- 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: Russia Unveils New Main Battle Tank, Among Other Things
Posted on 5/6/15 at 2:38 pm to WeeWee
Posted on 5/6/15 at 2:38 pm to WeeWee
quote:
Stalingrad stopped the German thrust into the USSR, but it wasn't until Kursk that the Russians were able to expel the Germans from the USSR and begin their drive west. Notice that in my original post I said when the soviets started steam rolling through eastern europe. They still had to defend against the Kursk offensive after Stalingrad it wasn't until later in 1943 and into 1944 that they regained their territory and "broke out" into eastern europe.
I get all that, but the bottom line is that the Soviets had halted the Germans before we were really in the game.
While I am sure it didn't hurt that we and the British were bombing Germany, when you look at the actual number of forces facing each other on the Eastern Front as opposed to North Africa and later in Normandy, it is pretty clear that the Soviet Union really gets most of the credit for defeating Germany, and of course they paid the greatest price, with over 20 million of their citizens dead as a result.
Now, it was certainly a team effort, and I am not diminishing the contribution of the Americans and the British, but the Red Army was always facing the greatest number of German troops from 1941-1945.
Had Hitler simply kept his pact with Stalin not invaded the USSR, we along with the British would have had a hell of a lot harder time defeating Germany.
1
Posted on 5/6/15 at 2:42 pm to asurob1
Laser weapon systems will change the battlefield. Imagine tanks, aircraft, and ships having the ability to destroy aircraft/drones/missiles/satellites in mid-flight easily.
The US is at the forefront of this technology.
Lasers will be a game changer.
what would be the countermeasure? Stealth missiles?
Currently, it only takes one infantryman with a Javelin to take out a tank. Lasers would negate that threat. It would also negate any air threats.
The US is at the forefront of this technology.
Lasers will be a game changer.
what would be the countermeasure? Stealth missiles?
Currently, it only takes one infantryman with a Javelin to take out a tank. Lasers would negate that threat. It would also negate any air threats.
Posted on 5/6/15 at 2:44 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Laser weapon systems will change the battlefield. Imagine tanks, aircraft, and ships having the ability to destroy aircraft/drones/missiles/satellites in mid-flight easily.
The US is at the forefront of this technology.
Lasers will be a game changer.
what would be the countermeasure? Stealth missiles?
Currently, it only takes one infantryman with a Javelin to take out a tank. Lasers would negate that threat. It would also negate any air threats.
Yeah, I think the battlefield of the late 21st century is going to look like that flashback scene John Connors had in the first Terminator movie.
Posted on 5/6/15 at 2:46 pm to Vito Andolini
quote:
Yeah, I think the battlefield of the late 21st century is going to look like that flashback scene John Connors had in the first Terminator movie.
As long as I get a Phase Plasma Rifle in a 40 Watt range, I'm ok with that.
Posted on 5/6/15 at 2:47 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Go back a few pages and you'll see where I laid out how much stronger Russia is than Poland today. As for Germany, they've only got two armored divisions left. And between the both of them, they've only got a total of three actual armored brigade under command. That's right, the whole German Army of today only has a whopping total of THREE armored brigades. And of that three, one is a ceremonial unit so you might as well say they've got TWO operational armored brigades. As for infantry, Germany only has 2 mechanized infantry brigades, one mountain infantry brigade, and two airborne brigades. The whole German army today is barely over 60,000 troops total and the vast majority of those are not even combat troops. If anything, as bad off as Poland would be facing Russia, Germany is even less prepared for war than the Poles.
Who is going to pay for the Russian build up? The biggest flaw in your arguments is that you refuse to acknowledge that Russia can't afford to rearm to be back to where it was during the 80s. They ran a much stronger economy into the ground trying to keep up with us in the 80s and they will run this one into the ground if they try it again.
quote:LINK
Russia’s national budget has been battered by falling oil prices, international sanctions, and rampant inflation.
Up to one third of Russia’s 23 trillion ruble 2010 to 2020 modernisation programme may have to be postponed or cancelled as a result, according to estimates by the Centre for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST).
quote:LINK
Russia's military budget may shrink by around 10 percent in 2015, the chief executive of state-owned defense conglomerate Rostec said on Monday.
Posted on 5/6/15 at 2:55 pm to Vito Andolini
quote:
I get all that, but the bottom line is that the Soviets had halted the Germans before we were really in the game.
True, but I never claimed otherwise. From August 1942 into late 1943 the Eastern Front was a stalemate.
quote:
While I am sure it didn't hurt that we and the British were bombing Germany, when you look at the actual number of forces facing each other on the Eastern Front as opposed to North Africa and later in Normandy, it is pretty clear that the Soviet Union really gets most of the credit for defeating Germany, and of course they paid the greatest price, with over 20 million of their citizens dead as a result.
If we had not stopped German War Production the Germans and Russians would have killed each other off. If German war production had gone unchecked they would have plenty of Tiger and Panther tanks as well as the jet planes.
quote:
Now, it was certainly a team effort, and I am not diminishing the contribution of the Americans and the British, but the Red Army was always facing the greatest number of German troops from 1941-1945.
True the Reds faced the full brunt of the Germans, but they could not have withstood if we (US and GB) hadn't started weakening them by bombing them and distracting them in Italy and North Africa.
quote:
Had Hitler simply kept his pact with Stalin not invaded the USSR, we along with the British would have had a hell of a lot harder time defeating Germany.
British couldn't had defeated them on their own and I doubt the US and GB could have defeated them without Russia. There would have been no way to invade a Fortress Europe if most of the German forces weren't tied down in the east.
Posted on 5/6/15 at 3:00 pm to Vito Andolini
Vito,
Germany was already fighting wars on two fronts (Western Europe and Africa) when it launched Barbarossa. Imagine if Russia was standing alone, you don't think those extra German divisions could have pushed them all the way to Moscow? I mean they only came up what? 380 miles short as it was...
Hitler was a buffoon for opening the Russian front before defeating Britain. He also launched the campaign too late in the year and got stopped by the winter more than by the Russian soldier.
20M casualties for Russia implies the great courage of their soldiers and inadequate equipment.
Germany was already fighting wars on two fronts (Western Europe and Africa) when it launched Barbarossa. Imagine if Russia was standing alone, you don't think those extra German divisions could have pushed them all the way to Moscow? I mean they only came up what? 380 miles short as it was...
Hitler was a buffoon for opening the Russian front before defeating Britain. He also launched the campaign too late in the year and got stopped by the winter more than by the Russian soldier.
20M casualties for Russia implies the great courage of their soldiers and inadequate equipment.
Posted on 5/6/15 at 3:05 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
2. A shite ton of modern & effective mobile SAM systems.
A real concern to our air force for sure.
But you are discounting the fact that I don't need tanks to stop tanks. Just 3 guys and whatever anti-tank weapon happens to be laying around. Column stops. Infantry piles out to try to suppress the threat. Wash, rinse, repeat a half a klick down the road.
Moving logistics around in a modern battlefield once you are no longer on friendly territory.
Nightmare.
A fluid battlefield in a general war in Europe will be next to impossible. WW3 will look a lot like WW1...though shorter.
The key is, when either side gets frustrated, who deploys the tactical nukes first, either the blow holes in the enemy defenses...or stop the flow.
That is the thing to be worried about regarding that nutbag in Moscow.
Posted on 5/6/15 at 3:06 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Bagration
This actually signaled the end of the war. Everything else was mop-up duty of a retreating army.
Hell, it can be argued that Normandy was simply a race to get into Germany before the Soviets took the whole damn country for themselves.
Posted on 5/6/15 at 9:24 pm to WeeWee
quote:
British couldn't had defeated them on their own and I doubt the US and GB could have defeated them without Russia. There would have been no way to invade a Fortress Europe if most of the German forces weren't tied down in the east.
Don't gloss over the fact that it was the US that kept the Soviets in the fight with metric shite-tons of material aid.
Trucks, tanks, locomotives, clothing, bullets, artillery shells, etc. They don't like to acknowledge this, but it's a fact.
Without our help, I think Germany may well have taken the Soviets. Their production was not all that great, and their logistics were primitive to say the least.
LC
Posted on 5/6/15 at 10:05 pm to Darth_Vader
I'm so glad that the Obama military decided to get rid of tanks and focus on lightly armored vehicles instead.
I think his ultimate goal for the cavalry is this:
I think his ultimate goal for the cavalry is this:
Posted on 5/6/15 at 10:29 pm to Darth_Vader
Look at that crap.
The 90s called . They want their tech back.
The 90s called . They want their tech back.
Posted on 5/6/15 at 10:29 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
They also ruled over the Balkans from 45 to 91
Really?
Posted on 5/6/15 at 10:54 pm to Darth_Vader
can navy planes refuel in air? I'm sure they can, I just don't know. Seems like the range of a carrier is pretty far these days.
Posted on 5/6/15 at 11:03 pm to Napoleon
quote:
can navy planes refuel in air? I'm sure they can, I just don't know. Seems like the range of a carrier is pretty far these days.
,_receives_fuel_from_the_refueling_boom_of_a_U.S._Air_Force_KC-135_Stratotanke.jpg)
yup
Posted on 5/6/15 at 11:05 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
America produced 300,000 aircraft in WWII. Do you think we'd be capable of producing 3,000 if we needed them within the first year?
Airplanes at the complexity level of WWII aircraft like the P-51 or B-17? Yes, definitely.
3000 JSF, Rafale, Gripens, etc in one year? No way. Nobody could do it because there isn't a demand for combat aircraft produced at anywhere near that rate.
Posted on 5/7/15 at 6:27 am to Napoleon
quote:
can navy planes refuel in air? I'm sure they can, I just don't know. Seems like the range of a carrier is pretty far these days.
You're trying to be cute but you're just showing your ignorance on the subject. Of course naval air can refuel. But there's still no way our commanders would be stupid enough to tie down our carrier groups to supporting a front line in Easten Europe. First, there's plenty of land bases to be used. So why risk the carriers? Second, the carrier groups would be needed to keep the Atlantic open. This second fact would be the trump card. Without control of the Atlantic, it's game over.
So which is smarter? Risking the carriers on a mission that land based aircraft can do while leaving the Atlantic exposed? Or putting the carrier groups in the Atlantic where they're out of the range of Soviet land air assists and they can fulfill the vital mission of making sure we can supply our forces in Europe?
Maybe next time think about the bigger picture before trying to play gotcha.
This post was edited on 5/7/15 at 6:31 am
Posted on 5/7/15 at 6:36 am to Napoleon
Yes really. Tito caused the Soviets a lot of consternation. But he was still a communist.
And as for the Russians controlling the Balkins, I'd say the fact they had puppets in control of Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary, and Albania says the Russians had control of the Balkans.
And as for the Russians controlling the Balkins, I'd say the fact they had puppets in control of Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary, and Albania says the Russians had control of the Balkans.
Posted on 5/7/15 at 7:26 am to Darth_Vader
New tank broke down in parade unveiling. Has to be towed.
LINK
LINK
This post was edited on 5/7/15 at 7:31 am
Posted on 5/7/15 at 7:30 am to asurob1
quote:
nope
I notice you waited until I left to try and bad mouth me...Seriously..20 minutes
quote:
:-) at least you backtracked and included the vice-versa
I didn't backtrack shite..I have said from page one that the Russian/Chinese sub force would be slamming it out with ours..They would destroy the surface fleet first, and then it would just be a game of hide and seek underwater..
Meanwhile, whatever was left after the Nuc show off, would be fighting on land
This post was edited on 5/7/15 at 7:34 am
Page 19 of 25
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News