- 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 1:28 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 5/5/15 at 1:28 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Not their modern aircraft.
what modern aircraft they don't have much?
quote:
As compared to the small fraction of the Polish military with combat experience that you mentioned above.
The Polish deployed to Iraq ad Afghanistan
quote:
I spent my last year of active duty in the early 90s at the US Army Armor school as an instructor. This was the school that all NATO members sent their tank crews to for advanced training. Before that I served in Germany and also trained along side German, British, and Dutch tankers. I saw first hand what NATO had during the height of the Cold War and I was there for the downsizing that followed the end of the Cold War. I saw first hand with my own eyes the difference between Cold War NATO and post-Cold War NATO. After the end of the Cold War, NATO shrunk in quantity and quality.
exactly early 90's
its fricking 2015
1
Posted on 5/5/15 at 1:29 pm to TheGasMan
quote:
The USS Midway? Come on dude that thing was decommed in the 90s. At least show something up to date!
My appologies, quick google imaging at work
Posted on 5/5/15 at 1:32 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
exactly early 90's
its fricking 2015
Has NATO gone through as massive build up since then?
No.
quote:
what modern aircraft they don't have much?
or
This post was edited on 5/5/15 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 5/5/15 at 1:32 pm to Kino74
People keep comparing fighters but the real aerial edge goes to the nation with better Missiles, AWACS and stealth capability. And in those areas the USA is lapping the competition.
Posted on 5/5/15 at 1:33 pm to Darth_Vader
One last time. NATO did indeed shrink. Russia's forces collapsed.
NATO would donkey stomp the commies
:coco2:
NATO would donkey stomp the commies
quote:
Consider the situation today. East Germany no longer exists, while Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and every one of Russia’s other erstwhile Warsaw Pact partners are now members of NATO. So are Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which in 1989 were parts of the Soviet Union itself. In 1989, the Red Army had almost a half-million troops and 27 maneuver divisions (plus enormous quantities of artillery and other units) on the territory of its three main allies. Today, it has a total of seven divisions in its entire Western Military District, all of which are based on its own territory. Indeed, the entire Russian army today boasts about 25 divisions, fewer than it had forward deployed in its Eastern European allies during the waning days of the Cold War.
Today, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Germany alone field more divisions than Russia has in its Western Military District. These countries are backstopped by the rest of NATO, including, of course, the United States. And this raw count doesn’t take into account the general deterioration of Russian forces since 1991, a quarter-century that saw little equipment modernization. By the late 1980s, NATO already enjoyed a significant qualitative advantage over the Warsaw Pact, and that edge has only increased since then.
:coco2:
Posted on 5/5/15 at 1:34 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Has NATO gone through as massive build up since then?
No.
You are so stuck in this 80's Army way of thinking just trying to smash shite with a hammer.
More numbers does not mean better or more effective in combat
especially compared to better equipment, training and actually combat experience.
You post those pictures but they don't have the sheer number of jets to do anything or the training
This post was edited on 5/5/15 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 5/5/15 at 1:35 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
in those areas the USA is lapping the competition.
I think you mean Lagging
quote:
Pentagon Worries That Russia Can Now Outshoot U.S. Stealth Jets
quote:
High flying and fast, the F-22 Raptor stealth jet is by far the most lethal fighter America has ever built. But the Raptor—and indeed all U.S. fighters—have a potential Achilles’ heel, according to a half-dozen current and former Air Force officials. The F-22’s long-range air-to-air missiles might not be able to hit an enemy aircraft, thanks to new enemy radar-jamming techniques.
Posted on 5/5/15 at 1:36 pm to Alatgr
Great board and comments btw guys
Posted on 5/5/15 at 1:38 pm to Tigeralum2008
It's a healthy debate. Once in awhile this place has one.
Posted on 5/5/15 at 1:38 pm to Alatgr
quote:
One last time. NATO did indeed shrink. Russia's forces collapsed.
The point though is that Russia has awoke from it's long slumber and is rapidly building up it's forces to Cold War levels. We can sit back and rest while thinking this is still the 90s. Meanwhile Russia is a ever growing threat, one that we'd be stupid to ignore.
They collapsed, we cut back. They're rebuilding and rearming. What are we doing?
This post was edited on 5/5/15 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 5/5/15 at 1:41 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
The point though is that Russia has awoke from it's long slumber and is rapidly building up it's forces to Cold War levels. We can sit back and rest while thinking this is still the 90s. Meanwhile Russia is a ever growing threat, one that we'd be stupid to ignore.
until the country collapses again
quote:
They're rebuilding and rearming. What are we doing?
Have you been living under a rock
2 or 3 modern division is no match for the US military let alone a combined NATO force
Posted on 5/5/15 at 1:43 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
no match for the US military let alone a combined NATO force
I remember when I thought "no one would ever match our military"..
This post was edited on 5/5/15 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 5/5/15 at 1:43 pm to Darth_Vader
Anyone know what BMP revision they're up to now? Is that the BMP-4?
Posted on 5/5/15 at 1:43 pm to Darth_Vader
Invade. Claim land as US territory. Surely that would require some resources to be sent east. I know that's very unlikely but it would be an affective diversionary tactic and help NATO forces on the western front. 
Posted on 5/5/15 at 1:44 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
StraightCashHomey21
quote:
NATO nations still have F-16's right????
More numbers does not mean better more effective in battle.
This is modern warfare
Lets not forget the Russian military has basically zero combat experience.
Training, equipment and combat experience all favor NATO
And the US has the most experienced army in modern history. We have been at war for 14 years. Our logistics are the best in the world. And logistics are what win the war. You can have the best plane or tank but when it runs out of fuel and ammo it is a worthless.
And nobody has mentioned China in this discussion. China has the largest army in the world, the largest manufacturing facilities. If the Russians invaded Europe and the US entered the war on the European side, do you really think that China would oppose their greatest trading partner over Russia? And if China were to enter the war against Russia, they would not stand a chance. China has a standing army of over 2 million and a population of over a billion. In terms of a conventional war the Russians probably don't have 2 billion bullets. It would be like ants coming over the boarder.
Posted on 5/5/15 at 1:45 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
You are so stuck in this 80's Army way of thinking just trying to smash shite with a hammer.
More numbers does not mean better or more effective in combat
They're building modern equipment. I showed that in the OP. They're launch a whole new generation of mechanized fighting vehicles from a MBT to mobile artillery.
quote:
especially compared to better equipment
We have, forthe most part, better equipment... for now.
quote:
training
Comparative to most NATO countries, Russia trains as much or more than most other than the U.S., Britian, and Germany.
quote:
actually combat experience
The number of NATO troops outside the US & Britain who have real combat experience is VERY low. and most of the NATO troops sent to either Iraq or Afghanistan didn't actually see any combat.
Posted on 5/5/15 at 1:46 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Darth_Vader
Who are you, and what have you done with the dumb dumb I normally downvote for existing...
Posted on 5/5/15 at 1:47 pm to alphaandomega
quote:
And nobody has mentioned China in this discussion. China has the largest army in the world, the largest manufacturing facilities. If the Russians invaded Europe and the US entered the war on the European side, do you really think that China would oppose their greatest trading partner over Russia? And if China were to enter the war against Russia, they would not stand a chance. China has a standing army of over 2 million and a population of over a billion. In terms of a conventional war the Russians probably don't have 2 billion bullets. It would be like ants coming over the boarder.
I think they could go to war anyway when Russia tells them to pay their gas bill
Posted on 5/5/15 at 1:48 pm to GrammarKnotsi
quote:
Who are you, and what have you done with the dumb dumb I normally downvote for existing...
This stuff is in the boy's wheel house. He is passionate about it.
Posted on 5/5/15 at 1:50 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
They're building modern equipment. I showed that in the OP. They're launch a whole new generation of mechanized fighting vehicles from a MBT to mobile artillery.
Still not on the scale to stop us.
quote:
We have, forthe most part, better equipment... for now.
What do you think we are doing just sitting around playing with our dicks.
quote:
Comparative to most NATO countries, Russia trains as much or more than most other than the U.S., Britian, and Germany.
Yea but no joint training and most of it with soviet era equipment
quote:
The number of NATO troops outside the US & Britain who have real combat experience is VERY low. and most of the NATO troops sent to either Iraq or Afghanistan didn't actually see any combat.
Its still more than the secret army they are sending in Ukraine fighting vs a very untrained force.
Page 8 of 25
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News