- 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: For the first time since 1991, the US Navy publishes report on Russian Navy
Posted on 12/28/15 at 1:44 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 12/28/15 at 1:44 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:Wars aren't actually fought like that, and you're showing your ignorance if you think they are. Do you know why no European powers could ever successfully invade Russia? It's not because their armies weren't superior. It's because of logistics. The longer your supply lines, the larger force you need to maintain and defend those supply lines. The same thing goes for the area you're occupying: you need a larger army to occupy, and you need stronger supply lines. There is ZERO chance that Russia could handle an invasion and occupation of the Balkans. You are dreaming.
I'll ask you again. Post the order of battle of the force in Europe you think could stop them. Along side that, post Russia's forces.
quote:Europe is responsible for most of Russia's exports and imports. Russia is just as dependent on Europe. They would lose most of their GDP by going to war with Europe and what would they stand to gain? Certainly not enough to justify taking that enormous risk, which would absolutely end in their defeat.
ETA: Europe wild be fricked over the winter without gas from Russia. They're totally dependent on them for it.
LINK
This post was edited on 12/28/15 at 1:50 pm
2
Posted on 12/28/15 at 1:50 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
Wars aren't actually fought like that, and you're showing your ignorance if you think they are. Do you know why no European powers could ever successfully invade Russia? It's not because their armies weren't superior. It's because of logistics. The longer your supply lines, the larger force you need to maintain and defend those supply lines. The same thing goes for the area you're occupying: you need a larger army to occupy, and you need stronger supply lines. There is ZERO chance that Russia could handle an invasion and occupation of the Balkans. You are dreaming.
What European power has the logistics to move suitable military forces into the Balkans to stop a Russian invasion? Not only do the European NATO powers not have the needed military forces, they lack the ability to support any force they'd have to move there to counter a Russian invasion. You keep talking about logistics, OK let's talk logistics. Which of the NATO powers in Europe could sustain even a corps sized force in the Balkans for an extended period of time?
Posted on 12/28/15 at 1:50 pm to Hog on the Hill
Darth reads doom and gloom shite all day and post about it pretending he knows shite. LOL
He might could tell you with some accuracy how to change the oil in a motorcycle
He might could tell you with some accuracy how to change the oil in a motorcycle
Posted on 12/28/15 at 1:51 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:It would be vastly easier for European powers to sustain supply lines in the Balkans because their supply lines would not extend through hostile territory. You're comparing apples to oranges.
What European power has the logistics to move suitable military forces into the Balkans to stop a Russian invasion? Not only do the European NATO powers not have the needed military forces, they lack the ability to support any force they'd have to move there to counter a Russian invasion. You keep talking about logistics, OK let's talk logistics. Which of the NATO powers in Europe could sustain even a corps sized force in the Balkans for an extended period of time?
edit: seriously have you looked at a fricking map of Europe?
This post was edited on 12/28/15 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 12/28/15 at 1:58 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
It would be vastly easier for European powers to sustain supply lines in the Balkans because their supply lines would not extend through hostile territory. You're comparing apples to oranges.
And what would they be supplying? You could take all of the armed forces of the European NATO powers combined and they're still dwarfed by what Russia has.
And you're still underestimating what it would do to Europe if Russia cut off their natural gas. Not only would people be freezing in their home without the gas they need to heat their homes, but on top of that the power grids of most of Central Europe would come to a screeching halt without gas to supply their power plants. Yeah, Russia would take a economic hit tin the short run. But most central Europe would hurt on a whole other level.
Posted on 12/28/15 at 2:00 pm to notiger1997
quote:
Darth reads doom and gloom shite all day and post about it pretending he knows shite. LOL
He might could tell you with some accuracy how to change the oil in a motorcycle
If stupid drivel is all you can contribute to the conversation then do the world a favor and keep your stupidity to yourself. Care to counter anything I've posted, then provide some facts other than talking shite out of your arse.
Posted on 12/28/15 at 2:10 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:It would help if you were right, but you're not. The UK, France, Germany, and Italy combined have 25% more active duty personnel than Russia does, and most of Russia's 800,000 active duty are poorly trained and poorly equipped conscripts.
And what would they be supplying? You could take all of the armed forces of the European NATO powers combined and they're still dwarfed by what Russia has.
And you're still underestimating what it would do to Europe if Russia cut off their natural gas. Not only would people be freezing in their home without the gas they need to heat their homes, but on top of that the power grids of most of Central Europe would come to a screeching halt without gas to supply their power plants. Yeah, Russia would take a economic hit tin the short run. But most central Europe would hurt on a whole other level.
You should also consider the role the Turkey would play in such a conflict--they have a strong and relatively modern military with over 600,000 active personnel. They aren't on very good terms with Russia, as you may have noticed. I doubt they would sit idly by as Russia occupies the Balkans when Turkey's capital is practically in the Balkans. It would totally frick up Turkey's trade with Europe, for one, and that makes up about half their trade. LINK
edit: Russia only supplies 25% of Europe's consumed natural gas. Yeah that's a big chunk but I don't think we're talking about people freezing to death in their homes. You're acting like this is a trump card to prop up your weak argument about Russia's military capabilities and it's not really working.
This post was edited on 12/28/15 at 2:15 pm
Posted on 12/28/15 at 2:21 pm to Darth_Vader
We were overdue for a Russia miltary boogie man thread.
Posted on 12/28/15 at 2:22 pm to Hog on the Hill
I'll just leave this here:
LINK
Yes they send the tug every time they deploy their POS barely floating runway aka the carrier with no catapult because it can't seem to make a trip out and back under its own power.
LINK
Yes they send the tug every time they deploy their POS barely floating runway aka the carrier with no catapult because it can't seem to make a trip out and back under its own power.
Posted on 12/28/15 at 2:26 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Darth_Vader
I don't understand why people downvote the shite out of you on these topics. You're almost always spot-on with everything you say.
Posted on 12/28/15 at 2:27 pm to Hog on the Hill
Here's a look at the difference between Russia and the major European powers.
Military personnel (active & reserve)
Russia: 766,055 (2,485,000 reserves)
Germany: 179,000 (145,000 reserves)
France: 202,761 (195,770 reserves)
UK: 182,000 (146,000 reserves)
Italy: 320,000 (42,000 reserves)
Poland: 120,000 (515,000 reserves)
Turkey: 410,500 (185,360 reserves)
Aircraft (all types)
Russia: 3,429
Germany: 663
France: 1,264
UK: 936
Italy: 760
Poland: 467
Turkey: 1,020
Tanks
Russia: 15,398
Germany: 408
France: 423
UK: 407
Italy: 586
Poland: 1,009
Turkey: 3,778
AFV (APC's etc.)
Russia: 31,298
Germany: 5,896
France: 6,863
UK: 5,948
Italy: 6,972
Poland: 6,608
Turkey: 7,550
Artillery (SP, towed, & MLRS)
Russia: 14,390
Germany: 204
France: 602
UK: 269
Italy: 277
Poland: 755
Turkey: 2,521
Here's the link where you can compare them. LINK
ETA; Edited to add in Turkey
Military personnel (active & reserve)
Russia: 766,055 (2,485,000 reserves)
Germany: 179,000 (145,000 reserves)
France: 202,761 (195,770 reserves)
UK: 182,000 (146,000 reserves)
Italy: 320,000 (42,000 reserves)
Poland: 120,000 (515,000 reserves)
Turkey: 410,500 (185,360 reserves)
Aircraft (all types)
Russia: 3,429
Germany: 663
France: 1,264
UK: 936
Italy: 760
Poland: 467
Turkey: 1,020
Tanks
Russia: 15,398
Germany: 408
France: 423
UK: 407
Italy: 586
Poland: 1,009
Turkey: 3,778
AFV (APC's etc.)
Russia: 31,298
Germany: 5,896
France: 6,863
UK: 5,948
Italy: 6,972
Poland: 6,608
Turkey: 7,550
Artillery (SP, towed, & MLRS)
Russia: 14,390
Germany: 204
France: 602
UK: 269
Italy: 277
Poland: 755
Turkey: 2,521
Here's the link where you can compare them. LINK
ETA; Edited to add in Turkey
This post was edited on 12/28/15 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 12/28/15 at 2:31 pm to Darth_Vader
Yeah, nothing I don't already know. Russia couldn't invade, occupy, and sustain resupply of the Balkans. If you put their military on a neutral battlefield against Europe's military, then sure, they might win. But that's not the scenario you're proposing. Warfare is not a spreadsheet where you compare numbers.
This post was edited on 12/28/15 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 12/28/15 at 2:38 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
Yeah, nothing I don't already know. Russia couldn't invade, occupy, and sustain resupply of the Balkans. If you put their military on a neutral battlefield against Europe's military, then sure, they might win. But that's not the scenario you're proposing. Warfare is not a spreadsheet where you compare numbers.
Look closer at that numbers and you'll see the European powers don't have the logistics capability to concentrate their forces outside their own borders. What that means is if Russia were to strike in the Balkans, those major European powers would not be able to field any substantial force and send them into the region to counter any Russian move. Basically all these forces are structured to do (other than small peacekeeping missions) is to operate within their own borders.
Posted on 12/28/15 at 2:46 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
I don't understand why people downvote the shite out of you on these topics. You're almost always spot-on with everything you say.
They don't like what I'm saying but can't come up with anything resembling an intelligent retort so their only outlet is to click the red arrow. Every time I see them it makes me smile.
This post was edited on 12/28/15 at 2:51 pm
Posted on 12/28/15 at 2:53 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:So let's get this right: Russia, with only 800,000 active personnel and only 150 million population, has superior logistical capability when compared to Europe with its millions of active personnel and 750 million population. Somehow that inferior force and vastly smaller population can sustain 500+ miles of supply lines through hostile territory, while the significantly larger and wealthier European countries will magically be unable to move through friendly territory. Interesting.
Look closer at that numbers and you'll see the European powers don't have the logistics capability to concentrate their forces outside their own borders. What that means is if Russia were to strike in the Balkans, those major European powers would not be able to field any substantial force and send them into the region to counter any Russian move. Basically all these forces are structured to do (other than small peacekeeping missions) is to operate within their own borders.
You realize that tanks, APCs, combat aircraft, and artillery have nothing to do with logistical capability, right? Having large numbers of those things requires logistical support, but they do not generate logistical support themselves.
You're just looking at glittery numbers and not thinking about the reality of warfare, invasion, and occupation.
This post was edited on 12/28/15 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 12/28/15 at 2:55 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
Yeah, nothing I don't already know. Russia couldn't invade, occupy, and sustain resupply of the Balkans. If you put their military on a neutral battlefield against Europe's military, then sure, they might win. But that's not the scenario you're proposing. Warfare is not a spreadsheet where you compare numbers.
Well, it depends where in the Balkans, why, who, how, etc.
Serbia isn't exactly pro-NATO. They would almost certainly be a major PITA for any conflict in the region. The problem the Russians have there is getting through Ukraine and Romania - two definitively anti-Russian countries, at least at the moment - but they would probably try to mollify that somewhat through naval relationships (hence recent overtures to Greece and Cyprus). The Russians are, at least at this time, very little threat for open aggression in the Balkans. What they will probably do is foment unrest and anti-NATO and anti-EU sentiment throughout southeastern Europe, but most especially in Serbia.
Naked aggression is more of a concern in the Baltics and Romania (a NATO country)/Moldova. NATO without the US would be fricked with a quickness in both places. They don't have the logistical capability to do anything sustained in either place, and the strategic integration isn't anywhere where it needs to be for conflict in those places. It's a relic of European militaries rotting post-1990.
These hybrid state/militia/insurgent wars are the future; they'll be politically confusing with a lot of internal dissent within any NATO formation about even wanting to try its luck against the Russians in these places.
Edit to add: a 25 bomber formation actually is pretty impressive. That shows a level of logistical sophistication, operational coordination, and firepower that we probably didn't think the Russians capable. That's a ton of firepower and payload for strategic assets.
Posted on 12/28/15 at 3:00 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
So let's get this right: Russia, with only 800,000 active personnel and only 150 million population, has superior logistical capability when compared to Europe with its millions of active personnel and 750 million population. Interesting.
To put it bluntly, yes. The armed forces of the major European powers are still living like this is the 90's and Russia is weak. They're weak, underfunded, and lack the capability of deploying even the weak forces they have now outside their own borders in anything larger than about battalion sized formations.
quote:
You realize that tanks, APCs, combat aircraft, and artillery have nothing to do with logistical capability, right? Having large numbers of those things requires logistical support, but they do not generate logistical support themselves.
And in this regard, Russia is head and shoulders above the rest of Europe.
quote:
You're just looking at glittery numbers and not thinking about the reality of warfare, invasion, and occupation.
Wrong, I'm looking at the fact Russia has a massive military advantage over Europe and that includes the ability to project power outside it's own borders.
Posted on 12/28/15 at 3:04 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
Naked aggression is more of a concern in the Baltics and Romania
Good point. If Russia were to make any moves in Europe, I'd imagine chances are first thing they'd do so to reclaim the Baltic states. In fact, it would be far easier for them to do this than move into the Balkans.
Posted on 12/28/15 at 3:12 pm to Darth_Vader
I think one of their submarine captains wants to defect. I think we should have an expendable CIA agent ready to board a US sub to covertly intercept the captain's sub, de-board his crew, and bring him to asylum in the United States.
Posted on 12/28/15 at 3:14 pm to LSUJuice
quote:
I think one of their submarine captains wants to defect. I think we should have an expendable CIA agent ready to board a US sub to covertly intercept the captain's sub, de-board his crew, and bring him to asylum in the United States.
That was a good movie... But the book was 1000% better.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News