re: British Army admits Russia could destroy their only remaining fighting unit...

quote:

---

Tanks are outdated. Military aircraft rule the battlefield. Tanks seem like a massive death trap

---

Not even close. No matter how powerful air forces become, the need to take and hold ground will never change in warfare.

And to achieve this goal you've got to have armor, infantry, and artillery. Those three things in some shape or form have been a part of war since the dawn of civilization and will still be a part of war at the end of civilization.

quote:

---

Their shite is so Cold War that it's embarrassing. Tanks are becoming more outdated every year that passes. And even if they were to somehow sneak Europe like you dream about, they'd be in such shite with the rest of the world that everything would come crashing down around them.

---

If tanks are so outdated why did the United States send 87 of them to Poland along with Bradley's and troops just LAST WEEK?

quote:

---

Technology and tactics are constantly changing. And Russia has been constantly playing catch up since the 1970s.

---

Russia's electronic warfare capabilities dwarf ours FWIW.

quote:

---

Then what is their goal and how do they accomplish it without killing their own country?

---

Their goal is to flex their muscles and they would do it by laying claim to areas where ethnic Russians reside. They're small areas that would allow them to accomplish their goal without substantial sustained military involvement.

quote:

---

Everything must be fought through proxy wars and Russia has been getting outclassed in those for a while now.

---

They've been been fighting a proxy war via Iran, Ukraine, and Syria and they've been pretty successful.

Their involvement in Syria is very interesting IMO. Their close air support is worthless and their training to the SAA has been marginally benefitial at best. Meanwhile, NATO has been training and assisting the SDF which is coming up with 2000 more soldiers every day it seems and they're taking it to ISIS everywhere since their stand at Kobane.

ETA: forgot to mention.

Russia has been giving the SAA lots of surplus armor and support equipment and they still have problems fighting ISIS.

Both the SAA and Turkey's armed forces have been embarrassed on the battlefield.

The SDF has little to no armored vehicles and relies on superior tactics, training, and the best air support the world has to offer from the US.

quote:

---

In what way? I'd love to hear this.

---

The US Army completely divested from electronic warfare following the end of the cold war opting instead to rely on the Air Force and Navy to provide EW capabilities. The Air Force and Navy EW priorities are different than the Army's. The Russians never got out of the game. They have 30 years of training, development and doctrine to fall back on and we have none. Only in the past several years has the US Army attempted to get back in the EW game and even still they are mainly focused on defeating IEDs, not jamming or intercepting a 1st world military's comms. When US military observers went to Ukraine at the outset of the conflict they came away horrified at how far ahead Russia was at EW.

LINK

quote:

---

Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, the commander of the US army in Europe, has described Russian advances in electronic warfare in Syria and Ukraine – a field in which they were typically supposed to be backward – as “eye watering”.

---

I didn't think you were talking about ground EW. I'm sure the Russians are more advanced there. Their entire military is built around the idea of not having air superiority

quote:

---

Horse cavalry was a dominate factor on the battlefield until WWI. As for modern day armor, it will become obsolete when infantry and artillery become obsolete. Yes airpower is devestating, but it's has its limits. You cannot take and hold land with airpower. It can help you take it and it can help you hold it. But that's all it can do... help. Taking and holding ground takes combined arms, namely infantry, armor, and artillery. This fact will never change, period

---

I don't disagree that combined arms make a military force better, but tanks as we know it are on their way out. Armored cavalry became useless when muskets could pierce their armor. Tanks will also become useless when every ATGM can kill them.

Mobile forces will exist but it won't exist as we currently know it.

Boots on the ground will always be superior, I don't think anyone denies that

quote:

---

I was a Russian crypto linguist in the USAF so I have a little bit of knowledge on the subject.

But thanks for playing! Try again!

---

So? Good for you. I was a tank crewman directly across the Czechoslovakian border from the Soviet 5th Guards Tank Army. I use to watch them through binocs on a regular basis. I know a little bit about the subject as well.

And unlike you, it seems I've still kept an eye on them over the past several years. This isn't the 90s any more. They've rearmed, rebuilt, and retrained. And all the while us and the rest have NATO have stood by with our thumb up our arse.

quote:

---

I don't disagree that combined arms make a military force better, but tanks as we know it are on their way out. Armored cavalry became useless when muskets could pierce their armor. Tanks will also become useless when every ATGM can kill them

---

Are you serious??? If tanks were going to be cast aside as useless due to ATGMs being able to kill them then tanks would have been phased out before the end of WWII.

And by your logic, then fighters and bombers are obsolete now since they're just as, if not more, vulnerable to modern SAMs.

There will always been advances in weapons systems. ATGMs advance, and tanks counter. In fact both the US and Russia are starting to field countermeasures to stop ATGMs from ever finding their target. I'm not talking developing, I'm talking they're starting to field these systems.

Again, if you don't know what you're talking about, just stay quiet.