- 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 5/6/15 at 10:21 am to Champagne
Posted on 5/6/15 at 10:21 am to Champagne
quote:
The Russian nation and the Russian people can live very well in a peaceful environment. Their nation is completely secure from Western threat.
There is a reason so many of their best and brightest are leaving.
quote:
We have to assume that pure logic will deter Russia from invading their Baltic and Polish neighbors, once the West has kept NATO vigilant and strong.
We can only hope
0
Posted on 5/6/15 at 10:30 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
What im saying is this type of massive invasion on many fronts in many places would stretch the russians so thin that their go to tactics couldn't be used everywhere do to having enough troops.
And speaking of not having enough troops, we don;t have enough troops in all of Europe even today to stop a full scale invasion of Poland. Here's what we have over there right now....
Armored Divisions: 0
Infantry Divisions: 0
Armored Brigades: 0
Infantry Brigades: 0
Airborne Brigades: 1 (Italy)
Aviation Brigades: 1 (Germany)
Cavalry Regiments: 1 (Germany) <- And it's a Stryker formation!
and that's it, that's all we've got in Europe today. One airborne (basically light infantry) brigade and one cavalry regiment. That's not even enough to hold much more than a city, much less help defend all of Poland. That's not even a full division worth of troops... Yes, we have less than ONE FREAKING DIVISION left in Europe today.
Now look at what we had in Germany when I was stationed there in the 80's...
Armored Div: 3
Infantry Div: 3
Cavalry Regiments: 2
Infantry Brigades: 1
And even then those were old expected to hold southern Germany. Central & North Germany were defended by the Germans, Dutch, and British.
This post was edited on 5/6/15 at 10:34 am
Posted on 5/6/15 at 10:31 am to Vito Andolini
quote:
And you base this little nugget of wisdom on what? Watching the original Red Dawn and perhaps a few James Bond movies from the 1960-80's?
No, mostly actual historical events shite-for-brains.
Posted on 5/6/15 at 10:33 am to ThePoo
quote:
I always assumed our actual biggest advantage was just the overwhelming number of worldwide military bases we have in comparison to other countries
As I just pointed out. We have less than a combat division in all of Europe right now.
Posted on 5/6/15 at 10:39 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
We have less than a combat division in all of Europe right now.
Yeah, but you have no idea how fanatical those other NATO guys who aren't there any more either are.
Posted on 5/6/15 at 10:43 am to CadesCove
quote:
quote:
We have less than a combat division in all of Europe right now.
Yeah, but you have no idea how fanatical those other NATO guys who aren't there any more either are.
Exactly. That's one of the points I've been trying to get across in this thread. NATO is just a shadow of the force it was back in the 80s when we faced the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact forces. And the key fact today is that while NATO is still a shell of its former self, the Russans are rapidly rebuilding and rearming. They're getting ready for something to come in the coming years while we sit back and pretend it's still the 1990's.
Posted on 5/6/15 at 10:51 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
I would gladly put my boot to your neck, if that was still allowed.
Another internet tough-guy, I see.
quote:
news flash it isn't happening how about you pay attention and actual talk to people in the fricking military. They keep trying these women in the roles as experiements and they all fricking fail or don't even volounteer.
Come back next year at this time and you'll see that it is in fact happening, and while women are failing left and right, what you will next see is that the standards will be adjusted to make sure that they pass. Educate yourself a little bit and then come back and join the discussion.
quote:
You are really are trashy person. I could give zero fricks if the person next to me is gay. As long they do their job and are profesional (sic). Gay people have died and have killed people in combat to you know (huh?, is that English?). Back in your day there was still fricking gays in the military.
Professionalism is another thing that seperates our military from others.
Yes, I am sure there were homosexuals in the military back "in my day," but we didn't have them prancing about flaunting their deviancy. Don't ask, don't tell was working quite well, I saw no need to end it.
This post was edited on 5/6/15 at 11:29 am
Posted on 5/6/15 at 10:52 am to Champagne
quote:
In that case, my guess is that Putin would go medieval on the Polish people. The response to every IED or guerilla attack on Russian supply or garrison troops would be the razing of the local Polish town to the ground without warning and while the civilians are still at home.
The goal would be to indiscriminately kill Polish civilians in response to terror attacks.
Just fyi, the Russians have a long history of conquering Poland.
Posted on 5/6/15 at 10:53 am to Vito Andolini
quote:
Vito Andolini
quote:
Another internet tough-guy, I see.
quote:
Educate yourself a little bit and then come back and join the discussion.
Seriously old timer...Women have served in the military since the Civil War..Educate yourself
quote:
I am sure there were homosexuals in the military back "in my day," but we didn't have them prancing about flaunting their deviancy
Idiots like you, and your old school thinking, will be the ruin..Seriously, your posts history reeks of hate speech and ignorance...
This post was edited on 5/6/15 at 10:57 am
Posted on 5/6/15 at 10:57 am to Vito Andolini
quote:
Just fyi, the Russians have a long history of conquering Poland.
Tell Vlad to wait until after the election. Then we can give him some more latitude.
Posted on 5/6/15 at 11:00 am to Darth_Vader
Well I'm assuming you wouldn't overrun the bases with personnel and equipment and such when unnecessary as that would be a pure waste of money and resources I guess
I think the idea is that they are there and operational when the time for use becomes more necessary and useful to strategy
But I'm certainly no military expert
I think the idea is that they are there and operational when the time for use becomes more necessary and useful to strategy
But I'm certainly no military expert
This post was edited on 5/6/15 at 11:06 am
Posted on 5/6/15 at 11:12 am to Champagne
quote:
A quick internet check will reveal that the Air Force wants to retire the aircraft from their inventory. Steps were taken in Congress to do that. Further debate in Congress, prompted by military advice to retain the A-10, continues, but, the plan to phase out the A-10 remains.
This military advice came from other armed services. The Air Force has not waivered from its plans to phase out the A-10.
Plans to phase out the A-10 would not abruptly halt upgrades and improvements of current A-10s in the inventory.
Correct me on anything that I've written that is wrong
Probably should start a new topic, but this post raises an interesting thought, perhaps it is time to allow the Army to once again have fixed wing aircraft in its inventory and let them have their own ground support aircraft like the Marines.
Posted on 5/6/15 at 11:14 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Yet their military is not as massive as it used to be and is made up of a frick ton of conscripts. They would probably need almost every well bodied man on the front fighting NATO.
I don't know that anyone really believes we couldn't eventually defeat the Russians in a war.
The thing is we don't want to FIGHT that fricking war in the first place. It would be terrible.
Putin would still be nuts to try something like this, but not quite as nuts as it would have been to try that when we had a sizable number of forces in Europe.
Lots of wishful thinking in this thread and in America in general these days.
I'm not saying we should never cut defense spending or that we should be the worlds police, etc, but it's foolish to believe there won't be consequences when we pull back.
I believe that we would have a tough time drumming up the will to fight, even if Russia did try something. The current military would follow orders, but what would the orders be? And is the current military big enough to defeat the Russians?
Posted on 5/6/15 at 11:15 am to Vito Andolini
Interesting thought Vito
Posted on 5/6/15 at 11:19 am to GrammarKnotsi
quote:
Russia would smash a carrier before we knew where it came from
Posted on 5/6/15 at 11:19 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
When defending their homeland they always had plenty. But this isn't defending their homeland now is it? or WWII
That and their population is shrinking
Not any longer.
This post was edited on 5/6/15 at 11:38 am
Posted on 5/6/15 at 11:22 am to WeeWee
quote:
The Russians will also not have the USA and UK bombing the shite out Europe's factories and war industry to help. The Russians didn't start steam rolling europe until after the German air forces had been grounded by lack of fuel and poor training.
Wrong, the Battle of Stalingrad (23 August 1942 – 2 February 1943) was the turning point of the war on the Eastern Front and it began a mere 8 months after we got in the war.
Posted on 5/6/15 at 11:22 am to asurob1
quote:
asurob1
I'm not sure what you think is funny about that...I've posted my credentials, and am pretty sure I am more versed than you on this subject..
Posted on 5/6/15 at 11:23 am to Tigeralum2008
One thing that no one has mentioned here so far is:
Since WWII, the US has transitioned to a "service" economy rather than production/manufacturing base. We simply do not have as many factories we could convert to war production.
Would we be able to produce war materiel in enough quantities for a war that would surely outstrip the worst case supply scenarios?
America produced 300,000 aircraft in WWII. Do you think we'd be capable of producing 3,000 if we needed them within the first year?
Since WWII, the US has transitioned to a "service" economy rather than production/manufacturing base. We simply do not have as many factories we could convert to war production.
Would we be able to produce war materiel in enough quantities for a war that would surely outstrip the worst case supply scenarios?
America produced 300,000 aircraft in WWII. Do you think we'd be capable of producing 3,000 if we needed them within the first year?
Posted on 5/6/15 at 11:26 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
America produced 300,000 aircraft in WWII. Do you think we'd be capable of producing 3,000 if we needed them within the first year?
The giant is sleeping again. But this time, he is much fatter, lazier and will be much harder to wake up. And I question his terrible resolve nowadays too.
Page 15 of 25
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News