PoliticalCitizen Posted September 1, 2008 Report Posted September 1, 2008 Yea, Russia was a big hit in Afghanistan compared to the Americans/NATO...yessir! It could have been if not for the mujahedeen sponsored by US... Osama, anyone? Quote You are what you do.
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 1, 2008 Report Posted September 1, 2008 It could have been if not for the mujahedeen sponsored by US... Osama, anyone? Aw shucks...thwarted by those pesky Amerikanskis again....poor hapless Russia. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
AngusThermopyle Posted September 1, 2008 Report Posted September 1, 2008 Just because NATO weapons are more expensive doesn't mean they're always better. Well...it actually does mean pretty much that. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
DogOnPorch Posted September 1, 2008 Report Posted September 1, 2008 Well...it actually does mean pretty much that. Two tanks square off. One a T-90 and the other an M1A Abrams. Which do you want to be stuck in (rhetorical)? ----------------------------------------- The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. ---Mikhail Bakunin Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
wulf42 Posted September 1, 2008 Author Report Posted September 1, 2008 Actually Nato does have the better weapon systems...but this really wouldn t matter because once Nato started defeating Russia Conventionally ....Russia would turn very quickly to its Nuclear Arsenal forcing Nato to do the same.................i used to shake my head when i heard people say a few years back "Russia is broke and no longer a threat"......they still had/have the largest Nuclear Arsenal on the planet broke or not...i would say that makes them a threat!................Unfortunately becauce of this reason Nato is extremely limited to what it can do to protect Nations like Georgia....i imagine this was a major reason for Nato not allowing Georgia membership in the past its simply to risky and the world just isn t prepared to go to ww3 over former Soviet block countries.....Nato would have been obligated to Defend Georgia in the recent row if they belonged to Nato....scarey stuff really! Quote
PoliticalCitizen Posted September 1, 2008 Report Posted September 1, 2008 Well...it actually does mean pretty much that. It's hard to prove this point without an actual battle... I hope they never go head-to-head as in NATO vs. Russia - but it could happen "by proxy"... Quote You are what you do.
PoliticalCitizen Posted September 1, 2008 Report Posted September 1, 2008 Two tanks square off. One a T-90 and the other an M1A Abrams. Which do you want to be stuck in (rhetorical)? Here's a video (in Russian) that claims T90 is same or better than an Abrams M1 in all regards except the sattellite uplink: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/592986/m1_abrams_vs_t90/ This is WITHOUT the use of depleted uranium in the body armor (T90 uses "active" defence") or shells (T90's shells use wolfram). This video shows a Leopard 2 (excellent machine) vs. a T90: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE0WSEcny0A But to answer your question (rhetoric), I'd like to watch them square off on TV Quote You are what you do.
PoliticalCitizen Posted September 1, 2008 Report Posted September 1, 2008 Actually Nato does have the better weapon systems...but this really wouldn t matter because once Nato started defeating Russia Conventionally ....Russia would turn very quickly to its Nuclear Arsenal forcing Nato to do the same.................i used to shake my head when i heard people say a few years back "Russia is broke and no longer a threat"......they still had/have the largest Nuclear Arsenal on the planet broke or not...i would say that makes them a threat!................Unfortunately becauce of this reason Nato is extremely limited to what it can do to protect Nations like Georgia....i imagine this was a major reason for Nato not allowing Georgia membership in the past its simply to risky and the world just isn t prepared to go to ww3 over former Soviet block countries.....Nato would have been obligated to Defend Georgia in the recent row if they belonged to Nato....scarey stuff really! It is a dangerous way of thinking... Saakashvili thought he has better weapons and his army has a better training when he planned to take the 2 regions by "blitzkrieg" - and see what happened... The "Supremacy Complex" can lead to nothing good... What is undeniable is that US has far more allies (NATO) and far more money than any other country. Quote You are what you do.
eyeball Posted September 1, 2008 Report Posted September 1, 2008 Actually Nato does have the better weapon systems...but this really wouldn t matter because once Nato started defeating Russia Conventionally ....Russia would turn very quickly to its Nuclear Arsenal forcing Nato to do the same.................i used to shake my head when i heard people say a few years back "Russia is broke and no longer a threat"......they still had/have the largest Nuclear Arsenal on the planet broke or not...i would say that makes them a threat!................ Don't these weapons have shelf lives after which they simply don't work like 25 - 30 years or so? I suppose there could be a shelf-life gap to be worried about in Russia/Europe, and Russia could get some notion to use theirs while they still can but this seems too suicidal so it should be a short-term worry at worst. I suspect they do love their children too. As the world runs down its stock of natural resources I'd be more worried about the rise of oligarchism and a co-dominium agreement between the most powerful elements of the three super-powers and their associated blocs. Their governments, military-industrial complexes and corporate and political organizations. They'll have to just so they can quell the revolutions and rebellions bubbling up around the concentration of economic opportunity and wealth into fewer and fewer hands everywhere around the world. The real struggle in a world of beggars and choosers is between the rulers and the ruled. The old east-west struggles have largely been won. Capitalism and self-interest are on the acsendancy everywhere and Russian and Chinese oligarchs are getting richer faster than anyone else on the planet. A Western oligarchy is bound to develop, some would say it has, and will follow their examples out of neccessity just to keep up. Russia is a threat because its a super-power, just like the others. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
DogOnPorch Posted September 1, 2008 Report Posted September 1, 2008 (edited) Here's a video (in Russian) that claims T90 is same or better than an Abrams M1 in all regards except the sattellite uplink: The T-90s, like the majority of modern Russian tanks are basically junk. Good vs T-55s, I'd imagine. Russian command control also sucks the Big Kahoona. Even at its most dynamic period (1944-45) a single well placed Sturmgeschutz could hold up an entire tank corp as forward officers begged STAVKA for support. Top down command. Not much has changed. Russia was extremely lucky that Hitler put a stop to Hoth's and Guderian's drive on Moscow in favor of helping Army Group South take Kiev. By the time they crushed Kiev and restarted for Moscow, the rains had hit turning the ground to mud. Russia...and probably most of the rest of us, would be speaking German, otherwise. Don't these weapons have shelf lives after which they simply don't work like 25 - 30 years or so? Yes. All radioactive material is busy losing material. Eventually, depending upon half-life, it turns to a stable inert state. -------------------------------------- There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people. ---Generaloberst Heinz Guderian Edited September 1, 2008 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
PoliticalCitizen Posted September 2, 2008 Report Posted September 2, 2008 The T-90s, like the majority of modern Russian tanks are basically junk. LOL That's exactly what I'm talking about... Supremacy complex... T90s are just as junk as the M1s - not much better, not much worse... probaly quite a bit cheaper. I wonder if US will send Saakashvili a few Abrams as part of the "Humanitarian aid" - then you'll see how long they last Quote You are what you do.
blueblood Posted September 2, 2008 Report Posted September 2, 2008 Don't worry, one of them fancy pants cluster bombs and 40 T-90's would be junk in one pass. Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
AngusThermopyle Posted September 2, 2008 Report Posted September 2, 2008 I wonder if US will send Saakashvili a few Abrams as part of the "Humanitarian aid" - then you'll see how long they last Actually the Abrams has proven itself time and again in battle. Have you forgotten what the Abrams did to your t-90's back in the First Gulf War? They decimated them, the Abrams were taking them out before they even knew they were being fired on. Russia built a good tank back in WWII, since then the world hasn't just marched on past them, its raced on past. By the way, a Leopard II will also turn a T-90 into scrap without too much trouble. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
M.Dancer Posted September 2, 2008 Report Posted September 2, 2008 (edited) oops Edited September 2, 2008 by M.Dancer Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted September 2, 2008 Report Posted September 2, 2008 Actually the Abrams has proven itself time and again in battle. Have you forgotten what the Abrams did to your t-90's back in the First Gulf War? They decimated them, the Abrams were taking them out before they even knew they were being fired on. No That implies losses. Decimation means 10 Soviet for Every 1 Abrams. I think the correct term might be centimated them...or even millimated them. Or for those not latin inclined.....they completely 100% totally annihilated them.... ....oh, that's latin too Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
wulf42 Posted September 2, 2008 Author Report Posted September 2, 2008 I was looking at pics of a t-72 and the t-90.......and at least from the outside they look pretty much alike! Maybe the inside are different. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted September 3, 2008 Report Posted September 3, 2008 No That implies losses. Decimation means 10 Soviet for Every 1 Abrams. I think the correct term might be centimated them...or even millimated them.Or for those not latin inclined.....they completely 100% totally annihilated them.... ....oh, that's latin too Don't forget "eliminated". --------------------------- The eastern world, it is explodin'. Violence flarin', bullets loadin'. Your old enough to kill, but not for votin'. You don't believe in war, but what's that gun your totin'? And even the Jordan River, has bodies floatin'. ---Barry McGuire Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
PoliticalCitizen Posted September 3, 2008 Report Posted September 3, 2008 Actually the Abrams has proven itself time and again in battle. Have you forgotten what the Abrams did to your t-90's back in the First Gulf War? They decimated them, the Abrams were taking them out before they even knew they were being fired on.Russia built a good tank back in WWII, since then the world hasn't just marched on past them, its raced on past. By the way, a Leopard II will also turn a T-90 into scrap without too much trouble. Angus, I was expecting better knowledge from you as the "expert" military hardware guy. First Gulf War? Are you kidding me? Those were T-72s operated by Iraqis... The vainglorious NATO hasn't even sniffed a T90 yet... Quote You are what you do.
DogOnPorch Posted September 3, 2008 Report Posted September 3, 2008 (edited) Angus, I was expecting better knowledge from you as the "expert" military hardware guy.First Gulf War? Are you kidding me? Those were T-72s operated by Iraqis... The vainglorious NATO hasn't even sniffed a T90 yet... It'll be the same result. A-10s will blast those things into a form of Swiss cheese. As mentioned, your country's command control structure is still primitive and is unlikely to change anytime soon. Last time it changed, the Germans were knocking on Stalin's bedroom door. That's when they decided to not let NKVD units run things. It was a good first step... If it's an Arab or an Iranian at the helm...even better. Their CCS is even worse. ---------------------------------------- No quarter. No mercy for the loser. ---John Chance (John Wayne): Rio Bravo Edited September 3, 2008 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
PoliticalCitizen Posted September 3, 2008 Report Posted September 3, 2008 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...pment-intro.htm "A story illustrating DU's offensive and defensive renown involves an M1A1 "Heavy Armor" tank that had become mired in the mud. The unit (part of the 24th Infantry Division) had gone on, leaving this tank to wait for a recovery vehicle. Three T-72's appeared and attacked. The first fired from under 1,000 meters, scoring a hit with a shaped-charge (high explosive) round on the M1A1's frontal armor. The hit did no damage. The M1A1 fired a 120mm armor-piercing round that penetrated the T-72 turret, causing an explosion that blew the turret into the air. The second T-72 fired another shaped-charge round, hit the frontal armor, and did no damage. This T-72 turned to run, and took a 120mm round in the engine compartment and blew the engine into the air. The last T-72 fired a solid shot (sabot) round from 400 meters. This left a groove in the M1A1's frontal armor and bounced off. The T-72 then backed up behind a sand berm and was completely concealed from view. The M1A1 depressed its gun and put a sabot round through the berm, into the T-72, causing an explosion." That's what they are to this day in Iraq - "mired in the mud"... Heavy is not always good - the Faschists have learned it over 60 years ago... But honestly, guys - I admire your patriotism and zeal, but don't trust me - do some research on the web (American DoD invention - you trust it, right ). What you will find is that most Russian military hardware is at least compareable to NATO's and some is superior. That includes planes, tanks, subs, etc. Quote You are what you do.
PoliticalCitizen Posted September 3, 2008 Report Posted September 3, 2008 It'll be the same result. A-10s will blast those things into a form of Swiss cheese. As mentioned, your country's command control structure is still primitive and is unlikely to change anytime soon. Last time it changed, the Germans were knocking on Stalin's bedroom door. That's when they decided to not let NKVD units run things. It was a good first step...If it's an Arab or an Iranian at the helm...even better. Their CCS is even worse. A10? What kind of tank is that? About the command structure - I'm sorry, but your intelligence appears to be 60 years old... Besides, relying too much on satelites is good... when fighting poor little countries with lots of oil but no anti-satellite abilities... Quote You are what you do.
DogOnPorch Posted September 3, 2008 Report Posted September 3, 2008 (edited) A10? What kind of tank is that? About the command structure - I'm sorry, but your intelligence appears to be 60 years old... Besides, relying too much on satelites is good... when fighting poor little countries with lots of oil but no anti-satellite abilities... Nope. It's quite up to date, thanks. Command structure runs an army. Russian armies run poorly. Theirs is known as a top down system...which means Russian corprals don't call airstrikes without the request going back up through the chain of command layer by layer. NATO and Americans in particular, trust the NCOs judgement allowing them to request directly...be it for air strikes, artillery, reinforcements, etc. This is a huge advantage on the battlefield. The A-10 II Thunderbolt is every non-Allied tanker's worst possible nightmare. The Su-25 Frogfoot attempts to copy its performance, but just doesn't have all the cool gizmos the Warthog has as well as being hampered by the draconian Russian command control system. Your story certainly shows how deadly the M1A is even when it is off a track. You might want to find a better example...lol. --------------------------------------- GAU-8 Avenger... Edited September 3, 2008 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
PoliticalCitizen Posted September 3, 2008 Report Posted September 3, 2008 Nope. It's quite up to date, thanks.Command structure runs an army. Russian armies run poorly. Theirs is known as a top down system...which means Russian corprals don't call airstrikes without the request going back up through the chain of command layer by layer. NATO and Americans in particular, trust the NCOs judgement allowing them to request directly...be it for air strikes, artillery, reinforcements, etc. This is a huge advantage on the battlefield. I think you're right - that explains the poor airstrike performance of the Russian army during the brief Georgian conflict... they should work on that The A-10 II Thunderbolt is every non-Allied tanker's worst possible nightmare. The Su-25 Frogfoot attempts to copy its performance, but just doesn't have all the cool gizmos the Warthog has as well as being hampered by the draconian Russian command control system. It looks like you're right again - it looks like this particular plane doesn't have a "same or better" match... but then some of the Russian anti-aicraft do not have a match on the American side either (Tunguska). Your story certainly shows how deadly the M1A is even when it is off a track. You might want to find a better example...lol. I wasn't trying to prove that M1A is crap as I don't believe it is. I think Merkava Mk4 is better but nothing is invincible... I was trying to prove it doesn't drive well on all terrains and that it was fighting T-72s, not 90s. If you just step back for a second and look at the big picture you will see that for a country that is at least 10 times poorer than US and many more times poorer than EU, with a total population of only 140 million it is remarkable that it has ITS OWN military hardware of all kinds that is compareable to NATO's. Well, of course there's Israel with only 7 million people and its own military hardware.... Quote You are what you do.
DogOnPorch Posted September 3, 2008 Report Posted September 3, 2008 (edited) Merkava is a great tank, but it is a defensive tank. Too heavy to be airlifted. It's meant to beat back large numbers of...oh...I don't know...T-90s? Russian airstikes against the tiny Georgian army was no doubt conducted using the classic Russian top down approach. You're free to provide proof that it suddenly has changed and Russian Junior officers and NCOs were free to conduct the battle as they saw fit while the generals sat back and provided them support rather than direction. I for one will be amazed. ---------------------------------------------------- Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success. ---Field Marshal Erwin Rommel Edited September 3, 2008 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
PoliticalCitizen Posted September 3, 2008 Report Posted September 3, 2008 (edited) Russian airstikes against the tiny Georgian army was no doubt conducted using the classic Russian top down approach. You're free to provide proof that it suddenly has changed and Russian Junior officers and NCOs were free to conduct the battle as they saw fit while the generals sat back and provided them support rather than direction.I for one will be amazed. I did agree with you. The army generals have admitted that the airstrikes were not timely and sometimes were off because the infantry on the ground could not call them directly as the Airforce is under a separate chain of command. They've got to get rid of Soviet "rigidity", and that goes for more than just the army... Edited September 3, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen Quote You are what you do.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.