- 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 5/7/15 at 7:53 am to Darth_Vader
Posted on 5/7/15 at 7:53 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
You're trying to be cute but you're just showing your ignorance on the subject.
You ALWAYS single me out for attack in these threads, when I am one of the few who don't down vote you and actually can talk history back and forth.
You said a carrier was ineffective against russia. I disagree. We can dominate their Pacific port and impose will on ports. Though carriers would be large targets for ICBMs.
I'm not saying they will not be tanks. Did I say there will not be tanks? Since WW1 we have seen the importance of tanks over open field battles.
An invasion of Russia would be stupid. Any war with them, will inevitably involve nukes. Invading the United States is even stupider. They would give up territory in order to ensnare their attackers, the US would fight tooth and nail to maintain every square inch.
I asked an actual question, and you responded like a dick. No wonder why you get the responses you do.
1
Posted on 5/7/15 at 8:17 am to Napoleon
quote:
You ALWAYS single me out for attack in these threads, when I am one of the few who don't down vote you and actually can talk history back and forth.
You said a carrier was ineffective against russia. I disagree. We can dominate their Pacific port and impose will on ports. Though carriers would be large targets for ICBMs.
I'm not saying they will not be tanks. Did I say there will not be tanks? Since WW1 we have seen the importance of tanks over open field battles.
An invasion of Russia would be stupid. Any war with them, will inevitably involve nukes. Invading the United States is even stupider. They would give up territory in order to ensnare their attackers, the US would fight tooth and nail to maintain every square inch.
I asked an actual question, and you responded like a dick. No wonder why you get the responses you do.
Well I apologize if you genuinely did not know that naval air had in-flight refueling capability. You seem to me to be informed enough to know they do, thus that's why it looked to me like you were being cute.
As for tanks, I never said anything to you about tanks nor did I see you mention tanks anywhere.
As for invading Russia or the US being invaded, neither is likely to happen in our lifetime or even our kids' lifetime. If there is going to be a war against Russia, it would be fought in Central & Eastern Europe. And the most likely spark of such a war would be the Russians moving to reassert their control over that portion of Europe. I just don't see NATO ever launching a preemptive strike at Russia before Russia makes the first move. First off, NATO doesn't even have enough land forces to defend Europe as it is. Hell, even back in the 80's when NATO was at it's apex, it was only strong enough to defend Germany and Western Europe. NATO never has been, and almost certainly never will be strong enough to launch an invasion of Russia.
Posted on 5/7/15 at 8:42 am to asurob1
quote:
ah yes, the old America is soft schtick. Some times I wish someone would frick with us again just to show you motherfrickers how terrible our resolve actually is.
As the country becomes more and more divided along political lines between the urban power centers and the rural and small town sectors, are you certain that the country boys of the year 2050 are going to go overseas to fight for a USA controlled by Leftist urban power brokers who absolutely despise the rural and small town people?
The Left is working overtime to demonize, marginalize, ridicule and abuse the rural/small town white male. Could it get to the point where this sector of our population no longer volunteers to fight the wars of the Washington DC Leftist Clique that runs this country?
If so, WHICH sector of US society will go and fight? WHICH of the current Leftist constituency groups will go and fight? The teachers? The labor union bosses? Hollywood movie stars? Rock stars? Illegal aliens? Inner city youth? University professors? CNN and MSNBC talking heads?
The above mentioned Democrat constituency groups absolutely despise the rural/small town people. Why would these rural/small town people go fight and bleed for the people that hate them?
I'm looking 50 to 100 years down the road. My scenario is unthinkable in the near future, of course.
This post was edited on 5/7/15 at 9:27 am
Posted on 5/7/15 at 8:52 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Russia has two things you're not taking into account.
1. A modern air force. It's not as good as NATO, but they also have this...
2. A shite ton of modern & effective mobile SAM systems.
Couple those two things with a almost complete lack of sufficient land forces to mount an effective defense on the part of NATO, and you get Russian Soldiers reaching the Rhine before we can do anything about it.
Exactly. Russia would never win a protracted war, but they can win enough early on to settle for massive territory gains in the east. If they can prevent full air superiority on the part of NATO, they will quickly make it to the Rhine and potentially to Paris. They'd never be able to hold it for long, but they could take it for a short time.
Posted on 5/7/15 at 8:55 am to Champagne
quote:
The Left is working overtime to demonize, marginalize, ridicule and abuse the rural/small town white male.
Posted on 5/7/15 at 9:07 am to kingbob
quote:
Exactly. Russia would never win a protracted war, but they can win enough early on to settle for massive territory gains in the east. If they can prevent full air superiority on the part of NATO, they will quickly make it to the Rhine and potentially to Paris. They'd never be able to hold it for long, but they could take it for a short time.
If the Russians ever did reach Paris, we'd be confronted with a similar situation as when the Germans took Paris in 1940. Either a cross channel invasion from the British Isles or maybe taking a page out of Churchill's playbook and hitting them in the "soft underbelly" by going up through the Balkans or out of Italy.
Posted on 5/7/15 at 9:16 am to Darth_Vader
Tanks!! 
Posted on 5/7/15 at 9:22 am to Champagne
quote:
As the country becomes more and more divided along political lines between the urban power centers and the rural and small town sectors, are you certain that the country boys of the year 2050 are going to go overseas to fight for a USA controlled by Leftist urban power brokers who absolutely despise the rural and small town people?
The Left is working overtime to demonize, marginalize, ridicule and abuse the rural/small town white male. Could it get to the point where this sector of our population no longer volunteers to fight the wars of the Washington DC Leftist Clique that runs this country?
O so only country boys enlist
Posted on 5/7/15 at 9:22 am to Armymann50
If looks could kill...
Posted on 5/7/15 at 9:31 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
O so only country boys enlist
No, Mr. Strawman, that's not my argument.
But if a Leftist Clique in Washington DC that runs the country alienates an important demographic to the point where that demographic will not volunteer to fight that Clique's wars, it could be a problem. There might not be enough volunteers in those other demographic groups to fill the void.
Even today, your US military ground forces rely heavily on the rural and small/town demographic groups to fill the enlisted ranks.
Alienation of this demographic group could be an issue 50 to 100 years down the road.
You really have a smart-arse, arrogant and condescending attitude that make it tough to have an intelligent conversation with you. Do you provoke anger intentionally or is this simply a by-product of your disposition?
You are USAF. Are you officer or enlisted? I ask only to advise you that smart-asses don't go far as US military officers.
This post was edited on 5/7/15 at 9:36 am
Posted on 5/7/15 at 9:32 am to tigerpawl
Has anyone mentioned the fact that Russia's GDP is barely above Canada?
I just don't see how they will be able to even sustain their current military spending
I just don't see how they will be able to even sustain their current military spending
Posted on 5/7/15 at 9:34 am to Hold my beer
Can we clear out the last 18 pages.. New posters aren't reading them anyway
Posted on 5/7/15 at 9:40 am to GrammarKnotsi
quote:
Can we clear out the last 18 pages.. New posters aren't reading them anyway
I know that's a shot at me, but I agree...I'm not reading 20 pages of who has the "bigger military expertise dick" to find out my information.
Posted on 5/7/15 at 9:42 am to GrammarKnotsi
First Post for New Posters:
This is a thread topic worthy of discussion. That said, there's no reason for people to be arrogant and condescending in this thread.
This stuff is hard to figure out and nobody knows for certain what the future holds. In this thread we are not talking about what's going to happen next year -- we are talking years down the road, maybe decades down the road.
Keep in mind that the nature of warfare throughout history changed very slowly for most of history. For example, from 1750 to 1815, the nature of warfare on land, sea and air did not significantly change.
Slide ahead to the period of 1900 to 1950. Warfare changed so rapidly that barely a handful of people could foresee the changes.
Point is that this thread is engaging in a very difficult game of "Predict the future -- 30 to 50 years from now". How can just about any thought posted in this thread on that topic be worthy of arrogant dismissal?
This is a thread topic worthy of discussion. That said, there's no reason for people to be arrogant and condescending in this thread.
This stuff is hard to figure out and nobody knows for certain what the future holds. In this thread we are not talking about what's going to happen next year -- we are talking years down the road, maybe decades down the road.
Keep in mind that the nature of warfare throughout history changed very slowly for most of history. For example, from 1750 to 1815, the nature of warfare on land, sea and air did not significantly change.
Slide ahead to the period of 1900 to 1950. Warfare changed so rapidly that barely a handful of people could foresee the changes.
Point is that this thread is engaging in a very difficult game of "Predict the future -- 30 to 50 years from now". How can just about any thought posted in this thread on that topic be worthy of arrogant dismissal?
Posted on 5/7/15 at 9:46 am to kingbob
quote:
Exactly. Russia would never win a protracted war, but they can win enough early on to settle for massive territory gains in the east. If they can prevent full air superiority on the part of NATO, they will quickly make it to the Rhine and potentially to Paris. They'd never be able to hold it for long, but they could take it for a short time.
No they might get a a quarter of the way through Poland. The Baltics and Ukraine hate the Russians and would slow them down by destoying their supply lines. Poland would put up enough of a fight to slow them down until the rest of NATO could organize and join the fight.
Also the russian tanks would break down and have to be towed. I know its already been posted but it is still funny
Posted on 5/7/15 at 9:51 am to WeeWee
quote:
Poland would put up enough of a fight to slow them down until the rest of NATO could organize and join the fight.
If we have as few troops stationed in Europe as was earlier stated, will there be anything to organize? Are we going to commandeer some 747s and fly armored divisions to Europe?
Posted on 5/7/15 at 9:54 am to WeeWee
Russia's latest military parades are largely to commemorate the 70th Anniversary of the WW2 Allied Victory.
This is a big anniversary to honor. The veterans of that war have not completely died out yet. Many of them are still able to attend ceremonies and speak to crowds. In ten years, that probably won't be the case.
The 80th Anniversary will too late for the WW2 Vets. This 70th Anniversary is the proper time to show the love. The Russians, the USA and all of the Allied nations should observe this anniversary.
This is a big anniversary to honor. The veterans of that war have not completely died out yet. Many of them are still able to attend ceremonies and speak to crowds. In ten years, that probably won't be the case.
The 80th Anniversary will too late for the WW2 Vets. This 70th Anniversary is the proper time to show the love. The Russians, the USA and all of the Allied nations should observe this anniversary.
This post was edited on 5/7/15 at 9:55 am
Posted on 5/7/15 at 9:58 am to CadesCove
quote:
quote: Poland would put up enough of a fight to slow them down until the rest of NATO could organize and join the fight. If we have as few troops stationed in Europe as was earlier stated, will there be anything to organize? Are we going to commandeer some 747s and fly armored divisions to Europe?
If we wait until the Russians move, it's too late. Either we rebuild our forces in Europe or Europe has to build up their own forces.
As it stands now, Russia is obviously rearming to regain is old Soviet era strength. The West at this time isn't. Yea we are still stronger overall, but not in Europe. Russia isn't totally rearmed yet to the point of invading Central Europe. But at the rate things are going, they'll be ready within about a decade.
This post was edited on 5/7/15 at 10:10 am
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:02 am to Darth_Vader
Darth:
The balloon isn't going up tomorrow or next year, but, I agree that Europe needs to prepare to defend itself.
The German Army cannot defend the German nation with two combat ready armored brigades.
The balloon isn't going up tomorrow or next year, but, I agree that Europe needs to prepare to defend itself.
The German Army cannot defend the German nation with two combat ready armored brigades.
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:06 am to Champagne
quote:
he balloon isn't going up tomorrow or next year, but, I agree that Europe needs to prepare to defend itself.
True. I'm not worried about the next 5-10 years. Past that though, all bets are off.
quote:
The German Army cannot defend the German nation with two combat ready armored brigades.
Exactly, and considering we've only got one cavalry regiment (a light regiment btw) and a light infantry brigade in the ETO, we would be able to do little more than offer token resistance.
Page 20 of 25
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News