Printable View
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.~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Yeah, yeah, yeah... Aesop called, he wants his job back.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&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.
:laugh4:
It's more like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
"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."
Hay! I know those bears. They are old friends and neighbors. http://www.olygamefarm.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
Capitalist Bears.
The eagles of the area are a little suspect though.
Don't forget one very important fact - when the enemy is in range, so are you.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
I think the world at large has become aware that when the US bombs - someone profits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
I haven't yet in my life seen it being the average USAnian taxpayer.
Nor of course the people being bombed.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.
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.Quote:
- and Western European Troops should be able to get there before Russia can cross Ukraine.
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.Quote:
The USAF can attack ground targets without Air Superiority, the UK did it in the Falklands.
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.
You expect a capitalistic state to wage war without it being in a capitalistic interest?Quote:
Of course - the US may decide that supporting it's European allies isn't worth it, like they always do.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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.
Fisherking:
The C-5 can 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.
Like whom? Russia, China, and India are all worse that the US. I mean seriouslyQuote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
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.
EU?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
"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?
No one wants to be allies with a warmonger, but neither do they want to be allies with a total pussy....Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
“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).
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.
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. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Oh and we also sold some to dictatorships all over the world.
Really? Why? How is India worse than the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
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:
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.
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:
Quote:
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."
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.
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/wikiped...rope_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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
MBT-70Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Including the tanks you have "in storage", I think you have around 8000 Abrams.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Whether they are outdated or not is another question of course.
As for the cuts, it was about time.
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.
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"?