If Mariupol falls, we could end up at war with Russia.

a reply to: infinityorder

Including their tanks...lol ahahahah . Bwahahahaha ahahahaha...

Most russian tanks I see have reactive armor, not so outdated IMHO.

As for the Irakian tanks, US were vastly superior due to their excellent night vision equipments, the Irakian were seing noting at all while the US crew were zeroing the cannon on them. Not to mention the air dominance. That's not going to be the same with the Russian. It is quite a long time since the US has fighted a war without air dominance.

Don't underestimate Russian missile technologies, as an exemple, the BUK system even if it is already quite old, was equiped with phased array radar, not bad for the time! And remember Gary Powers?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Yes their land...

Using that logic, Latvia, Belarus, East Germany, etc are also Russian land.

Would you agree with them rolling in and taking those lands back as well?

Don't forget america Britain and Canada "conquered France, so they should just divide it up as well, oh ya and Italy, ....oh hell russia US Britain and Canada should just carve up all of Europe then.

I mean we did control it one time long ago, this obviously makes it ours.... Oh wait, but Italy owned it in roman times...crap I guess it is all theirs then, and the US a tually belongs to france england and Mexico.... Oh and Alaska must still belong to russia, it was theirs once also....

God do they even think before they respond?

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: infinityorder

No you need a bunker that can room 300 million People.

Why because russia will nuke us if we don't let him act like Stalin?

Lol, america can easily kill russia too, you know MAD?

Our sub's are ghosts. 1...that is right, just 1 can end the world.

We have dozens that Russia's sorry tech can't even find.

Go ahead Putin, make our day.

That is one of the dumbest things I ever heard, like Russia is the only country with nukes.

Mine is the only country proven to have the balls to use them on people.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: infinityorder

Including their tanks...lol ahahahah . Bwahahahaha ahahahaha...

Most russian tanks I see have reactive armor, not so outdated IMHO.

As for the Irakian tanks, US were vastly superior due to their excellent night vision equipments, the Irakian were seing noting at all while the US crew were zeroing the cannon on them. Not to mention the air dominance. That's not going to be the same with the Russian. It is quite a long time since the US has fighted a war without air dominance.

Don't underestimate Russian missile technologies, as an exemple, the BUK system even if it is already quite old, was equiped with phased array radar, not bad for the time! And remember Gary Powers?

Gary powers was not in a sheath aircraft that the radars guiding the missile can't see.

Why do you thinkbthat by magic these crap Russian ranks will be magiced into being any better the next time?

BTW, reactive armor does nothing to a 120mm sabot dart... They defeat it every time.

They aren't chemical or explosive, so ceramics etc don't work, they are a kinetic impactor.

It is a giant tungsten steel dart at high velocity.

No armor protects against them.

That is why you just see a big hole where it hit and went clean through.

Sloped armor helps and has caused a few deflections in combat, but when they can't even see where it came from.....it is only 12 seconds max before another comes in...and another....and another....etc

Anyone still asking why the NAF attacked the Donetsk Airport and Debaltseve, both were agreed to become Separatists territory with Minsk 1, even the map of the Ukrainians shows Debaltseve was Separatist.

Please learn how to format a large quote. No one likes to read a wall of never ending text.

a reply to: infinityorder

Gary powers was not in a sheath aircraft that the radars guiding the missile can't see.

My point with Gary Powers is that US was thinking at the time it was vastly superior technologically with the U2.

Why do you thinkbthat by magic these crap Russian ranks will be magiced into being any better the next time?

Irakian had reactive armor? Was not aware of this.

BTW, reactive armor does nothing to a 120mm sabot dart...

And what if the Russian have them also?

Overall I agree that Russian have not the latest in hardware, but history has shown that they have the tendency to replace money with brain. Another exemple is the Shkval.

My point is that while they won't probably win against NATO, they can inflict a severe black eye!

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: infinityorder

Gary powers was not in a sheath aircraft that the radars guiding the missile can't see.

My point with Gary Powers is that US was thinking at the time it was vastly superior technologically with the U2.

Why do you thinkbthat by magic these crap Russian ranks will be magiced into being any better the next time?

Irakian had reactive armor? Was not aware of this.

BTW, reactive armor does nothing to a 120mm sabot dart...

And what if the Russian have them also?

Overall I agree that Russian have not the latest in hardware, but history has shown that they have the tendency to replace money with brain. Another exemple is the Shkval.

My point is that while they won't probably win against NATO, they can inflict a severe black eye!

The part about reactive armor was in response to you asserting Russian tanks have it, not Iraqi.

I agree NATO couldn't just walk in and win without a fight.

It is just that russia obviously has no chance...unless they serious have some super badarsed 300 vs Persia tricks up their sleeves.

It can and does happen, it is just extremely unlikely.

a reply to: PeterMcFly

My point is that while they won't probably win against NATO, they can inflict a severe black eye!

Conventionally they will not be immediately beaten no.

But they will start using tactical nukes against Air Force bases used by NATO and Aircraft carriers also, which will lead to NATO having to resort doing really long Air Strikes...if the nuclear arsenals aren`t flying towards the US and Russia also already at that time...Russia will not be beaten and it will end up all being a very horrible draw at best (but pssst, don`t tell that to Americans, they need to keep believing they can beat everyone).

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: PeterMcFly

My point is that while they won't probably win against NATO, they can inflict a severe black eye!

Conventionally they will not be immediately beaten no.

But they will start using tactical nukes against Air Force bases used by NATO and Aircraft carriers also, which will lead to NATO having to resort doing really long Air Strikes...if the nuclear arsenals aren`t flying towards the US and Russia also already at that time...Russia will not be beaten and it will end up all being a very horrible draw at best (but pssst, don`t tell that to Americans, they need to keep believing they can beat everyone).

You are quite mad.

Nobody will throw nukes around just so they can play at empire.

As soon as russia nukes one base in Europe it will be a smoldering crater, along with the rest of the world.

Yes though you are right, the world has to let Stalin 2.0...I mean Putin take other countries over or else he will nuke them, and they can't do anything about it....

Oh wait, all the rest of these countries ha e nukes too.

Your arguement( a phrase I use loosely, because it lacks any merit) is a non starter.

Any strategy that starts with "or else I will nuke you" is a failure at its start.

a reply to: infinityorder

You are quite mad.

I`m just as mad as every other military annalists you will come across..."but hey, every one is mad except me."

a reply to: infinityorder

Nobody will throw nukes around just so they can play at empire. As soon as russia nukes one base in Europe it will be a smoldering crater, along with the rest of the world.

Maybe it is not impossible that tactical nuke be used without full strategic nuke engagement. As long CONUS or Russia land not touched, just the poor proxies. I seriously doubt anyone will push the big red button so easily, after all it is written on it "suicide solution".

originally posted by: clearmind
The u.s. has no want of peace in ukraine, it doesnt fit americas track record of bomb and destabilize and give money and keep said country in turmoil, with u.s. troops running around said country for years to come.

Russia didnt start the mess in ukraine, the u.s. and the west did. The military industrial complex is running full steam ahead.

Destabilazation in ukraine only benifits the u.s.

russia has no want of peace in Ukraine, it doesn't fit their track record of invade and destabilize and keep territory, with russian troops running around said country.
Destabilization in Ukraine only benefits russia

(fixed for ya..)

a reply to: PeterMcFly

I know something Russia doesn't have.
THEY don't have the ability for a private to lead a platoon when their command gets shot off,because they have to wait for orders.They can't handle disorder OUTSIDE their protocols and manuals where as American forces always improvise in order to win.WE DON'T have a choice as our political leadership keeps devising new ways to impeede our ability to fight.
I know Russia doesn't field advanced medical field care with their forward units because they can't afford to.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Russian officers are at the front unlike Western ones. The Germans in WW2 did the same.

So yeah, Western forces need to be resourceful when the command doesn`t know what goes on on the battlefield.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

NOW tell our listening AUDIENCE what happens to your troops without overseers.
HELL ,air drop Vodka and they 'll sell us their gear.
Your troops still advance by firing like they were in the GREAT patriotic WAR?
Shooting from the hip?
WORKED out REAL good for the Germans too.
Servants,caste societies,CONSCRIPTS,they ALL lack conviction.
THE KGB is dead...you should have let it STAY that way.
Instead of trying to revive the RODINA with a substandard force.

a reply to: TinfoilTP
Yep. That pretty much sums it up. The clueless American public elected a gutless shallow "community organizer," then bled itself even more dry in overlapping foreign wars. This created the perfect political moment for the Russian Bear to snatch up some real estate. but as long as Putin does not miscalculate and does not push too far, he knows he can expand Russia's defacto territory and not touch off a major war involving nukes doing so.

But, then again, blood thirsty land hungry godless tyrants always seem to end up miscalculating things...

NATO wants all member countries to contribute more with at least 2% GDP spent on defence

America pays about 3/4 of the NATO bill with France,Germany and the UK paying the majority of the rest

They were pushing member states to pay more last year and upgrade new military equipment

NATO are asking for more money while pushing out the Russian threat to the media all the time

That's what NATO does just like in Georgia it trained and limited supplied the governments army who in return decided they wanted to do some ethnic cleansing

I guess ethnic cleansing is an unwritten part of becoming a NATO member as the Ukraine government is proving

NATO doesn't care about its new territories there just a buffer zone to keep any potential troops out of their country while war will ravage the terrain and population of these countries

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Russian officers are at the front unlike Western ones. The Germans in WW2 did the same.

So yeah, Western forces need to be resourceful when the command doesn`t know what goes on on the battlefield.

You quite clearly have no experience with western military forces do you?

a reply to: sg1642

Are Western commanding officers always at the front like Russian (and WW2 Germans) do/did ?