- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: British Army admits Russia could destroy their only remaining fighting unit...
Posted on 1/23/17 at 10:27 am to GeauxxxTigers23
Posted on 1/23/17 at 10:27 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
We need to get away from aircraft as quickly as possible
Without control of the air, you can't control the ground.
0
Posted on 1/23/17 at 10:32 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
It's like I've long said, NATO is a hollow shell of it's former self that's been left to rot for the past twenty years plus.
I think this is even being generous.
The non-U.S. members of NATO - collectively - spend between 1/2 and 2/3 of the U.S. defense budget - and for that money, they buy about 1/10th the combat power.
So, not only are they hollow, "parade ground" military forces, they are inefficient ones.
Posted on 1/23/17 at 10:33 am to Tiguar
quote:
You need to read a frickin book. Assessments at the height of the cold war had most of europe falling in days if the Russians decided to tankswarm over the border. We would be forced into a tactical nuclear usage scenario.
The US military stationed were considered to be basically >90% casualties and nothing more than a speed bump.
Russia has since weakened but do has Europe.
So it took us roughly 3 weeks to capture Baghdad in 2003 but it would have taken hours or days for the Russian military to capture Western Europe? You read a fricking book and use some common sense.
Posted on 1/23/17 at 10:38 am to Darth_Vader
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?
Let's be honest. If anyone other than that idiot Hitler was in charge of the German war machine, they would have won WWII. Hitler made numerous strategic and tactical errors that negated his technological advantage.
The US will make some mistakes but not nearly of the same magnitude.
quote:
But what you say is possible. However, as the Sherman's in WWII showed us, you still need at least some numbers and right now NATOs numbers a pathetically low. Low enough that they'd have no hope of overcoming Russia's numbers. And beyond that, not only do the Russians have the numbers on their side, they also are modernizing their forces as well.
The Russian modernization should be of concern in an era where European military cutbacks are erroding their tech advantage.
being able to defeat infantry based antitank systems could shift the balance in the favor of Russia's superior numbers.
Posted on 1/23/17 at 10:41 am to TrebleHook
quote:
Assessments at the height of the cold war had most of europe falling in days if the Russians decided to tankswarm over the border. We would be forced into a tactical nuclear usage scenario.
The US military stationed were considered to be basically >90% casualties and nothing more than a speed bump.
Russia has since weakened but do has Europe.
Yep, and I'm sure thoses doomsday scenarios scared the bejesus out of the politicians and accomplished the goal of increasing our military budget.
Posted on 1/23/17 at 10:46 am to Darth_Vader
If Russia can keep their supply chain rolling, the entire continent would be theirs before the U.S. or UK could field a response. The tanks would overrun the airfields before we could even get our bombers off the ground.
At that point, the UK would have no choice but to sue for peace because neither side would be a threat to the other.
At that point, the UK would have no choice but to sue for peace because neither side would be a threat to the other.
Posted on 1/23/17 at 11:25 am to rmnldr
quote:
rmnldr
Posted on 1/23/17 at 11:37 am to kingbob
quote:
If Russia can keep their supply chain rolling, the entire continent would be theirs before the U.S. or UK could field a response. The tanks would overrun the airfields before we could even get our bombers off the ground.
Not entirely true. Maritime Prepositioning Force. And yes there is one in the Med at all times.
Posted on 1/23/17 at 12:01 pm to kingbob
quote:
The tanks would overrun the airfields before we could even get our bombers off the ground.
Whose airfields? Certainly not ours, unless the tanks are capable of going several hundred mph.
Posted on 1/23/17 at 12:05 pm to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
The tanks would overrun the airfields before we could even get our bombers off the ground.
Whose airfields? Certainly not ours, unless the tanks are capable of going several hundred mph
Yeah, I don't understand that mentality. If the Russians can take over Ramstein with tanks before we can get planes in the air, we've got some serious issues.
Posted on 1/23/17 at 12:26 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Yeah, I don't understand that mentality. If the Russians can take over Ramstein with tanks before we can get planes in the air, we've got some serious issues.
Cruise missiles could take out Rammstein in the moments leading up to the war. I can't imagine a WWIII scenario other than Russia hitting first in an attempt to destroy our ETO airbases and atlantic fleet.
The KH-32 can fly at 130K ft and hit targets within 620 miles. Loft a few thousand of them and you won't need to use nukes
Posted on 1/23/17 at 12:29 pm to Darth_Vader
Darth thanks for all the info. I always enjoy these threads.
Something that has not been mentioned in this thread that I would like those of you in the know to comment on is the effect of an EMP at the beginning of hostilities. I assume some but not all military equipment are hardened against an EMP but not everything and certainly not civilian transportation and equipment.
What are yalls thought on the effect an EMP would have if used just prior to an attack. Certainly that would negatively affect a countries ability to move equipment around. Trains would not work and the interstates would be clogged with cars that would not start... The affected governments would also have to deal with trying to feed their people at the same time fend off an attack.
Thoughts??
Something that has not been mentioned in this thread that I would like those of you in the know to comment on is the effect of an EMP at the beginning of hostilities. I assume some but not all military equipment are hardened against an EMP but not everything and certainly not civilian transportation and equipment.
What are yalls thought on the effect an EMP would have if used just prior to an attack. Certainly that would negatively affect a countries ability to move equipment around. Trains would not work and the interstates would be clogged with cars that would not start... The affected governments would also have to deal with trying to feed their people at the same time fend off an attack.
Thoughts??
Posted on 1/23/17 at 12:37 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Good thing the brits have James Bond to handle everything
Posted on 1/23/17 at 12:38 pm to Darth_Vader
We should turn NATO into a modern day protection racket and force member nations not contributing enough to pay us. Compensory with the landmass, population, and GDP of the nation. So tired of the US exporting it's wealth by means of protecting foreign nations that gladly cut military spending at our expense.
Want us to protect your borders? Fine, pay off or debt and make our military men some of the higher paid members of society.
Want us to protect your borders? Fine, pay off or debt and make our military men some of the higher paid members of society.
This post was edited on 1/23/17 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 1/23/17 at 1:37 pm to alphaandomega
quote:
EMP would have if used just prior to an attack
That depends - upper atmosphere EMP burst, or small, localized? Upper atmosphere would have negative affect on the attacking forces due to the magnified dispersal areas. I'm not so sure military equipment is that hardened.
Posted on 1/23/17 at 1:39 pm to Darth_Vader
good thing russia will never frick with them
Posted on 1/23/17 at 1:50 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
good thing russia will never frick with them
No probably not. But they would frick with countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania..... see where I'm going here? Do you know what happens if any of those countries are attacked?
Posted on 1/23/17 at 1:59 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Yeah, I don't understand that mentality. If the Russians can take over Ramstein with tanks before we can get planes in the air, we've got some serious issues.
Back in the 80s the Soviets had special forces hidden inside Germany, sleeper cells of a sort. These teams had orders if the ballon ever went up to take out special high value targets like power plants, government officials, as well as airfields. On top of this, if war did come, in the opening seconds every NATO airfield in Europe would be targeted by a swarm of missiles.
The Soviets knew NATO's only real advantage laid in airpower and for Amy War to go on the Soviets favor, this advantage had to be negated. They planned on achieving this goal by taking out as many airbases as possible while at the same time covering the entire battlefront with thousands of mobile SAM launchers. The Soviet Union may be gone, but the Russians have not forgot the lessons left behind.
Posted on 1/23/17 at 10:13 pm to Darth_Vader
thank god we have President Putin now in office... MAGA 
Posted on 1/24/17 at 2:51 am to waiting4saturday
quote:
Sounds like Europe's problem.
About 2 weeks after the Brits and French shamed themselves at Munich in 1938, FDR called in the heads of the Army and Army Air Corps and told them he wanted 20,000 combat aircraft and the capacity to build 24,000 a year. This at a time when the USAAC had 12 B-17's and a few hundred tactical aircraft of dubious utility. Eric Hammel has called this the most important single meeting in modern world history.
And the main reason FDR started talking about the Arsenal of Democracy, your neighbor's house on fire, lend leasing the Brits 50 warships - a peace time draft- and all the rest after France surrendered to the Germans was that his advisers told him that a United States of Europe under the Germans would be very bad for the US economy.
That hasn't changed. The combat power of NATO is pretty atrophied. The Rooskies have been watching. Big mess.
This post was edited on 1/24/17 at 2:54 am
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News