Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russian, NATO and US musings

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Merkava188
    replied
    Plus U.S. and N.A.T.O. tank crew are far better trained. Look at what we did to the Iraqi army in Desert Storm.

    Leave a comment:


  • nastle
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Only if we controlled the airspace, extremely unlikely that close to Soviet airbases. Air transports are incredibly vulnerable.

    In the meantime, during the 70's, the Soviet Union/ Warsaw Pact outnumbered us 15 to one in every category. They also practiced with chemical weapons...and we did nit.
    for example....so there were 15 Mig-21s to every equivalent NATO jet Mirage III/F-4/Lightning/F-104/F-5 ?? this is not counting the USAF in north america , or Canadians

    thats not possible , more likely in the air NATO outnumbered WP atleast 2 to 1 , if not more

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by nastle View Post
    ATTU region yes but NATO did not count the reserves ( which were in much better condition than soviet reserves) and the gigantic reinforcements that can be brought in from USA
    refering specifically to airforces and navies
    Only if we controlled the airspace, extremely unlikely that close to Soviet airbases. Air transports are incredibly vulnerable.

    In the meantime, during the 70's, the Soviet Union/ Warsaw Pact outnumbered us 15 to one in every category. They also practiced with chemical weapons...and we did nit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    Originally posted by nastle View Post
    ATTU region yes but NATO did not count the reserves ( which were in much better condition than soviet reserves) and the gigantic reinforcements that can be brought in from USA
    refering specifically to airforces and navies
    I wouldn't say that NATO reserves were in much better condition, They were much smaller since not all countries had the mandatory military service. The reinforcements from US would be useless since SU would be occupying the ports at the time of their arrival.

    Leave a comment:


  • nastle
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    Maybe it's a Star Wars in reverse? We kept up the publicity about Star Wars even though we knew it wasn't technologically feasible just to bankrupt the USSR. Maybe they are doing the same. The news are always claimed to be leaks but everyone knows Putin doesn't do "leaks". Also, they flip the bad to make it look good. They announce that their corvettes carry cruise missiles that will reach Syria and we get scared because they are putting them on such small vessels. Look at the flip side...they are putting them on corvettes because they can't build anything bigger right now.
    even when they did put such missiles on "rocket cruisers" these ships were only good to patrol the bastion seas and be just another part of their sea denial strategy
    Those ships might have looked like they gave them a blue water capability but they never had a navy that can accomplish those aims
    Whats different now is that their missiles are smaller , tech is better and they do not need to build huge cruisers to mount them

    Leave a comment:


  • nastle
    replied
    ATTU region yes but NATO did not count the reserves ( which were in much better condition than soviet reserves) and the gigantic reinforcements that can be brought in from USA
    refering specifically to airforces and navies

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    Originally posted by nastle View Post

    in many key areas NATO outnumbered the USSR
    The numbers in Europe were in advantage for Warsaw Pact.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    Maybe it's a Star Wars in reverse? We kept up the publicity about Star Wars even though we knew it wasn't technologically feasible just to bankrupt the USSR. Maybe they are doing the same. The news are always claimed to be leaks but everyone knows Putin doesn't do "leaks". Also, they flip the bad to make it look good. They announce that their corvettes carry cruise missiles that will reach Syria and we get scared because they are putting them on such small vessels. Look at the flip side...they are putting them on corvettes because they can't build anything bigger right now.
    The things with bankrupcy by military expenditures doesn't work. Economy will not crack because of that and even if it does, it's not really a trouble.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Sorry, but no...The Soviet Union based its strategy on a first strike which is purely offensive in nature. And every move the Russia has made in many years has still been a first strike, not defensive at all. Russia provokes; it does not react.
    It's false. There was hardly any first strike made by Russia. Russia usually always leaves a room for negotiation.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Maybe it's a Star Wars in reverse? We kept up the publicity about Star Wars even though we knew it wasn't technologically feasible just to bankrupt the USSR. Maybe they are doing the same. The news are always claimed to be leaks but everyone knows Putin doesn't do "leaks". Also, they flip the bad to make it look good. They announce that their corvettes carry cruise missiles that will reach Syria and we get scared because they are putting them on such small vessels. Look at the flip side...they are putting them on corvettes because they can't build anything bigger right now.

    Leave a comment:


  • nastle
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Sorry, but no...The Soviet Union based its strategy on a first strike which is purely offensive in nature. And every move the Russia has made in many years has still been a first strike, not defensive at all. Russia provokes; it does not react.
    offense is the best defence in their thinking
    the west and the east has been attacking the slavic heartlands for centuries , and USSR inherited that problem

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Emtos View Post
    The presentation of the new weapons can be linked to the retirement age reform which is highly unpopular. Show citizens that the money taken from them will be well spent.

    Since they belong to class "slam hard the door", there is no need for much. But simply put cobalt in nukes would be much cheaper.
    It would be, if they weren't worried about becoming a world-wide extermination project by every other nation with weapons of any kind. If Russia goes to dirty nukes they will automatically become a world pariah. It's the reason why no one will publicly tolerate chemical and bio weapons being used openly, although it still happens.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by nastle View Post
    Russian weapons are essentially all defensive , esp their aircraft and naval vessels.I think even at the height of the cold war in the 80s we totally misunderstood the soviet military doctrine.USSR was a status quo power ( unlike fascist japan and nazi germany) and its military was geared towards the following objectives

    1-Warsaw pact was designed to keep " the Poles down, russians in and the germans out "of eastern europe

    2-It had no chance of taking western europe in conventional conflict, so it deployed tactical nukes to make a purely conventional war impossible from the start

    3-It was very good at keeping its biggest land enemy ( china) and naval opponent ( japan) in check in the Far East in conventional conflicts

    4-It could keep its land borders secure against invasions of persians and turks its other historic enemies in conventional conflicts

    5-It could give an illusion of being an equal of USA in military power , in reality their technology in the 80s was atleast 10 yrs behnid that of US military

    6-It could effectively colonize and police moslem central asia and prevent from falling under the influence of either China or Muslim countries

    It accomplished all these quite effectively throughout the cold war, problem is when we overestimate the capacity of russians and soviets and start thinking of them as equals of NATO
    Sorry, but no...The Soviet Union based its strategy on a first strike which is purely offensive in nature. And every move the Russia has made in many years has still been a first strike, not defensive at all. Russia provokes; it does not react.

    Leave a comment:


  • nastle
    replied
    Originally posted by Emtos View Post

    Not really. The weak point were the electronics but USSR was improving in this domain. US was more concerned with technology to fight against the numbers.
    in many key areas NATO outnumbered the USSR

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    Originally posted by nastle View Post

    5-It could give an illusion of being an equal of USA in military power , in reality their technology in the 80s was atleast 10 yrs behnid that of US military
    Not really. The weak point were the electronics but USSR was improving in this domain. US was more concerned with technology to fight against the numbers.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X