- 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 1/22/17 at 9:59 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 1/22/17 at 9:59 pm to Darth_Vader
I know you're emboldened by your self-claimed sense of intellectual superiority but do you really have to be a jackass about it?
All combat aircraft that aren't "stealth" are in-fact becoming obsolete, especially when used during the opening parts of a theoretical war. That's why it's so important that NATO has the F-35.
And yes, tanks are going to get countermeasures to guard against ATGMs, but the problem is not that ATGMs can kill them. The problem is that ATGMs and other RPGs are so prevalent and cost-effective compared to maintaining a tank force that the comparison becomes a blowout.
Would you rather 40 T-72s with countermeasures or 40 kornets? Which benefits you more in the long run?
All combat aircraft that aren't "stealth" are in-fact becoming obsolete, especially when used during the opening parts of a theoretical war. That's why it's so important that NATO has the F-35.
And yes, tanks are going to get countermeasures to guard against ATGMs, but the problem is not that ATGMs can kill them. The problem is that ATGMs and other RPGs are so prevalent and cost-effective compared to maintaining a tank force that the comparison becomes a blowout.
Would you rather 40 T-72s with countermeasures or 40 kornets? Which benefits you more in the long run?
This post was edited on 1/22/17 at 10:00 pm
Posted on 1/22/17 at 10:03 pm to rmnldr
quote:I have zero doubt that Russia can knock those out of the sky. The fricking serbs were shooting down F-117's 20 years ago.
That's why it's so important that NATO has the F-35.
We need to get away from aircraft as quickly as possible. Precision guided long range surface to surface missiles and artillery are the future.
quote:40 T-72s. You gotta figure you'll be lucky to take out 15-20 enemy armored vehicles per 40 ATGMs you shoot.
Would you rather 40 T-72s with countermeasures or 40 kornets? Which benefits you more in the long run?
Posted on 1/22/17 at 10:07 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
I have zero doubt that Russia can knock those out of the sky. The fricking serbs were shooting down F-117's 20 years ago.
Yeah an F-117 flying a predicted path with its bomb doors open. Talk about stealthy. Stealth is better than no stealth.
quote:
We need to get away from aircraft as quickly as possible. Precision guided long range surface to surface missiles and artillery are the future.
I have no argument here. The only inhibitor I see is reaction/delivery time.
quote:
40 T-72s. You gotta figure you'll be lucky to take out 15-20 enemy armored vehicles per 40 ATGMs you shoot.
I mean the systems and their stocks of missiles. Just as the T-72 is stocked with rounds.
Posted on 1/22/17 at 10:11 pm to rmnldr
quote:Even the F-35 has to open them at some point.
Yeah an F-117 flying a predicted path with its bomb doors open. Talk about stealthy. Stealth is better than no stealth.
quote:It's faster man. Or will be once we work on the doctrine that puts surface fires before CAS. CAS costs a lot of money and is a logistical nightmare. Deconfliction takes time too.
I have no argument here. The only inhibitor I see is reaction/delivery time.
quote:I would put it in the tough call category. Tanks are still pretty useful, but yes, very vulnerable to the newer and cheaper ATGMs.
I mean the systems and their stocks of missiles. Just as the T-72 is stocked with rounds.
Posted on 1/22/17 at 10:13 pm to rmnldr
quote:
I have no argument here. The only inhibitor I see is reaction/delivery time.
Cost is a huge factor as well
Posted on 1/22/17 at 10:15 pm to upgrayedd
My phone is about to run out of battery so I'm gonna upvote y'all and get outta here.
Always a good discussion, Darth. Keep fighting the good fight and God bless.
Always a good discussion, Darth. Keep fighting the good fight and God bless.
Posted on 1/22/17 at 10:17 pm to rmnldr
quote:
All combat aircraft that aren't "stealth" are in-fact becoming obsolete, especially when used during the opening parts of a theoretical war. That's why it's so important that NATO has the F-35.
It will be years before all aircraft are "stealth". In fact it may never happen because the mission some aircraft have to carry out does not lend their types to stealth. And do you not realize cocountermeasures can and will be developed to make today's stealth technology obsolete.
quote:
And yes, tanks are going to get countermeasures to guard against ATGMs, but the problem is not that ATGMs can kill them. The problem is that ATGMs and other RPGs are so prevalent and cost-effective compared to maintaining a tank force that the comparison becomes a blowout.
Would you rather 40 T-72s with countermeasures or 40 kornets? Which benefits you more in the long run?
You're still missing the point. Infantry with shoulder fired anti-tank weapons capable of killing tanks have been around since World War I. In WWII all major warring powers had infantry weapons to kill tanks. The Germans were especially good in this regard with their devastating Panzerschrek and Panzerfaust weapons. German infantry had at their disposal weapons capable of killing any armored vehicle they faced. So the concept of infantry being able to kill tanks is nothing new. And yet despite this, tanks were and still are part of the battle field today? Why do you think this is so?
The answer is simple. Namely there are things infantry can do on the battlefield and then there are things armor can do. And likewise there are things artillery can do. It take all three, working together to win on a modern battlefield when facing a likewise modern military foe.
If you were to try and fight a war with just infantry, artillery, and airpower, what you'd end up with is trench warfare where neither side is able to breach the defenses of the other.
This post was edited on 1/22/17 at 10:20 pm
Posted on 1/22/17 at 10:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Hook, line and sinker, comrade.
i honestly don't think Russia is a threat to the West
Posted on 1/22/17 at 11:04 pm to rmnldr
No offense dude, but debating Darth about tanks is kinda like debating Greg Maddox about curveballs.
Unless you've also driven a tank in combat.
Unless you've also driven a tank in combat.
Posted on 1/22/17 at 11:40 pm to elprez00
Yeah
He picked the wrong person to debate about tanks too.
He picked the wrong person to debate about tanks too.
Posted on 1/23/17 at 6:46 am to Darth_Vader
Been my stance for years. 1999 was a badddd year for NATO, and us.
Posted on 1/23/17 at 8:33 am to 4Ghost
non-stealth aircraft are not entirely obsolete. Electronic Countermeasures have become incedibly advanced in denying the enemy the opportunity to use their AA sensors.
Laser antimissile systems could also fly in direct support of non-stealth aircraft.
Advanced weapons systems and electronics will win the next European war over superior numbers.
Laser antimissile systems could also fly in direct support of non-stealth aircraft.
Advanced weapons systems and electronics will win the next European war over superior numbers.
Posted on 1/23/17 at 8:50 am to Forkbeard3777
quote:
I think you're strictly pulling shite from thin air...
Isn't that what this whole thread is?
Posted on 1/23/17 at 9:07 am to Darth_Vader
Good to see you back, Darth, with military posts!
Posted on 1/23/17 at 9:22 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
non-stealth aircraft are not entirely obsolete. Electronic Countermeasures have become incedibly advanced in denying the enemy the opportunity to use their AA sensors.
This. The Prowler and Growler are more than capable at protecting strike aircraft.
Posted on 1/23/17 at 9:35 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Advanced weapons systems and electronics will win the next European war over superior numbers
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?
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.
Posted on 1/23/17 at 9:50 am to Darth_Vader
Admittedly, not military.
But...is this sort if information possibly why Trump asked "why" tactical nukes couldn't be used?
But...is this sort if information possibly why Trump asked "why" tactical nukes couldn't be used?
Posted on 1/23/17 at 9:54 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Darth_Vader
Seriously, get your heart working all good again and don't die.
Mom Jeans aside, your "army stuff" knowledge is invaluable to the ignorant fricks like me on the OT.
.
Posted on 1/23/17 at 10:26 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?
^This.
Take our fighters for example. In a war with Russia, air superiority is a must. Now, we have the best in the Raptor. The F-35 is a duck. However, let's just say it worked. Against overwhelming numbers, sure they'd knock down more than a few. But, what happens when they run out missiles? Internally, they can only carry 4 each. So, just for arguments sake, what happens when there are just a few more planes than weapons carried? Now, granted the Raptor and F-35 can hang weapons on their wings, but when that happens the pylons and all become great big shining beacons, nullifying any stealth advantage. And, let's not forget the advances in radar that are nullifying any stealth advantage in the first place. Pretty soon, it will be back to the old ways, just shinier toys.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News