are unlikely to be united in their desire to join Russia. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess, provided that voter fraud does not become an issue.

My point still stands:
58.32% Russians
24.32% Ukrainians
12.10% Crimean Tatars

They just need a majority of 'Russians' to back the vote to win, even though there might be some Ukrainians who might want to join too.

[Fisherking]

I didn't say two wrongs make a right, I said Matthew 7:5 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-5.htm).

Russia finally does what America does all the time, might makes right and all that, and now America is trying to say that's immoral.

Crimea river.

And who give a :daisy: about what politicians say. It is usually a lie. So because the US is wrong in things it dose it make it ok for Russia to grab chunks of Ukraine with a phony pretext.

I thought it was about Ukraine. Sorry!

Anyway when a bully stands up to a bully beating up someone weaker, which one is right? Not that they are actually doing anything.

The US likes to play cop. They may be a sleazy self-serving cop but one in a while they have the opportunity to try and do what is just.

Meantime, you root for the gangster.

[rvg]

Ukraine can always decide that she doesn't like the gas pipeline going through her territory... It spoils the landscape.

[Beskar]

Ukraine can always decide that she doesn't like the gas pipeline going through her territory... It spoils the landscape.

Doesn't really matter, the Baltic German-Russo pipeline (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15637244) has been under construction and even operated for a while. There are plenty of other nations who are willing to take oil money for their coffers.

Not taking any money would hurt the Ukrainian economy even more during this period. In short, Ukraine would lose more than the Russians.

[Fisherking]

Ukraine can always decide that she doesn't like the gas pipeline going through her territory... It spoils the landscape.

The Russians would just protect their economic interests in that case and take the whole thing. And of course they would get a unanimous vote of the people to back it up.

[rvg]

Doesn't really matter, the Baltic German-Russo pipeline (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15637244) has been under construction and even operated for a while. There are plenty of other nations who are willing to take oil money for their coffers.

New pipelines don't spring up overnight though. Pretty much all of Southern Europe gets its its gas via the Ukrainian pipeline. Oh, and one more thing: water. Currently Crimean agriculture functions solely because of the water coming from Ukraine via a canal. This can also be subject to change.

[Beskar]

Meantime, you root for the gangster.

I heard the same thing about US sponsored Kosovo. Then the fact the US propped up Saddam and all those other tyrants and dictators across the world from South America to Africa, to Middle East and Asia.

The problem is that the US look like big hypocrites and that is a realist position, they are also in a position similar to Russia in the past where they can not act.

Crimea like Kosovo for the Serbs/Russians cannot be won.

[Sarmatian]

The US likes to play cop. They may be a sleazy self-serving cop but one in a while they have the opportunity to try and do what is just.

Meantime, you root for the gangster.

Really, how do you justify this kind of opinion? I understand that a country A has strategic interests to ally country B, that their level of trust is high, they may share some other similarities, have a history of cooperation and so on and so forth, but if a country A acts like country C, how can you label one a "cop" and the other a "gangster"?

What's the rationale behind it?