It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
That's the problem. They don't do anywhere near as much as Americans do. The 8,000 British troops in Iraq weren't used in the most important operations. They weren't given the most dangerous towns to occupy.
The British had numerical, and technological advantage all across the board. It wasn't even close. Argentina had no combat experience. It doesn't come close to Iraq in any way.
You know, this statement served no purpose. It basically just agreed with my statement. American soldiers practice, and get more of the real thing than anyone else.
Russian AWAC's and missiles are inferior to America's, so who cares?
Tanks are modern day cavalry.
If you're an idiot who accepts what they read in a text book at school, yea. The Germans used a particular attack style. If you don't know that, you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.
The British only used 28,000 men on the ground in the Falklands. That was a long time ago, as well. It was a small operation in comparison to Iraq. The British weren't going up against a massive force of tanks, artillery, and SAM's.
As I said, we can put them through more exercises, and simulations than anyone else. They also see actual combat more than anyone else.
Well trained at a single aspect of warfare. Americans train in every environment imaginable. We have the luxury of having pretty much everything in our nation geographically. Finland couldn't stop America becauase they're good in the mountains.
No army conducting a military operation could stay within the UN's laws. They could be stretched to fit just about anything.
I doubt they make them better than anyone. And while it's not simple, it's also nowhere near as complicated as making something like the Raptor.
Originally posted by Starwars51
Originally posted by Mishka
Any proof of that? I see way too many people posting "oh, we have secret weapons... oh, we DO have the best millitary" but with no proof. I strongly believe that Russia has the best technology in the world. Russian space shuttles can lift the most weight into outer space. Helicopters and planes beat yours.... And they have a rocket that reaches the US with the US anti-missle system being only 28% I think, efective against it. Sending you 5 or 6 will be sure to shut you up.. Russia's technology is the only thing holding you're country at bay from trying to conquer the word. China on the other hand, has the Manpower. In the case of the war, China is sure to stup the US. the US does not have too many weapons superior to China (who's weapons are mostly of Soviet decent), and their manpower is extraordinary, so that should be enough to stop you once more.
I don't think that the question itsself is adequate. There is no way to test, there is no reasonable facts to be put forward. There are no tactics to base the plans on. This thread and most like it will turn into a pointless opinionated game of ping pong very soon, if not already.
Interesting point about the US Ballistic missile defense system. Fortunately the US has missiles that are 100% guranteed to defeat the non-existant Russian national ballistic missile defense system.
People don't realize that conflicts are not fought in message boards or on spec sheets. You can have assets that on paper have impressive capabilities, but if you (like Russia) can't support, deploy, purchase in signifigant numbers, or train operators effectively you might as well not have that system. On paper, some system from the rest of the world appear to be better than similar US systems (for example Russia has a few copies of larger cargo planes), but no one can compare with the US's ability to utilize the available systems to achieve their goals.
Originally posted by Starwars51
Delivwasp, you keep mentioning the superior training of the UK based on the Falkland conflict.
Is it that suprising that a major European power using good (for the time) multi-role fighters were able to at least supress a 3rd world country using outdated French aircraft? They did after all shoot down 2 Mirage IIIE's without loosing an aircraft...
Or did other UK victories impress you, such as sinking an Argentinian vessle (using WWII torpedoes, the vessel itself was a survivor of Pearl Harbor). Or the Royal Marines moderate success using US made amphibious landing craft? Or that the once great royal navy was able to survive a conflict with a 3rd world country while loosing only 5 ships, including an aircraft carrier?
I think assualting alfaw was important.
It was pure US need to take bagdad, they wanted to take it to show "yeah we took bagdad!"
The mirages should have destroyed our sea harriers.
Also it was down to the pilots skill not the hardware.
The argentinains had french exorcet missiles , a good missile.
They had more troops i believe.
Yeah, which sometimes isnt a good thing
You had the advantage nothing like the falklands.
Tanks are diffrent at the time tanks where dodgy.
Cavalry can go anywhere practically, tanks cant.
So now you think schools lie to you, gees do you ever trust ANYONE!
The germans used a type of attack AKA they derived it off that one style.
Yeah but against who?
You can put them through ones in certain areas, i mean the finnish can put people through arctic warfare more than anyone else.
They could if they where on the defensive.
They stopped the russians.
A european task force could anihalte any US task force.
They managed fine in the falklands, i dont think shooting an unarmed child through the head with a pistol is "streching" the rules.
No, but the raptor wont win a war for you
That is major war we took in and shows how well we put it to good use , and the lessons we learned
Um firstly there where two carriers in the falklands, both sailed home.
Hell one i have pictures of only 6 months old still in service, the other was selt to india.
The RN lost 2 ships, the third ship was town out and sunk after the war but did not sink during the conlfict and was sunk by the RN
The war cost the UK 255 men, six ships (10 others were very badly damaged), thirty-four aircraft, and more than 1.6 billion pounds, but the campaign was considered a great victory for the United Kingdom.
I completely agree, although. Economically, and I'm glad to inform you all of this, the US is going to crumble. We have seen numerous shifts of countries' putting their forign investments into the Euro dollars. China has announced that they won't do such thing, but that shal meerely slow down the whole process.
So, concernning this issue, in the end America will be in a worse off position that Russia, with the same problem, yet no new designs on paper.
Russia does make its designs. Russia has numeroud top secret bases on its area, with numerous top secret projects in them...
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I won't justify this statement with a response...
Argentina had just 10,000 troops defending the Falklands, with about another 10,000 making up their air and naval power. The British had 28,000 men. There wasn't even a comparison.
And Argentina didn't have anywhere near enough Mirages, or training, or experience, or anything else to compete with the British. You guys still suffered 230 casualties. That's about the number America suffered in the Gulf War against a massive Iraqi army.
It's not a good thing to get combat experience, and more practice?
The Iraqis had more tanks. They had more men. In the Falklands, the British had more men and more weapons.
Tanks of WW2 were reliable, especially the ones the German's had. They fought in the deserts and harsh winters of Russia.
None of this has anything to do with the tactics, anyway. Germany using common sense and applying their tanks properly was the point. It wasn't anything original.
I didn't say books lied, I said they were vague. They didn't explain the military tactics actually used. I just know that my text books always said the same thing you were.
The Germans didn't just simply use speed. That's not the main point of the Blitzkrieg.
Who cares who you've fought against when those you're fighting have never fought against anyone?
They stopped a poorly equipped, and poorly led Russian army.
No one complained about the British in the Falklands because they were viewed as the good guys. The Israelis are hated world over. The BBC prints a story on the Israeli military operations, its titled scores of Palestinians killed, and ignores that the Israelis are responding to somethign like a school bus being shot at.
A good infantry weapon won't do it, either.
The Falklands won't be remembered half a century from now. It wasn't really major. The British had an overwhelming advantage.
The RN lost 6 ships:
You complain we do no work and now you think we are uselss?
Overwhelming, and they had the advantage of defending.
Uhh they did, they blew up two ships!
Put it this way they might have not been the best but if they had sunk the carrier we would have lost the war.
Not good to be involved in wars constantly.
Has a demoraliseing effect.
The iraqis had outdated tanks, they had out dated weapons.
Yeah and look how many where ruined in deserts and harsh winters of russia.
They way they used it and germany also invented storm troopers.
They have invented ways of adapting to any enemy.
What ,that the germans made a tactic by editing another tacitc
It's no use fighting someone in mountains then fighting in the city, the tactics and mindset are totaly diffrent
They stopped an overwhelming force.
No the story printed was of a young girl being shot then the officer walking over removeing his pistol and shooting the girl in the head. Tell me what exsactly is that defending?????
It will, the raptor can only hit targets it can see and can be shot down.
A rifle cant be shot down.
The british showed they could still fight a war far from home.
It will be remembered, we will remember them.
No four where sunk. I can get a tape of one member of the former crew of one of those ships quite easily.
Two where RFA ships which are not part of the RN.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Well, my words are being twisted, but yea, that's basically the point.
The Iraqis were defending, as well.
That's not making them look good, just you look bad.
Going out and winning wars is demoralizing...?
They were using the same weapons as the Russians.
Usually when you make a statement you have some proof to back it up. Well, a logical person does. You never back up anything you say.
Its complex suspension wheels system, designed to carry its heavy weight, could get stuck with stones and even with mud, a severe problem for a tank. This was particularly severe in the russian winter, where frozen mud totally immobilized Tigers during the night, making them sitting ducks in the morning, when the russians attacked. It also had two sets of tracks, one for roads and one for the field and combat, an even greater complexity.
They only fought the same few nations over and over.
[/qupte]
So?
They fought the major powers of the world and actually they fought people from around the globe.
They did what good armies throughout history have done, but they didn't do it as good. They didn't do anything spectacular.
At the time the tactics where fantastic , you might not think so but they done a damm fine job.
America has fought in mountains. I guess people forget about Afghanistan.
Yeah and i suppose afghan mountains have a minus 5 degree winter?
The Russians were anything but overwhelming. That was Russia's war to win or lose.
Russia was trying to invade with a massive army compared to the finnish.
I wasn't talking about this specific story, but I have read about this one. It's hardly as simple as people like to make it. It's also the action of a single soldier.
One serving officer sets the exsample.
Yeah, we have faced stuff like this before as well.
The eyes of the world are on you , you cant be as trigger happy as you want.
A Raptor can kill hundreds of men at once.
It cannot!
It has a limited payload, now in what kind of war is it going to get over 100 kills in one sorte.
Yea, with some major help from America...
BS!
You gave one missile that was it!
Hell that asscension island in the atlantic belongs to us you just use it out of freindship!
I'll go with Wikipedia which says 6 ships were lost.
I'll go with the names of the ships losr
I think the RN and the RFA know a bit more than Wikipedia .
[edit on 9-1-2005 by devilwasp]
Iraqi's didnt have exercet missiles from mirages based outside the conflict zone.
Going out and getting men shot everyday fighting in a country no ones heard of or cared about fighting for a people that dont want your help is demoralizing.
Hell you could go win the war in iraq by carpet bombing every city, but what effects that going to have on the troops?
T-55's and T62's are not the same as the T-80
Because mabye if you did look up the war you would notice the german advance was severly hindered by the russian winter.
They fought the major powers of the world and actually they fought people from around the globe.
At the time the tactics where fantastic , you might not think so but they done a damm fine job.
Yeah and i suppose afghan mountains have a minus 5 degree winter?
Russia was trying to invade with a massive army compared to the finnish.
One serving officer sets the exsample.
Yeah, we have faced stuff like this before as well.
The eyes of the world are on you , you cant be as trigger happy as you want.
It cannot!
It has a limited payload, now in what kind of war is it going to get over 100 kills in one sorte.
BS!
You gave one missile that was it!
Hell that asscension island in the atlantic belongs to us you just use it out of freindship!
I'll go with the names of the ships losr
I think the RN and the RFA know a bit more than Wikipedia
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Iraq had advanced Russian SAM's and scuds. That's a lot more dangerous than anything Argentina had.
You know, anytime they've studied troop morale in Iraq, it's been the same as the beginning of the war, or higher. Kind of disproves your theory, doesn't it?
The Russians had a few hundred T-80's. They still relied heavily on the T-72, which the Iraqis used. And that T-80 is reallly just an improved T-72. It isn't a big step-up.
That was a lack of supplies, not tanks failing in the winter.
Your little quote talks about them getting stuck in the mud at night during a Russian winter. You know, tanks get stuck in Iraq today. And the same happens to cavalry under muddy, wet conditions. Want an example? The Hydapses. Monsoon rains kept Alexander's cavalry out of much of the battle.
The Germans fought Russians, French, and British. None of them were military super powers. There wasn't much of a rival for the Germans. Nothing they did was really new.
I never said they didn't work, just that they weren't so original. The Germans weren't brilliant to simply use tanks effectively.
The mountains of Afghanistan get extremely cold.
They were poorly trained, poorly equipped, and had no real leadership.
While you live in a fantasy world of rhetoric, I'll take reality.
Attacking a mass of enemy troops? A bomb gives off kind of a big explosion, and can kill anything within a large range. A massed army would be extremely vulnerable.
That island was under our control at the time. Those missiles were a big reason for beating those Mirages. We gave intelligence. We may have even given an aircraft carrier.
The RFA does know more, but you don't.
Lets see...
SAM, takes out 1 jet = 1 man possibly dead or MIA. Bad
Exocet missile , takes out 1 ship= 200+ dead or MIA.
You do the maths.
That is because the troops believe in the war on terror because of 9/11 , how do you think the morale generally before 9/11? Bad, they had been fighting everyone for no reason.
The iraqi's T-72's had to be hand cranked.
They didnt have sights on them ethier.
Much bigger diffrence than the T-80 and the russian T-72.
The lack of supplies was due to the winter, trucks failed planes failed troops where too cold.
Not to the same exstent.
You dont see the 7th cav haveing to stop to help 4 or 5 tanks out of the mud.
Uh let me see, austrialians, indians,americans (only briefly.) and many from commonwealth countries.
Oh BTW during WW1 the RN was the largest and strongest fleet in the world.
Nothing could beat them.
At the time tanks where new, they thought up new ways to use them.
May seem "simple" to you now after decades of research and decades of battle testing but then it was revolutionary
So?
The army was larger and had technological superiority over the defenders.
Your realitly is not the same as mine, you can live there.
What you believe is true is true to you.
IN WHAT WAR SITUATION???
Heres a clue,with every modern army there are SAM's there are anti air defenses.
Your precios little plane would be destroyed.
A raptor costs millions, and millions more to keep operational.
A rifle costs little, little to run, little to keep it operational.
No you gave no such carrier.
Ah, misread, you did own the island but that was it.
I want proof of intel being supplied since the US said it had a non intereferance policy in the conflict.
Really?
Dont think so, the RFA is a civilain organisation that supplies the RN and is run by civilian crews nothing more.
No RN crews just civi crews.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The Commonwealth countries had no real military strength, and didn't do much fighting against Germans.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
You can keep the ignorant view all you want. It doesn't matter much. Iraq had the same Exocet missiles.
The morale was good before 9/11.
Once again, you haven't proven this statement anytime you've said it.
The lack of supplies was due to Russians disrupting German supply lines. The Germans were cold because they didn't bring any supplies for winter.
Yeah and the fact their tanks where not designed for that kind of climate.
The Fact that germans didnt bring any good coats is a point.
Cavalry couldn't be used at all, while only a few tanks get stuck.
Depends.
A river can stop tanks just like cavalry, a forest can stop cavalry and tanks.
The Commonwealth countries had no real military strength, and didn't do much fighting against Germans.
As the man downstairs says!
Btw the common wealth countrys include india which is considered a very strong power and always has been.
By WW2 tanks weren't all that new, and the Germans weren't the only ones with the idea. They also had a few chances to test out their tactics before WW2.
Yeah battle testing and reinventing ideas.
The tanks then where new by military tech standards.
The tech for some parts of the raptor is over 15 years old but yet the jet is "new".
There was no technological superiority. And an army with no leadership is as good as done, anyway.
If they wasnt any real leader ship then why did they take over the area for a short time?
It's true to me, world leaders, and those actually fighting our wars.
So you think, so you think.
Everyone is diffrent and unless you think everyone shares your views and you are always correct then your statement is an arogant one.
I don't care to argue on the effectiveness of SAM's again. I already really won that.
I think its called a stalemate since we could provide no proof showing where the best sams went up against the best planes.
My scenario was during a ground war. No one goes to fight a ground war with an enemy that still has strong air defenses remaining.
I seem to think you see air as the key to victory yes no?
Air is one area, you could have hundreds if not thousands of airplanes but no ground troops and lose the war.
Remember even the best planes can be shot down, if not they wouldnt equip them with chaff.
In your "scenario" i am guessing that it was a great WW1 style infantry assault...only way i see it possible for one plane to kill hundreds.
Everything I said was in the Wikipedia article I already posted.
May i point out one thing to you , "Ascension Island, a UK possession, was on lease to the Americans and the British needed to resume its use as a relay point and air base."
From your article.
The US gave one missile type.
The US did supply intel it seems but one thing "There were also rumours" is the main part infront of the aircraft bit.
Just rumors nothing more.
Yea, but that doesn't mean you're right. You're information hasn't been backed up by anything.
5 RN ships lost.
1 RFA ship the RFA SIR GALAHAD was damaged and then sunk after the war.
The container ship ATLANTIC CONVEYOR was damaged and sunk under tow, though not an actual combat ship.
Originally posted by Mishka
Originally posted by BJonesLHS
Originally posted by Starwars51
Okay, so this board seems to be full of people who are certain that both of these countries are superior to the US military - so the logical next question is, which would prevail?
They share a massive border, so extensive ground combat is likely - as well as some sort of nuclear exchange.
Do you think other countries would intervene on one side or another?
Who (given the ever deteriorating state of Russia's convential forces) has the best ground/air forces?
Please, share your thoughts....
Okay, first of all, I'm going to disagree with your first statement that you have made. Yeah, people believe that these two countries are superior to the United States Military, but they are not! The United States has the best military, technology, and weaponry than any other country on this Earth as far as our intelligence can view. The only reason China may be in one's head is because of the massive number of citizens China has. Today, China has approximately 380,000,000 available military manpower. That is approximately 100,000,000 more than the United States' overall population and about 306,000,000 more than the United States' military manpower. However, the United States will not risk the lives of millions of troops in such of a massive army war with China if we do have war with them. Most of all, we will be using missiles and top secret weaponry to fight the Chinese. You are talking about nuclear missiles, rockets, sub-launched cruise missiles, air-launched cruise missiles, possibly biological weapons, and our top secret weaponry will come to use duirng this time.
According to Russia, if you have forgotten, the Soviet Union has broken up in the early 90's and it's been over 10 years that Russia has been a sitting-duck. They still remain with a minute number of power, but they aren't as much as a superpower as they were before the Soviet Union crumbled. Today, Russia has approximately 40,000,000 available military manpower. And knowing Russia, they may have a different tactic in pursuing the Chinese. Since they are close in border, the Chinese will end up storming onto the Russian territory and fighting. So they would have no choice, but fight using troops. In regards to the Russian troops, they will get completely whiped out if they decided to enter the Chinese territory of vice versa. But more than likely, there will be troops fighting a war between Russia and China. As I have said early in this post, the United States will take a different approach in a war like that. Again, they the U.S. will use missiles and firepower more than they would be risking the lives of military troops.
In this case, there would be several of countries to intervene and support the the Russians. But again, you are talking about competing against a massive amount of soldiers if you have a ground war with the Chinese.
According to the two nations Russia and China, in regards to ground forces, I have already mentioned that China is approsimately 380 million strong in ground forces. That includes their Army, Navy, and airpower. In regards to airpower, the Russians have a fairly strong airforce, but again, the Soviet Union broke up over ten years ago and it caused Russia to get weak and not as strong as they used to be in the past. But, knowing the size of the Chinese military, they may also out-number Russia's airforce as well. But again, Russia cannot stand a chance against China's army since they share a massive border. But in regards to the United States who is the strongest superpower on Earth will take a different approach to fighting China and that will be using weapons of mass destruction.
Any proof of that? I see way too many people posting "oh, we have secret weapons... oh, we DO have the best millitary" but with no proof. I strongly believe that Russia has the best technology in the world. Russian space shuttles can lift the most weight into outer space. Helicopters and planes beat yours.... And they have a rocket that reaches the US with the US anti-missle system being only 28% I think, efective against it. Sending you 5 or 6 will be sure to shut you up.. Russia's technology is the only thing holding you're country at bay from trying to conquer the word. China on the other hand, has the Manpower. In the case of the war, China is sure to stup the US. the US does not have too many weapons superior to China (who's weapons are mostly of Soviet decent), and their manpower is extraordinary, so that should be enough to stop you once more.
I don't think that the question itsself is adequate. There is no way to test, there is no reasonable facts to be put forward. There are no tactics to base the plans on. This thread and most like it will turn into a pointless opinionated game of ping pong very soon, if not already.
Originally posted by devilwasp
Originally posted by BJonesLHS
Devilwasp, you obviously don't know the United States of America if you're asking these questions. And you haven't read the history of thst great nation either!
Yeah great nation, last time i checked you held the worlds worst FF record.
What a history.
Yes to all of the above. You should know that. What in your right mind would you make such a dubious opinion in regards to the United States having the best forces, weaponry, and technology than any other force in the world. That includes Russia, China, Britain, France and all of the rest of what you can name off the top of your little head. There is nobody on this Earth who can out-rank and have superior equipment than the United States. If you think I'm wrong then tell me who is stronger, why, and how!
Ok, the US navy has ALWAYS been beaten by the russians in antiship missiles FACT.
Germany has up till ww2 had the best trained army in the world, now we've taken thier spot due to thier low army number but if they beat us then we wouldnt be down heartned.
Germany has always been able to make superior guns to every one in the world.
Russian's have always been undertrained but after WW2 they had the best field rifles.: AK series.
The gurkhas have always been one of the best if not the best trained troops in the world, train the SAS stuff and their own stuff.
Originally posted by BJonesLHS
Devilwasp, know before you make yourself look like an idiot, for your informaiton, the Swedish provided many countries weapons during WW2. They played a neutral role and provided coutnries with weapons. Germany made their own weapons, sure...but the Swedish made a bigger profit with selling weapons.
What do you mean the Russians have beaten the US in naval weapnory? That doesn't make any sense. That's bull. There is no country that out-ranks the United States' technology in any military field. I don't care what you say. And especially in the Navy. Furthermore, that has never been proven. And if it was, Russia would not stand a chance in compeiting the U.S. navy. You need to rewrite your opinions, for it is backwards!
Again, get off of the past and talk about what you have in front of you. There may have been a possibilty that Russia may have been stronger than the U.S., but you need to look at today! Right now, the Russians are out of power as they used to be. They have broken up and the Soviet Union has fallen! That has caused Russia to lose power and rankings of their power. Thay cannot match the United States today!
Originally posted by devilwasp
Originally posted by BJonesLHS
Devilwasp, know before you make yourself look like an idiot, for your informaiton, the Swedish provided many countries weapons during WW2. They played a neutral role and provided coutnries with weapons. Germany made their own weapons, sure...but the Swedish made a bigger profit with selling weapons.
The point of your information is??
How would i look like an idiot for NOT saying that sweeden provided countries with tech and info?
What do you mean the Russians have beaten the US in naval weapnory? That doesn't make any sense. That's bull. There is no country that out-ranks the United States' technology in any military field. I don't care what you say. And especially in the Navy. Furthermore, that has never been proven. And if it was, Russia would not stand a chance in compeiting the U.S. navy. You need to rewrite your opinions, for it is backwards!
The US navy has always had a tech advantage over the USSR so the russians changed thier tactics from meeting them ship for ship to getting better tech in the areas the US navy wasnt the best at. Specifically anti ship missiles. The current Us navy defense is the phalanx , supposedly being replaced by metalstorm weapons (which are really cool) and point laser defesnse weapons but they might not give the US a total adantage over missiles.
The SSN-22 Sunburn missile most advanced and the best anti ship missile in the world, currently there is no defense against it since the reaction time needed would have to be less than 30 seconds and the phalanx cannon ,the US navy's main anti missile defense cannot plot a fireing solution and fire off rounds to destroy it in less than 30 seconds.
Again, get off of the past and talk about what you have in front of you. There may have been a possibilty that Russia may have been stronger than the U.S., but you need to look at today! Right now, the Russians are out of power as they used to be. They have broken up and the Soviet Union has fallen! That has caused Russia to lose power and rankings of their power. Thay cannot match the United States today!
I am saying that the russians are ahead in some fields they are no where near a match for the US , right now, but mabye after they pick themselves up they will be a match.
The past also teaches us lessons of what is to come....