All sorts of goodies on the East coast; oil and gas which is the life-blood of the Russian economy...
Printable View
All sorts of goodies on the East coast; oil and gas which is the life-blood of the Russian economy...
The Strait is rather far from Russian airbases, and I doubt the Turks would appreciate Russian jets flying over Istanbul to bomb the Americans...Quote:
Try getting carrier groups through the bottleneck when you don't control the air.
It's within operational range.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
And if it comes to that situation, I don't think Russia would care much what Turkey thinks.
It won't, however, come to that as neither EU nor USA will do anything.
At the edge - from the Crimea. If it's Russia-proper, forget about it - the strike craft won't be able to make it.Quote:
It's within operational range.
They would, if they expect a future after 2014 - international politics is not like your TBS games.Quote:
And if it comes to that situation, I don't think Russia would care much what Turkey thinks.
A nice synopsis from BBC:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26421703
Yet you would somehow accidentally hit the Chinese Embassy in the process...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Here's why: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26427848
The ousted President called for Russian troops.
Hmmm.
That's a good fig leaf.
Couldn't find a better version of this:
http://youtu.be/YSvOK9RRGFM
At least we've got a competent leader managing things for us...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS2a44F5TgM
Eh - Obama is deploying the progressive fallacy "We did that already".
It's a great rhetorical trick - and most Americans fell for it.
Doesn't mean Obama really believed it.
I see.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Or he went during his vacation away from China or Japan.....
I don't think he regrets it. He has plenty of money to waste, and if he runs out there's always more to steal. I just think it's an unnecessary financial drain that's only good for dick-waiving.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Sure, he can have a fleet there, but what for? It's useless as far as projecting power because it can't get out into the Mediterranean. Almost as pointless as having a large naval presence in the Caspian Sea.Quote:
I for one believe he is more like "We have a fleet here, you don't".
There's no need: a carrier can operate just fine out of the Aegean and provide good air cover.Quote:
Try getting carrier groups through the bottleneck when you don't control the air.
I believe it's *for* covering troops crossing the sea - because it's quicker to attack he Balkans by Sea AND Air than by land.
So, I reckon we're about 5 minutes from Western Brown Alert.
That is highly dependent on who is attacking whom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Well if the Russians ever seriously wanted to invade Bulgaria like you suggested then it would make the logistics more convenient. Meanwhile the fleet is only useful for intimidation and prestige purposes. I don't think the Russians mind that very much.
If nothing else it keeps a lot of potentially angry young men off the streets and generates a loyal voting block. :shrug:
One statement that can give a different perception of legitimacy of the government: Hitler was legitimatly elected chancellor of Germany. So what do you think of a coup against him in July 1943? I expect you would say that it is good that the coup failed. They may have assassinated a legitimate chancellor whose term hasn't expired. Being legitimately elected does not mean the elected one may do whatever he wants until the next election comes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
How do you implement ousting? A delegation of egg-heads coming to him and saying: "Now will you please go away, sir, will you?" And the protesters demanded approval of the new government because they were (and are) afraid that 2004 scenario will be played again - a gang of political thieves replacing a gang of political thugs. And Maidan was not (and is not) very happy about all of the new government either. But unfortunately we have other worries now then go discussing the personal composition of the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
He didn't mean to run away. Both-sides shooting was aimed at exactly what you guessed: to escalate the conflict, make both sides furious, justify employment of the army against the protesters and show himself a firm and decisive leader able to cope with the situation. Until the snipers were involved NO ONE spoke of ousting Yanukovych - they just wanted a new government. Does Yanukovych's appeal to Putin for Russian army invading Ukraine mean that he wants de-escalation and peaceful solution? In all three months of Maidan he never went to talk to people there while they were still moderate enough to talk to. His background and worldview prevents him from seeing that people with a different point of view should be considered worth of negotiating. He did negotiate when the situation got out of hand completely, his own followers started to desert him and the West intervened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
"Hitler was legitimatly elected chancellor of Germany." Nope. Hitler was called by Hindenburg, Hitler was never elected in fact.
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.
In reality, the interim government tried to use the window before the new elections to encourage protesters to bring down other elected representatives they didn't like, to weaken and disorganize the largest opposition party and to fundamentally alter both domestic and foreign policy. That is called a putsch.
It certainly isn't the first one in history. After the October Revolution in Russia, there were at least 10 different armies on its territories. Japanese and American army, French and British intervention force, remnants of AH and German army, Polish army... together with many different internal factions. The new Soviet government dealt with them. They made a deal with some and defeated and expelled the others.
This is what Pannonian's been telling you. If you go that route, either make sure you can deal with the consequences or make sure those who can get involved are okay with it.
Since you can't defeat and expel the Russian army, you have to deal with them diplomatically. Going back to earlier government or setting up a new one, true interim government whose only purpose is to manage the country until new elections, declaring everything Maidan government did null and void is a very good starting position and something that Russia might be willing to accept. I don't think you could get a better deal than that and that is the only scenario in which I see you having decent chance of keeping Crimea.
"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." Stop believing your own propaganda. Propaganda is good if you don't start to believe it is true.:yes:
I suggest you should study the Air Forces losses against the small country like Serbia during the NATO (against sovereignty and UN resolutions, by the way) Air Campaign before making this kind of statement. Then, can you explain how you will prevent missiles from Russia to kill your Fleet in San Diego, or wherever the US Fleet is?
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Hindenburg was elected legally. Hitler got votes legally. Hinderburg did a legal coalition with Hitler, who had the second largest party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Indeed, when are they going to impeach Obama!?!Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.
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..
http://news.msn.com/world/us-prepare...oubled-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?
Jealous?Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
No, it just doesn't make sense.
edit: ok now it does.
http://www.dnes.bg/world/2014/03/04/...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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
double post
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
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 share similar sentiments. The worst part is over. That doesn't mean things can't get ugly later on, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
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..~DQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.
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.
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.
Absolutely. Without air supremacy we're screwed. But we are pretty good in the air.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
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.Quote:
You can’t say most war is urban. It depends on where you are going and what you want to do.
Exactly. So why engage in the open field where the enemy can dominate? Stick with cities and largely nullify the tank advantage.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fec6c296-9...#axzz2v0gZV8iV
That still wouldn't have made Mr. Yanukovich happy, who had somewhat more...ambitious plans:Quote:
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.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/1...9BA08O20131211
:rolleyes:Quote:
Yanukovich has said his country needs $20 billion a year until 2017, and a total amount of $160 billion.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
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.
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.
I wouldn't want to be in a mech battalion facing down a tank battalion...Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Certainly not, but nobody would expect you to face a tank battalion in the open field. In cities though things are different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Here's an example of an overwhelming tank force being whipped by ragtag rebels.
"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."
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
So are the russian military folks. And yes, they're lightyears ahead compared to Iraq in almost everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I have the greatest respect for our military and their ability to improvise and overcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Allahu Akbar!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
*pulls the pin on the suicide vest*
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?
No obvious strings, since when it capitalist-land the new mother theresa?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Of course you expect something in return even if you would never say so.
Attachment 12383Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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.
Apparently minister level talks between Russia and Ukraine have started. Very promising.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rajpoot
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.
Tanks are rocks and mech is scissors. Cities are paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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!"
closet libertarian?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Ukraine mostly open plains. That kind of terrain is awesome for tanks. It's even more awesome for anti-tank aircraft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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?
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
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.Quote:
Aircraft need dominance in the air to attack tanks. Before they have air supremacy, they don't even field anti-tank weapons.
No air supremacy --> no ground campaign. Heck, when was the last time we attacked without air supremacy? WWI I think.Quote:
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.
Let them fulfill their objectives. Once the air belongs to us we will fulfill ours.Quote:
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?
Entrenched where exactly?Quote:
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.
My guess is that they would be entrenched at the most strategical positions. You have a better guess?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.
Such as?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
They have been heralding the end of the tank since the first anti-tank gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.
I'm sure Russian generals have an idea or two.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I am also sure it would beat both yours and mine best idea.
It's being replaced by something shinier, is it not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
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.
1. You need to control the air first.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
And somewhere someone would be going: "Boy, I sure am glad I own a corporation which happens to manufacture bombs!"
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.
Did I ever say otherwise? Of course you need to control the air first, and we will do that before we do anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
So what you saying is that air superiority is unachievable. Why? We have air bases all over Europe today.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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:
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.