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.

 

Russian military is going strong

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Man, Russia is going to the top. They got aircraft: Su-30MK, Su-37, S-37 Berkut, Mig-33, Mig-1.44, Tu-160 Blackjack, Kamov Ka-52, Mil Mi-28. They got the vehicles: Black Eagle, T-90, BTR-90, BTR-T, Tanguska, Zsu-23-4, SA-11 Gadfly. They got the guns: AN-94 Abakan, SV-98, KSVK anti-material rifle, Bizon smg, MP-444 Grach Yargin....I could go on forever with all these cool Russian military things. My point is Russia has evolved beyond the T-72, AK-47, and all the other old things many Americans think are Russia's top weapons. And, I forgot to mention the Topol-M. Anybody heard about that? This system means the end of the US anti nuclear missile system. The Topol-M can crumble even the best anti-nuke system. Russia is going strong, military wise, even though some of the systems I mentioned above Russia has in short supply such as the Black eagle, and some are mere technology demonstrators such as the S-37 Berkut. But Russia is going strong. What ya'll think? Think Russia's military is the best? Do you think Russia's military advanced? Peace out.

[edit on 7-4-2006 by Russian soldier]




posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   
1. Noone thinks Russia is only T-72s and AK47s. If anyone really believed that, then why should anyone have supported the arms race?

2. Yes, Russia is strong, it never was weak since the 2nd World War. No, Russia isnt "the best", and wont be "the best" as long as any 5 random Russian soldiers you meet wear five different uniforms.

3. You say it yourself, some of the stuff you mentioned is in short supply. In fact, many of it wouldnt make any difference in a fight - for example the dozen or so Kamovs the Russians have. Particularly considering that the strength of the Russian forces have always been the higher numbers. And since you chose to integrate the Su-47, one could also count in prototype lasers under development for the "other side", so goodbye Topol-M.

4. There is really no point in discussing this since none of the things you mention are yet unknown.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Do you have anything to say about Russia's space weapon supremacy?



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   
duh everyone knows russia is advanced but the Mig1.44 and Su 37 are technology demonstators the 37 might but heres not really any funding. I doubt the effectiveness of just ERA armor> You should still use something like chobham. Anyways the Us is changing they're guns soon. It's called the X 8



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Actually, Russian tanks have been using that style of armor longer than the west.

Do I think the Russian armed forces are the best? no, not really. But you've still got some interesting and beutiful toys in your inventory.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Seems to me Russia must make a lot of really good revenue from weapons sales, and probably re-invest into improving their technology. (all the while keeping things secet, Putiepoot (Vladimir Putin) after all was (is?) a KGB agent, they are good at suppressing information about military progress. They could be way further ahead than any of us realise, I mean, Russia must see the need to arm to protect their own interests.
With the world the way it is, energy and weapons are real good sellers!



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
When I said that alot of americans think that Russia is all AK-47s and T-72s, I meant the normal ordinary civillians. I can tell by watching american movies about Russia and asking american people. Alot of people, when I ell them I'm Russian, say, "Oh the AK-47s are cool", as if that's Russia's #1 weapon, maybe because its so widespread, that's all the comes to many people's minds when they hear the word Russia. But thanks for the honesty, man.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
who is Russia going to fight anyways?

I always questioned the hugh arms buildup going on in that country, for what purpose? Most of the people are dirt poor and conditions in the country in general are not good but they got billions for guns. Just like the Chinese and other third world wanna be empires.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I don't really know about Russian space weapons, but I did hear rumors that they're thinking about or maybe already building space lasers. I don't really know what type or when they will be finished or if they even started
Don't be expecting space wars anytime soon. But I can tell you this: Russia's economy is recovering a lil bit at a time, and never underestimate what Russia might hit you with next.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
THe US is also planning on space based lasers and other sorts of space based things like that.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I read an article about some old Russian tanks which were left after WW2.. Think they were in a bog of some sort.. like 60 years later they were dug up and started up fine and the guns still worked.

Same as the AK47.. I think Russians should be proud that such a beautiful and reliable weapon is still used world wide. I got told similar stories where they can be wet/ dirty yet still work perfectly.

I'll try find a link.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Please think in terms of the ‘past’.

Liberty Exposure - Weather/Environmental Tampering
with emphasis on EMP Technology
www.alphalink.com.au...

Horrifying US Secret Weapon Unleashed In Baghdad
www.rense.com...

Aerial Mind-Control-The Threat to Civil Liberties
www.raven1.net...

Military Use of Silent Sound www.raven1.net...

Looks like Russian soldier needs to go to military school!



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>


They sank in the marsh without crews and any damages while attempting to break through the defense line of German troops.

The tanks are in good condition, particularly T-34/85 (year of prod. 1944). After having changed oil and some parts of the starter and refueling, three days after its lifting and cleaning from clay and peat, we were able to start the engine and to drive the tank.

... During extraction of tanks it was necessary to discharge machine guns, the cannons (there were shells in both), to extract ammunition, grenades, a lot of cartridges, etc. All mechanisms of machine guns and cannons worked properly, the extraction of cartridges and shells was not difficulty at all.

Later several bursts of machine-gun fire were made using ammunition taken from the same tanks .


Website

Russian craftmanship to a tee!!



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   
no matter what the masses think now

RUSSIA still has the means to review its "super power status" at any given time

its just a matter of really wanting to do so

the reason they ever lost their "status" in the first place was because of their "poor choice of politics"
and mismanagement

those who think RUSSIA is a push over

go ask the GERMAN's and NAPOLEAN what happen when they made that same mistake



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   
You don't tell (hardcore) Russians that the military sucks. I've been to Russia, I have friends there, we talked about American Airforce vs. Russian. They got very very very passionate.

(In Russian): "OUR PLANES WILL ABSOLUTELY DESTROY ALL OPPOSING PLANES! WHILE ON THE LANDING STRIP!"

I learned to not talk about such things, because you just wont win, because then they start demonstrating how the planes can fire and spin in freefall...with their bodies off of couches and such. Sadly this specific person was near the age of 22.

I'm Russian and take no offense to any military comments, merely because I choose to live in the eyes of love rather than fear.

But since I can't leave without making America look good, unless I want to get flamed as usual, Last last summer at a Russian airshow a plane flew into the crowd. A lot of people died
.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAWNMOWERMAN
no matter what the masses think now

RUSSIA still has the means to review its "super power status" at any given time

its just a matter of really wanting to do so

the reason they ever lost their "status" in the first place was because of their "poor choice of politics"
and mismanagement

those who think RUSSIA is a push over

go ask the GERMAN's and NAPOLEAN what happen when they made that same mistake


Russia's economy is far too poor right now. They have a hard enough time feeding their people, let alone maintaining a strong military. When they were a "superpower," their military was only about half as strong as it was reputed to be. They even talk about how American tankers used to fear the mighty reputation the Russian tank fleet had (thousands upon thousands of tanks with elite crews), only now to find out that half those tanks were in poor operating condition and didn't even work right.

And I really don't get your examples using Germany and Napoleon. Those countries marched into Russia and had to go through the freezing Russian cold and the mud and all that, which was very troublesome. Russia was not a superpower at this time, they lost who knows how many millions fighting the Germans when they did this. The capital of Russia at the time even went into a panic when the Germans began closing in.

Germany probably would have taken Russia, except they were also fighting half of Europe and the United States at the time as well. It isn't as if Germany JUST attacked Russia and that was it, and got their butts kicked. Germany was fighting other fronts as well, and it took a LOT of Russian deaths to stop the Germans even so. That only shows the professionalism and strength the German military had at the time.

Napoleon, now that guy, he marched into Russia and lost not from Russian military might, but because they fled and pillaged every area they fled from, so that his army essentially starved.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by WheelsRCool

Russia's economy is far too poor right now. They have a hard enough time feeding their people, let alone maintaining a strong military.


Do you mean to say the Russian government gives money to people? My grandma in Russia worked for 50 years, her pension is around 15 dollars. Not because Russia doesn't have money, it does, a lot more than America does infact. Just look at the houses (yes, houses, plural) that Russian politicans have, they have atleast 3-4 houses.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   
ALL true points WheelsRCool

OK maybe my statement about being a "super power" made have been "over stated" (it was late)


but if they could ever figure out their "economic status" then the potential is there.

and my point about GERMAN and NAPOLEAN was simple really

both army were highly superior "on paper" and should have easily conquered and taken RUSSIA but yet they both made the same mistake

the "TANGIBLES OF WAR" no matter how for superior you may be, YOU must take in all the tangibles and aspects of warfare - examples over extending your army and the "weather" as you mention
played a key part in both campaigns

another example is the US ongoing conflict in IRAQ now, believe it or not but the military campaign in IRAQ was a success but yet the military planners did not taken in account the "unseen aspects" that may occur after such a campaign nor have a "back up" or "exit strategy"

both the GERMANs and NAPOLEAN viewed the RUSSIANs as being "weak opponents" which lacked the necessary skills to conduct a "true battleplan" and greatly under estimated their ability to command and "seize the initiative"

my point in short was that "over confidence" and "arrogance" tends to hurt



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAWNMOWERMAN
my point in short was that "over confidence" and "arrogance" tends to hurt


My teacher called me arrogant infront of many, Ironically I used Napoleon and Hitler as evidence that arrogance is power.

Napoleon was arrogant, won battles.
Hitler was arrogant, took over half of Europe in two weeks.

Sure they both lost in the end, and to Russia, but that's all due to other military mistakes, such as turning on Russia


Oh, and your statment contains a paradox/fallacy. Russia was more arrogant than any of them. Remember Stalingrad? Remember the battles in Moscow? Remember rail-ways? Remember Ivan the Terrible?! Remember Stalin?

Most arrogant history in history.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   


we all have are views

well taken

[edit on 13-4-2006 by LAWNMOWERMAN]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join