Russian Threats!

[AngusThermopyle]

And Russian soldier is more ANGRY tongue.gif

Anger is not a desirable trait in a military member. Anger leads one to act stupidly and irrationally.

[moderateamericain]

After so much brainwashing of the media sponsored by the US military complex I wouldn't expect a different opinion.

I'm not sure if you realize it but the AK47 was introduced in 1947. The starndard-issue rifle Russian (as well as many other) army uses is the AK 74 family. Again, as the name suggests, it was introduced in 1974... must be junk, right?

Right... see the post above...

I'm sure Europeans would say Eurofighter 2000 is better, Russians would say SU-37.

Did it do anything memorable besides dumping Agent Orange on Vietnam?

And Russian soldier is more ANGRY

I did not say the ak was a bad weapon. Far from it. Im willing to bet the AK has killed more people than any single product of warefare in history. Its durable as hell too. Back when, we dragged one for 1/2 mile behind a jeep. Picked it up and the damn thing fired. Brilliant design

However, Outside of the T90 which on further research is probably a better tank as far as ease of repair and manuverability. The rest of your points are just flat wrong. The F22 is the undisputated king of the sky.

[Army Guy]

I used it because I think the guy who wrote it shares my sentiments and appears to be a European who knows a lot more about the subject than myself.

My son knows more about tanks, and armour than this guy, give me a break, i thought you where making a case for russian tanks and hardware, not comparing 2 western tanks which work side by side on most battle fields again'st soviet designs...

FYI, the Iraqi army was using tank shells that USSR de-comissioned in 1973... and they still managed to take some Abrams out...

There are many ways to discribe tank kills, and during the first and second Gulf war, The Iraqi's did not mange to get one tank kill, yes they did mange to get some mobility kills, describe as immobilzing a tank, however the crew is still very much alive and able to still fight from thier postion....big difference....And yes there was many accounts of M-1's having Iraqi Sabot rounds stuck in the front mantels failing to penatrate anything vital...Russia was very quick to let the world know these were very old and discontinued rounds much to the Iraqis displeasure....

And while the Russians have improved thier Sabot rounds performance "even release tech data sheets to prove that thier rounds can penatrate the front armour of a abrams....they have yet to prove it, or sell them abroad to anyone important...mean while the US and german, Israel governments have surpassed the russain claims and proved thier claims on on russian tank examples, often left around the world by fleeing russians or taken in combat by western forces....

But since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, with tanks in daily combat against the unexpectedly fierce insurgency, the Army says 80 of the 69-ton behemoths have been damaged so badly they had to be shipped back to the United States.

Plant enough explosives in a hole and you can kill anything, what is the piont ...you can kill an abrams, yes we know that ,

but you must admit russian tank crews where very concerned when a Silver bullet fired from a M-1 penetrated the front hull of a T-72 vaporized the crew, , contined out the back along with the entire engine assy, and was found some 50 feet behind the T -72....That look on Russian tank commanders faces would have been priceless....

Now we know the T-72 is not the top dog in the Soviet military, not even in the top 5, mostly considered an export version....but lets face it, the Russians never did figure out Chobham armour or develope any simlar tech break through... yes they may have added more armour to the front of thier future tanks , but that silver bullet did pentrate the entire length of the T-72 how much better is the T-90, or the T -95...which have not been built in any great numbers....

But armour is not what makes a soviet tank great, is it, so send up the white flag, western tanks are bettered armoured always will be....as we don't have the man power the russians have , we give our crews the means to survive....

Now Russia did design a tank gun that fires a missle with a range of excess of 6 km's....which does offset some advantages in certain types of terrain....I'd persue that angle if i was you....

I'm sure Europeans would say Eurofighter 2000 is better, Russians would say SU-37.

How many SU-37's are operational, compared to say F-22, and F-15's,

And Russian soldier is more ANGRY

Give me a break, more angry because they hav'nt been paid in six months , or that cabage is a main food supplment, or they're equipment is shit, or they can't afford to train on it, ....why would they be angry, they still got Vodka, and Russian smokes....

Russian soldiers are as corupt as thier Government, they sell thier tank before they ever got to the front....

[blueblood]

Link to the Sensor fuzed weapon test, or the cluster bomb

[PoliticalCitizen]

Give me a break, more angry because they hav'nt been paid in six months , or that cabage is a main food supplment, or they're equipment is shit, or they can't afford to train on it, ....why would they be angry, they still got Vodka, and Russian smokes....

You got it

[myata]

Which doesn't anyhow negate one simple fact: no NATO army is prepared (mentally, technically, politically, etc) to sustain levels of losses anywhere near those that would result from a direct prolonged confrontation with a serious and determined opponent. For the obvious proof, look no further than Afghanistan. And, maybe, Georgia in the recent conflict (Georgia's was a NATO army; or, at least, a NATO type army; and, unlike NATO itself, it could at least make some, convoluted as it stands, claim for a cause to fight).

Which makes discussions of technical superiority an interesting, but quite irrelevant digression from the topic. NATO doesn't have a cause to fight. NATO won't fight. So the strategy it came down to is to howl from a safe distance. Which may appear effective in the own eyes, but doesn't necessarily scare anybody.

[AngusThermopyle]

no NATO army is prepared (mentally, technically, politically, etc) to sustain levels of losses anywhere near those that would result from a direct prolonged confrontation with a serious and determined opponent.

How the hell would you know? The fact is that Western Nations have time and again shown that they will sustain any losses to accomplish the goal they set. somehow in that one statement you have managed to forget a huge expanse of Western history, either that or you just don"t have a clue.

Georgia is not a NATO country. Further to that , just what is a "NATO style military"? Come on, enlighten us with your new found military expertise. You amaze me, no topic is beyond your total understanding and mastery.

And thats even with absolutely zero experience in that particular field, wow.

[wulf42]

Forunately Nato weapons and Russian systems have always been used against each other through other countries...the war in Vietnam ....Russians in Afghanistan...etc....but i was reading the news online and a link i found lead me to this site (below)...not sure how accurate it is but it is very alarming some points made regarding Nato's Nuclear Doctrine for the future...which makes any contfrontation between Nato and Russia Directly best avoided at all cost!

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8048

[myata]

How the hell would you know? The fact is that Western Nations have time and again shown that they will sustain any losses to accomplish the goal they set. somehow in that one statement you have managed to forget a huge expanse of Western history, either that or you just don"t have a clue.

Of course specific examples of that glorious history we conveniently leave out for the divine to, well, divine. No worries, let's refresh our collective memories. From what I can recall off the top of my head from the recent times:

- Yugoslavia (specifically, Srebrenitsa - where Dutch batallion watched one of the worst massacres of civilians in the recent history);

- Rwanda;

- bombing of Serbia;

- Iraq;

- Afghanistan;

Of course, none of the above would qualify as an encounter with a "serious and determined opponent". Yet the record speaks for itself.

Georgia is not a NATO country. Further to that , just what is a "NATO style military"? Come on, enlighten us with your new found military expertise.

Georgia has been enjoyed long term partnership with NATO and NATO countries, had extensive training programs with the US and NATO, and participated in several NATO projects (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq).

Wikipedia: military of Georgia. The latest exercise with the US troops has been conducted in mid July Reuters: Immediate Response, Georgia

At least my statements (I wouldn't call it expertise at this point) are based on facts and verifiable information. We have yet to see your grounds for the same (that is, anything beyond authentic pro military jargon that any 10 year old reading right forums would pick up in a flick these days).

[DogOnPorch]

Georgia is closer to a Warsaw Pact (remember those guys?) style military than anything NATO. Same draconian command control. Just wearing cool new NATO patches on their uniforms in unlikely to change that.

---------------------------------------------

I guess I wasn't persuasive enough.

---Casper Weinberger

[AngusThermopyle]

Of course specific examples of that glorious history we conveniently leave out for the divine to, well, divine.

Simple giderish, actually really simple giberish.

From what I can recall off the top of my head from the recent times:

Purile crap, nothing more.

How about you try to learn about history? Not just what you can recall of the top of your head.

- Rwanda;

You want to know something ? I was there. I saw it. I experienced it. I will never forget it.

You stupid suideo intellectual gitt.

Experience life instead of trying to tell others about what you know nothing at all about.

Edited September 5, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[moderateamericain]

Which doesn't anyhow negate one simple fact: no NATO army is prepared (mentally, technically, politically, etc) to sustain levels of losses anywhere near those that would result from a direct prolonged confrontation with a serious and determined opponent. For the obvious proof, look no further than Afghanistan. And, maybe, Georgia in the recent conflict (Georgia's was a NATO army; or, at least, a NATO type army; and, unlike NATO itself, it could at least make some, convoluted as it stands, claim for a cause to fight).

Which makes discussions of technical superiority an interesting, but quite irrelevant digression from the topic. NATO doesn't have a cause to fight. NATO won't fight. So the strategy it came down to is to howl from a safe distance. Which may appear effective in the own eyes, but doesn't necessarily scare anybody.

Myata your just plain wrong on your points in this thread and the next one. Ill start with Europe, the English and the Germans in the last century have shown a great deal of fight. If you recall last time the Germans fought the Russians it didnt go so well for them. (well technically it didnt go so well for either side) but had germany not fought a two front war it would have gone very different. And Iraq and Afghanistan. Are you serious? 5.5 years nearly 4000 KIA. We have probably killed 10 times that. How is that not a willingness to fight? Afghanistan, heck the other day NATO forces killed 200 taliban. No sir, and speaking from the stand point of ex military who has spent lots of time around active duty people. (keep in mind ive been to Iraq 3 times. twice as a civilian) Those boys love a good fight.

Edited September 5, 2008 by moderateamericain

[myata]

Myata your just plain wrong on your points in this thread and the next one. Ill start with Europe, the English and the Germans in the last century have shown a great deal of fight. If you recall last time the Germans fought the Russians it didnt go so well for them. (well technically it didnt go so well for either side) but had germany not fought a two front war it would have gone very different. And Iraq and Afghanistan. Are you serious? 5.5 years nearly 4000 KIA. We have probably killed 10 times that. How is that not a willingness to fight? Afghanistan, heck the other day NATO forces killed 200 taliban. No sir, and speaking from the stand point of ex military who has spent lots of time around active duty people. (keep in mind ive been to Iraq 3 times. twice as a civilian) Those boys love a good fight.

No it's you who's probably wrong here. Numbers, whether KIA, troops, or technical characteristics were never a determinant of the outcome. Will and determination to fight mean much more. We could examine the old history, but why not start with more recent examples?

They may love a good fight in the conditions of overwhelming advantage, in both the numbers and technically (see Afghanistan thread). But, it's been 6 years (longer than active action in the WWII) and counting, and the victory appears as elusive as ever. Judging by the same records of KIA.

And of course, this is nowhere near a real confrontation with a well armed determined opponent having a cause to fight.

[AngusThermopyle]

No it's you who's probably wrong here.

Actually no, he's bang on. You're the one who is wrong. And once again you prove that you lack the most basic ability to admit when you are wrong.

Get over it, you're about as wrong as you can be.

[myata]

Actually no, he's bang on. You're the one who is wrong. And once again you prove that you lack the most basic ability to admit when you are wrong.

Get over it, you're about as wrong as you can be.

Well, audacity was never a bad disguise of ignorance. But even then, yours has definitely surpassed all known proportions, if you still hope to be taken seriously in a civil discussion after your earlier diatribe. Period.

[AngusThermopyle]

Well, audacity was never a bad disguise of ignorance. But even then, yours has definitely surpassed all known proportions, if you still hope to be taken seriously in a civil discussion after your earlier diatribe. Period.

What can I say? Your inability to admit you're wrong simply inspires me.

[moderateamericain]

Well, audacity was never a bad disguise of ignorance. But even then, yours has definitely surpassed all known proportions, if you still hope to be taken seriously in a civil discussion after your earlier diatribe. Period.

Ok myata, What is the standard that you would like to see out of the US in Iraq in order to believe we have the will to fight? By what standard do you measure that? Is it length of time? You just said yourself we have fought this war longer than world war two and its been far more lopsided. The violence levels in Iraq as dropped off significantly. The country for all purposes looks to be on the rebound. Is it Military Victories? CHECK x 10. THE US has yet to come up against a position they couldnt take or an obstacle they couldn't overcome in Iraq yet. SO please define your standard for "a will to fight"?

Edited September 5, 2008 by moderateamericain

[Rue]

I agree that the Russians aren't that stupid...but at a time of such high tension such talk is not helpful and can only lead us back into a another cold war situation.

Putin's policies welcomed in a new cold war back in 1998 when it was decided the best way to rebuild Russia's economy was to sell military supplies to nations in conflict with Western interests and siding with Iran deliberately to destablize the gulf region and oil trade to make it more possible for Russia to sell oil to the West at prices Russia could dictate unilaterally.

If Putin had been interested in a genuine alliance with the West he would not have seized control of the nation's economy and handed it over to the mob as part of an alliance to maintain totalitarian control and prevent free enterprise in that nation.

He chose his bed many years ago and its not suprising to anyoen who has studied the man and what he stands for. He is a classic Stalinist.

The fact that Bush and Chaney dismissed him as a weakling has only made matters worse. It has only served to incite and inflame his Stalinist temperment for the worse.

They underestimated his resolve and talked to him in a patronizing manner. Dumb and dumber.

The best person to have handle Putin today would be a Margaret Thatcher. This aw shucks bafoonery of Bush followed by the overplayed bellowing of Chaney just was not the way to deal with this professional hitman.

Edited September 5, 2008 by Rue

[GostHacked]

If NATO was prepared for the invasion of Georgia, ... then why was there an invasion of Georgia??

[myata]

SO please define your standard for "a will to fight"?

OK, in plain words: in Iraq and Afghanistan NATO (or almost NATO) has been fighting with enormous advantage without (yet) achieving a decisive victory.

In Vietnam the US was beaten by a hugely inferior in the technical respect opponent.

In Srebrenitsa and Rwanda, hugely superior NATO troops were watching massacres helplessly, without being able to make any impact on the situation.

Bombing campaign in Serbia was executed from the safe distance outside (missiles and airstrikes).

If there's an example of NATO taking on a strong opponent and coming out victorious, I suggest somebody show it now.

[AngusThermopyle]

If there's an example of NATO taking on a strong opponent and coming out victorious, I suggest somebody show it now.

Do you really have to ask? Have you forgotten the USSR and the cold war?

As for Rwanda, like I said I was there. It wasn't a matter of the troops being incapable. It was that useless collection of corrupt individuals that are known as the UN, you know, those worthless sods you place so much stock in. Not to mention that none military man who goes by the name of Romeo Dalliare

NATO (or almost NATO)

What exactly is "almost NATO? NATO is NATO, almost has absolutely zero relevance to NATO.

Edited September 5, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[blueblood]

Myata your just plain wrong on your points in this thread and the next one. Ill start with Europe, the English and the Germans in the last century have shown a great deal of fight. If you recall last time the Germans fought the Russians it didnt go so well for them. (well technically it didnt go so well for either side) but had germany not fought a two front war it would have gone very different. And Iraq and Afghanistan. Are you serious? 5.5 years nearly 4000 KIA. We have probably killed 10 times that. How is that not a willingness to fight? Afghanistan, heck the other day NATO forces killed 200 taliban. No sir, and speaking from the stand point of ex military who has spent lots of time around active duty people. (keep in mind ive been to Iraq 3 times. twice as a civilian) Those boys love a good fight.

your right a 10:1 kill ratio isn't a war, it's an ass kicking. World War 2 lost us way more than 4000.

[DogOnPorch]

Huge advantage in Afghanistan? We have under 3,000 troops there. The Americans and others about 20,000 total. Not all of those are Combat Troops, of course. This vs an unknown amount of 'Taliban' enemies...but you can bet the numbers run into the 100s of thousands. Home turf advantage, afterall. I bet you'd feel a little 'disadvantaged' if you were the poor bast*rds manning the forward outposts. Thank goodness for 'fire for effect'.

-------------------------------------------

Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head.

---Euripides

Edited September 5, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[myata]

Huge advantage in Afghanistan? We have under 3,000 troops there. The Americans and others about 20,000 total.

Check your numbers (on this very site, or elsewhere), and report the result.

This vs an unknown amount of 'Taliban' enemies...but you can bet the numbers run into the 100s of thousands. Home turf advantage, afterall. I bet you'd feel a little 'disadvantaged' if you were the poor bast*rds manning the forward outposts.

OK if we finally admit that we're actually fighting a proxy war there, the numbers advantage becomes questionnable indeed. Although we're supposed to have those 100,000 of local army, police, security services, militia, etc, as allies, plus unknown ,000 (but no less armed for that) mercenaries (oops - private security contractors). Which still leaves absolute technical advantage vs will and determination to fight. So far, final victory is nowhere in sight, but in a few years we (hopefully) will know which way it turns out.

No, not Afghanistan. When, what? And could that be the reason why we're, so to say, very careful about picking our opposition? Or, should it be attributed entirely to our peaceful and democratic nature?

[PoliticalCitizen]

We have probably killed 10 times that.

Guys, if we're in for the kills why don't just nuke the hell out of them? Level all American enemies, wait for the radiation to dissipate and then re-populate with peace-loving tribes (Jews, for example ).

But weren't we looking for Osama in Afghanistan (any luck with that?) and WMD in Iraq?

Or no, wait, we went in to remove the EVIL Taliban and EVIL Dictator Hussein and install GOOD Democracy.

Well, 2 countries down, around 150 or so more to go...

Or is it?