- 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: If Russia Started a War in the Baltics, NATO Would Lose — Quickly
Posted on 2/3/16 at 12:47 pm to Nature Boy
Posted on 2/3/16 at 12:47 pm to Nature Boy
quote:
Man I wish I had a meme of some nerds with neck beards sitting at a table playing war games.
1
Posted on 2/3/16 at 12:48 pm to Breesus
quote:
Said every country about Germany in the 1930s and Russia in the 1940s
Because the condition of Europe today is totally the same as it was in the 1930s and 1940s.
Posted on 2/3/16 at 12:48 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
There is like a .00001% chance of Russia ever invading Europe so why should the Europeans spend gazillions of dollars on European defense?
Exactly. Russia's never done it before, so why would they now?
Posted on 2/3/16 at 12:49 pm to Darth_Vader
That's what we get for electing liberal pussies and RINOs. First thing they do is downsize the military.
Posted on 2/3/16 at 12:49 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
There's not a drone in the world that would stand a chance against the air defensive system the Russians would throw up over an advancing ground invasion.
A drone? Nope. A few hundred at the same time? Yup
And all of these on the ground taking them out as well:
This post was edited on 2/3/16 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 2/3/16 at 12:52 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
There is like a .00001% chance of Russia ever invading Europe so why should the Europeans spend gazillions of dollars on European defense?
If we hadnt provided for Europe's defense for the last 70 years Europe would belong to Russia no doubt. And the chance is much higher than 0.00001% FWIW. Not that I give a frick. I think we should leave NATO and see what all these socialist utopias in Europe think about all of their social programs when they actually have to build a military.
Posted on 2/3/16 at 12:53 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
American airpower — proved unable to halt the advance of mechanized Russian units and suffered heavy casualties, the report said.
I don't care what any report says...we would kick some Russian arse with our air power
Posted on 2/3/16 at 12:54 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
Because the condition of Europe today is totally the same as it was in the 1930s and 1940s.
Dude , Europe is almost as broke as Russia. The difference being that Russia spends what little they have on bombs while Europe spends it on entitlements.
Posted on 2/3/16 at 12:54 pm to Breesus
quote:
A drone? Nope. A few hundred at the same time? Yup
Are you serious? Please tell me you're not serious. Please tell me what capabilities any drone has that would allow it to evade a modern anti-air umbrella. Yeah, drones are great over places where their biggest threat is some goat herder with a 40 yr old AK-47. But they're easy pickings in any well defended airspace. They're not very fast or maneuverable and they have a huge radar signature. The Russians would laugh at any attempt to stop an invasion by using waves of drones.
quote:
And all of these on the ground taking them out as well:
Modern MBT's and AVF's are designed with fire control systems that would turn that thing into a pile of molten scrap in seconds. And they wouldn't even have to slow down to do it.
This post was edited on 2/3/16 at 12:57 pm
Posted on 2/3/16 at 12:57 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Are you serious? Please tell me you're not serious. Please tell me what capabilities any drone has that would allow it to evade a modern anti-air umbrella.
Expendability.
The capability to be destroyed with 0 casualties. They'll run out of missiles. We won't.
Send in a wave of unarmed, unmanned, cheap, light drones. They get blown up, right behind them are the armed bombing drones.
While the air attack waves continue, we send in the ground drones to do damage as well.
You talk a a big game Darth, but it's obvious you don't know shite about war tactics.
This post was edited on 2/3/16 at 12:58 pm
Posted on 2/3/16 at 1:00 pm to Breesus
quote:
The capability to be destroyed with 0 casualties. They'll run out of missiles. We won't.
Send in a wave of unarmed, unmanned, cheap, light drones. They get blown up, right behind them are the armed bombing drones.
While the air attack waves continue, we send in the ground drones to do damage as well.
Why do you think we would do anything like this? One, we don't have the capability and 2, it goes directly against our military doctrine.
Posted on 2/3/16 at 1:00 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Modern MBT's and AVF's are designed with fire control systems that would turn that thing into a pile of molten scrap in seconds. And they wouldn't even have to slow down to do it.
0% chance they could stop every missile from every ground drone. We just need a few to get through from the ground and the air. Goodbye defenses.
Send in the big boy bombers.
They started to concentrate their power, we out bombs into the undefended Russian cities back home.
Game over.
Posted on 2/3/16 at 1:01 pm to Breesus
Posted on 2/3/16 at 1:02 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
One, we don't have the capability
LOL. You don't think we have the capability to launch drone strikes? Do you have any idea how many drones we have?
quote:
it goes directly against our military doctrine.
What do you think our military doctrine is? It is an always has been to win by any means necessary.
Posted on 2/3/16 at 1:05 pm to Breesus
quote:
What do you think our military doctrine is? It is an always has been to win by any means necessary.
Unless it involves crossing imaginary lines. Too many rules in war these days.
Had there been none, this last one would have been over in 8 months max, instead of a decade.
Unfortunately.
Posted on 2/3/16 at 1:05 pm to Breesus
quote:
Expendability.
The capability to be destroyed with 0 casualties. They'll run out of missiles. We won't.
Send in a wave of unarmed, unmanned, cheap, light drones. They get blown up, right behind them are the armed bombing drones.
While the air attack waves continue, we send in the ground drones to do damage as well.
You talk a a big game Darth, but it's obvious you don't know shite about war tactics.
They wouldn't even waste missiles on something as easy to shoot down as a drone. Their missiles would be saved for real targets like fighters and bombers. As for drones, they've got plenty of everything from ZSU-23-4's to shoulder fired missiles that are more than capable of bringing down drones.
Posted on 2/3/16 at 1:06 pm to SEClint
quote:
Had there been none, this last one would have been over in 8 months max, instead of a decade.
Had it been a real war, I agree.
It's an extended military conflict.
I'm talking about real war. Two massive capable countries going at it.
That hasn't happened in a very long time.
When the next big war breaks out all of those rules go byebye
This post was edited on 2/3/16 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 2/3/16 at 1:07 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Darth_Vader
I don't ever question your awesome war knowledge. But I do question this idea that Russia COULD take over a country.
The deterrent in my opinion is sure they could take over any country in 60 hours. But then what? Woo hoo we got Estonia. Then over the next 3 months The ENTIRE world comes down on Russia and it's game over.
Basically the risk-reward for them would stop that stupid shite. Wouldn't it?
Posted on 2/3/16 at 1:07 pm to Breesus
quote:
LOL. You don't think we have the capability to launch drone strikes? Do you have any idea how many drones we have?
Not enough to do what you're suggesting. And they armed with at most 2 bombs or missiles.
quote:Well that's not really a doctrine. It's just an idea. Les Miles' idea is to win but he his doctrine is to run in between the tackles.
What do you think our military doctrine is? It is an always has been to win by any means necessary.
Our doctrine is something called the Air-Land Battle where we first gain air superiority, then conduct deep strikes of communications and command centers, then move on to air defenses then start taking out tanks with a combination of air power and ground forces.
That's the way our military trains and that's the way the military would fight if there was ever war in Europe. And doctrine changes slowly, so even if we had the capability to do what you suggest, which we don't, our doctrine would be 15-20 years behind.
This post was edited on 2/3/16 at 1:12 pm
Page 2 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News