re: British Army admits Russia could destroy their only remaining fighting unit...

quote:

---

I have zero doubt that Russia can knock those out of the sky. The fricking serbs were shooting down F-117's 20 years ago.

---

Yeah an F-117 flying a predicted path with its bomb doors open. Talk about stealthy. Stealth is better than no stealth.

quote:

---

We need to get away from aircraft as quickly as possible. Precision guided long range surface to surface missiles and artillery are the future.

---

I have no argument here. The only inhibitor I see is reaction/delivery time.

quote:

---

40 T-72s. You gotta figure you'll be lucky to take out 15-20 enemy armored vehicles per 40 ATGMs you shoot.

---

I mean the systems and their stocks of missiles. Just as the T-72 is stocked with rounds.

quote:

---

I have no argument here. The only inhibitor I see is reaction/delivery time.

---

Cost is a huge factor as well

quote:

---

All combat aircraft that aren't "stealth" are in-fact becoming obsolete, especially when used during the opening parts of a theoretical war. That's why it's so important that NATO has the F-35.

---

It will be years before all aircraft are "stealth". In fact it may never happen because the mission some aircraft have to carry out does not lend their types to stealth. And do you not realize cocountermeasures can and will be developed to make today's stealth technology obsolete.

quote:

---

And yes, tanks are going to get countermeasures to guard against ATGMs, but the problem is not that ATGMs can kill them. The problem is that ATGMs and other RPGs are so prevalent and cost-effective compared to maintaining a tank force that the comparison becomes a blowout.

Would you rather 40 T-72s with countermeasures or 40 kornets? Which benefits you more in the long run?

---

You're still missing the point. Infantry with shoulder fired anti-tank weapons capable of killing tanks have been around since World War I. In WWII all major warring powers had infantry weapons to kill tanks. The Germans were especially good in this regard with their devastating Panzerschrek and Panzerfaust weapons. German infantry had at their disposal weapons capable of killing any armored vehicle they faced. So the concept of infantry being able to kill tanks is nothing new. And yet despite this, tanks were and still are part of the battle field today? Why do you think this is so?

The answer is simple. Namely there are things infantry can do on the battlefield and then there are things armor can do. And likewise there are things artillery can do. It take all three, working together to win on a modern battlefield when facing a likewise modern military foe.

If you were to try and fight a war with just infantry, artillery, and airpower, what you'd end up with is trench warfare where neither side is able to breach the defenses of the other.

No offense dude, but debating Darth about tanks is kinda like debating Greg Maddox about curveballs.

Unless you've also driven a tank in combat.

Been my stance for years. 1999 was a badddd year for NATO, and us.

quote:

---

I think you're strictly pulling shite from thin air...

---

Isn't that what this whole thread is?

quote:

---

non-stealth aircraft are not entirely obsolete. Electronic Countermeasures have become incedibly advanced in denying the enemy the opportunity to use their AA sensors.

---

This. The Prowler and Growler are more than capable at protecting strike aircraft.

Admittedly, not military.

But...is this sort if information possibly why Trump asked "why" tactical nukes couldn't be used?

quote:

---

Advanced weapons systems have to be deployed in enough numbers to overcome numbers. Look at the Germans in WWII. Compared to Soviet weapons and equipment, the Germans were far and away more advanced and sophisticated than their Soviet counterparts. How did that work out for the Germans?

---

^This.

Take our fighters for example. In a war with Russia, air superiority is a must. Now, we have the best in the Raptor. The F-35 is a duck. However, let's just say it worked. Against overwhelming numbers, sure they'd knock down more than a few. But, what happens when they run out missiles? Internally, they can only carry 4 each. So, just for arguments sake, what happens when there are just a few more planes than weapons carried? Now, granted the Raptor and F-35 can hang weapons on their wings, but when that happens the pylons and all become great big shining beacons, nullifying any stealth advantage. And, let's not forget the advances in radar that are nullifying any stealth advantage in the first place. Pretty soon, it will be back to the old ways, just shinier toys.