- 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 5/5/15 at 12:37 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 5/5/15 at 12:37 pm to Darth_Vader
Nothing this couldn't take of...
This post was edited on 5/5/15 at 12:40 pm
1
Posted on 5/5/15 at 12:38 pm to Hangover Haven
Posted on 5/5/15 at 12:38 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Who's calling "doom & gloom"? Al I'm saying is that the Russians are a growing threat and we need to take this threat seriously.
saying we need our head out our arse, they are no threat to invading american soil.
quote:
And as for NATO, I was part of NATO back when it was at the peak of it's power in the late 80's. But since then NATO has been scaled back drastically and is nowhere near as strong as it was back then.
new flash you are stuck in your old 80's ways.
NATO has changed big time since you were over here. Just ask anyone who has worked with them or gone down range with them. Half those frickers don't even have ROE's.
This post was edited on 5/5/15 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 5/5/15 at 12:38 pm to Darth_Vader
Come at us
Posted on 5/5/15 at 12:39 pm to Clames
quote:
The difference is the fire control software and hardware. Something that has seen continuous upgrades and improvements over the decades. Russia may jump a few years closer to the present but it's a far cry from a battle-tested system that has seen considerable improvement.
Russian tank fire control systems always lagged behind ours. Fire control systems was one of the biggest advantages we had on the Abrams over the Soviet tanks we would have faced had it ever come to war. But that was over a quarter century ago. Even the T-90, which came out right at the end of the Soviet days has a similar fire control capability as the Abrams. I would imagine the fire control system on this new tank would be as good or better than the one on the T-90.
Posted on 5/5/15 at 12:39 pm to TigersSEC2010
quote:
I thought Russia is broke as frick? How do they plan on pulling this off?
Does it really look that impressive? Looks like stuff the US has had since the 30's.
Posted on 5/5/15 at 12:39 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
headed to the bone yard
not yet
they will be around another 10 to 15 years esp bc the frick ups of the 35.
Posted on 5/5/15 at 12:40 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Al I'm saying is that the Russians are a growing threat and we need to take this threat seriously.
Cold War is over. The world is different now. Countries don't launch general invasions of other countries.
Posted on 5/5/15 at 12:41 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
headed to the bone yard
you shut your whore mouth!lol Precision Engagement program upgrades to the A-10 TO A-10C will keep it around.
This post was edited on 5/5/15 at 12:46 pm
Posted on 5/5/15 at 12:43 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
saying we need our head out our arse, they are no threat to invading american soil.
Where did I claim Russia was a threat to invade the US?
quote:
new flash you are stuck in your old 80's ways.
NATO has changed big time since you were over here. Just ask anyone who has worked with them or gone down range with them. Half those frickers don't even ROE's.
Yes they've modernized. But they've also cut the living shite out of a lot of their forces. After the fall of the Soviet Union The Germans & British both (who together form the lion's share of NATO outside of the U.S.) retired a lot of the standing formations they had during the Cold War.
Posted on 5/5/15 at 12:44 pm to Darth_Vader
Darth, have you seen the new Russian tank that's used for submarine warfare?
Posted on 5/5/15 at 12:47 pm to CoachDon
quote:
you shut your whore mouth!
I don't keep up with that shite like I used to but they were scheduled to be parked this year, things are always changing though, I worked with the CO of one of the 'hog units at Barksdale several years ago and they were transitioning to Davis-Montham at the time, which is ironically where the big bone yard is
Posted on 5/5/15 at 12:47 pm to GrammarKnotsi
Not even close to the quietest submarine. Take it from a former submariner
Also, those russian tanks would be toast given our technology. One JSOW AGM-154 would wreck 24 of those shiny new targets...
Also, those russian tanks would be toast given our technology. One JSOW AGM-154 would wreck 24 of those shiny new targets...
Posted on 5/5/15 at 12:47 pm to LSUtigers111
Hate to say, but Carriers would not be that useful in a war against Russia today. Look at the map and you'll see that if war was to come it would be primarily in Eastern Europe. For carrier air power to be effective they would have to operate in either the Baltic Sea or eastern Med where they would be highly vulnerable. If it ever did come to war, land based aircraft operating out of Italy, Germany and the UK would bear the bulk of the load.
The most likely use of carriers in such a war would be to secure the Atlantic crossing of U.S. reinforcements & supplies.
The most likely use of carriers in such a war would be to secure the Atlantic crossing of U.S. reinforcements & supplies.
Posted on 5/5/15 at 12:48 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Where did I claim Russia was a threat to invade the US
Even their threat to Europe isn't huge they won't over take the whole of Europe. If the war ever happened Russia would get attacked on all fronts from every direction.
quote:
Yes they've modernized. But they've also cut the living shite out of a lot of their forces. After the fall of the Soviet Union The Germans & British both (who together form the lion's share of NATO outside of the U.S.) retired a lot of the standing formations they had during the Cold War.
More numbers doesn't mean better or more effective. You are stuck in your old ways man.
Posted on 5/5/15 at 12:48 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
saying we need our head out our arse, they are no threat to invading american soil.
Oh lord I certainly don't think he was implying that. I don't think anyone on this board is that stupid.
Well....maybe most on this board.
I never said they could win but I'd be willing to bet they will try and will try within the next decade. They are pushing Ukraine with limited hand slaps by US and NATO.
Posted on 5/5/15 at 12:49 pm to MightyYat
quote:
Exactly. They're doing all this shite using a very outdated mindset. Future wars will be won with unmanned planes taking off from carriers, dropping computer controlled bombs/missles from 40,000ft. That ground defense will be scrap metal in about 15 minutes. If Russia is ever stupid enough to take a run at Europe they would get the full might of the U.S.
Yes, but those drones don't fly if the Russian hackers crash their software. Russia has some of the world's premier hackers under their command. Also, drones and anti-tank aircraft can't deploy if their airfields are all overrun.
Russia's strategy is really NOT that crazy.
1. They bulk up on conventional aircraft and blitzkreig equipment.
2. They train an elite group of hackers to enable them to take down NATO defenses remotely.
3. They one by one encircle or coopt non-NATO members that neighbor them.
4. They take over all non-NATO members near them (or install puppet rulers)
5. Invade a NATO member country, on some BS grounds, that they believe is too weak to defend themselves and too insignificant for NATO to decide is worth defending.
6. Rinse and repeat until they are within blitzkreig range of most of continental NATO
7. Blitzkrieg the west.
There are really only 4 countries standing in their way: Poland, Germany, the UK, and the US. The Poles and Germans would fight, but if they are not ready, they could be overrun before they can put up a defense. The U.S., with a weak regime at home, may decline to commit fully enough to victory, and instead broker a peace that puts Russia in control over much of its former territory. Britain is the wild card that could cause everything to come undone for the Russians since there is a small ocean between them and Russia.
This post was edited on 5/5/15 at 12:50 pm
Posted on 5/5/15 at 12:49 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Hate to say, but Carriers would not be that useful in a war against Russia today. Look at the map and you'll see that if war was to come it would be primarily in Eastern Europe. For carrier air power to be effective they would have to operate in either the Baltic Sea or eastern Med where they would be highly vulnerable. If it ever did come to war, land based aircraft operating out of Italy, Germany and the UK would bear the bulk of the load.
The most likely use of carriers in such a war would be to secure the Atlantic crossing of U.S. reinforcements & supplies.
Thats just flat out not true. Russia would be forced to defend its eastern front. If not PACAF and the Pacific Fleet would have a field day
Posted on 5/5/15 at 12:50 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
Cold War is over
For now.
quote:
The world is different now.
Indeed it is.
quote:
Countries don't launch general invasions of other countries.
Have you not been paying attention to Russia in the past 5-10 years?
Posted on 5/5/15 at 12:51 pm to Shamalamadingdong
quote:
They are pushing Ukraine with limited hand slaps by US and NATO.
all we have given them is non lethal aid
Ukraine isn't NATO and its military is for the most part not modernized.
Page 5 of 25
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News