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.

 

Red army to receive 250 new types of weaponry in 2006

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
As for this...


Originally posted by prelude
Russians were superior to the Germans in strategy in many ways that's why they won


No one army was superior in strategy in many ways to any other in World War 2. Different strategies were effective at different times. After the Allied landings at D-Day the Germans were no longer able to use lighting war because they didn't have air superiority. That didn't mean that western Allied tactics were better. Look at the Ardennes in 1944, the Battle of the Bulge, German tactics worked just fine then.

The Japanese advanced through Malaya, Burma and Papua New Guinea. The Brits advanced back through Burma just fine, as the Aussies did in PNG.

Japanese strategy worked pretty well in the Philippines against MacArthur. When MacArthur returned his strategy worked pretty well against the Japanese.

Without Japanese codes being broken, would Nimitz and Ray Spruance have done as well against Yamamoto and Nagumo?

The only strategy in which the US and USSR were superior to Germany was to outproduce them.

[edit on 26-6-2006 by HowlrunnerIV]




posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Overy's word is "inadequate". Yours is "completely baseless". You are wrong.


Yes i accept I was wrong..... I shouldnot have used the word "completely baseless"..i m sorry....I wrote it casually ...I never thought it is going to be that much important from your's point of view.

I will like to re-quote about the causes of German Defeat




In his prison cell at Nuremberg, Hitler's foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, wrote a brief memoir in the course of which he explored the reasons for Germany's defeat.
He picked out three factors that he thought were critical:

1 the unexpected 'power of resistance' of the Red Army;
2 the vast supply of American armaments;
3 and the success of Allied air power.

This last was Hitler's explanation too.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
ok first of all, seriously the russian military is very advanced, the T-90 and T-98 main battle tanks are very advanced and can be put in comparison with the MA1A american tanks, plus the US has 8k tanks but not all of them are MA1A, some of them are mediums, heavy, and some of them and light tanks. and even thoughthe US has 8k tanks, russia has 30k, and even though the US has lets say 10k nukes on ICBMs and missles, the russians have triple that number or so, the russians always had a much larger military than all of NATO, of course the russians were always up to par in technology but not necessarily as advanced as the west, but they focused on simple, less-expensive, easy to build tanks, aircraft, etc. they focused on numbers rather than techonlogy, and that could work. imagine 30k tanks swarming europe, along with the respective armies of the fomer eastern bloc countries, that could mount up to 40k tanks swarming Western europe, as for the nukes, tacticals can be used, but even that can be shut down. so even though you think the russian military is wak, it still has massive capability, and can still threaten the world if it wants, especially if it goes back to socialism. you see socialism can actually help russia rebuild a little, if for 5 yeasrz russia would operate with a socialist not communist ideology, it could rebuilt a little faster and give the people a little more money to spend. plus socialism can be altered to become Socialism and capitalism combined and then the russian people would really be able to grow and become wealthier, and in turn the governement woudl have more to spend and can become a world econommic power that it once was 20 years ago and a world much larger military power that it actually always was.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
ok first of all the Brits were starting to win the war in Africa only because hitler was building up and preparing for the invasion of the eastern bloc and denyed Rommel access to more tiger tanks and tanks and troops in general, that's why the brits won in tobruk in 1940. second of all, the german invasion of russia was a failure for 3 reasons: 1. the great ammount of industrial output of USSR at that time, and a great leadership in the army, etc. 2. Hitlers mistakes, strategic flaws in the german army offensive that were made by hitler himself 3. American and Western Len-lease aid was formidable yet not the sole reason and with or without, sooner or later the red army would've won even without it.

as for people who say the red army sustained massive losses to win, well if you look at the civil war, Ullyssys S. Grant General of the Union army of Tennessee, and later of the army of the potomac, and last of all Union army forces used the same strategy against the talented general Lee of the south, which was that he kept attacking the Southern army time after time after time regardless of losses until Lee surrendered. grants strategy was simple, "find your enemy, catch up to him, and fight him" regardless of losses. that wasn't totally the Russian Strategy, yet as you can see sustaining a lot of losses is not always a strategic falw, but a strategic upper-hand, of course the russians were able to take the losses, unlike the germans who lost massive numbers whilst they had no capability to replenish the army.

so anyhow Vietnam was a massive loss, compared to Afghanistan in Soviet history, as for the American revolution, it was a war won only due to French aid. Washington had to threaten to bomb Boston if the British didn't get outta boston, while a strategic win, it was onlya last resort, and not a very economicall or popular thing to do, bombing your own city, it was only a last resort. anyhow the American revolution was won for two reasons: 1. Washington leadership(20%) 2. French aid was a massive reason(50%)3. Patriotism(30%). Korea was a stalemate, and rather a loss because the Americans couldn't bring N.Korea to stabilize and come to thier side. so as you can see the Americans military record isn't absolotuly flawless, and has many many losses etc. many many others than those actually.

so if you put both armys in comparison, both armys are either equal in greatness, or russia can be greater due to it's great tradition and cultural force.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
as for your question prelude about the Chechen rebels, well first of all the chechen rebels aren't fighting against The US or UK so in there countries and western governements they call them chechen rebels not terrorists, but personally they are Chechen rebels not the general terrorist groups like Al qaeda or so. but yeah i know they do use terrorist methods etc, and that makes them actually terrorists. but it's all propaganda or just plain uncaring because the chechen rebels are only confined to russia, plus it's always been this way, any country that's westernized and has been attacked, they start saying that it hasbeen attacked by terrorist. just like in Palestine, the palestinians revolt and do bombings only because it's a last resort and because the israaelis do many other great inhumane acts in the right of the palestinians that the rest of the world other than the arabic world doesn't hear about. it's just all dumb and uneducated words.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by INc2006
ok first of all the Brits were starting to win the war in Africa only because hitler was building up and preparing for the invasion of the eastern bloc and denyed Rommel access to more tiger tanks and tanks and troops in general, that's why the brits won in tobruk in 1940.


Nothing to do with the Red Army, but perhaps you need to re-read what I posted.

The successful defence against Rommel's attack on Tobruk was carried out by soldiers of the Australian 9th Division under the command of Australian Lieutenant-General Leslie Morsehead ("Ming the Merciless") in 1941.

Tobruk fell to the Afrika Corps only after the Australians were withdrawn to defend Papua New Guinea against the advance of the South Seas Detachment.

bold mine



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by INc2006
ok first of all, seriously the russian military is very advanced, the T-90 and T-98 main battle tanks are very advanced and can be put in comparison with the MA1A american tanks, plus the US has 8k tanks but not all of them are MA1A, some of them are mediums, heavy, and some of them and light tanks. and even thoughthe US has 8k tanks, russia has 30k...they focused on simple, less-expensive, easy to build tanks, aircraft, etc. they focused on numbers rather than techonlogy, and that could work. imagine 30k tanks swarming europe, along with the respective armies of the fomer eastern bloc countries, that could mount up to 40k tanks swarming Western europe...


Yes, imagine 30,000 T72s, 64s, 55s and 34/85s swarming Western Europe.

The Cheiftans, Challengers, Leos, AMX40s and Abrams would have had a field day. Look at what Challenger, Abrams and AMX did to the T72s in Iraq.

Then look at what Challenger 2 and M1A1 did to the "Lions of Babylon" during the second test.

The only time the Russians had a hope in recent years was after the XM 70 project failed and the extremely long-in-the-tooth M60s were still awaiting their eventual replacement, the M1.

The Soviets forgot what made the T34 so superior to PzKpfw 3 and 4. It was a superior design using simplicity, ruggedness and reliability and a good gun.

T72 doesn't score on any of those categories.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by INc2006
but personally they are Chechen rebels not the general terrorist groups like Al qaeda or so.


So when a country attacks America it becomes a "general" terrorist group ...while when another group attacks a country that covers area bigger than USA Europe together they are not terrorists....merely "rebels"

Moreover for your if Al kaida is the criteria for you inorder to get the "terrorist" stamp ...then for your kind information Chechnia is one of the priorities of AlKaida in the socalled "Jehad" just make a web research and you will discover that the Chechen "rebellion" is today almost totally managed and supplied by
Al-kaida.....80% General Chechens voted to stay with Russia ...and the Vote was supervised by international observers ....so those bastards in Chechnia have noone left to support them apart from Al kaida and the countries that are not happy to see that Russia within 8 years (from 1998 )is back to power with her oil led economic miracle .

news.google.co.in...





posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 04:35 AM
link   
HowlrunnerIV
The T-72s currently used by Russian military are much more lethal than those in Iraq. Yes they are inferior to M1 or Leclerc etc. but if used correctly they can be a menace and cause serious damage to western tank units. T-80s, T-90s and even later model T-64s are formidable opponents, they may not prevail in frontal 1-on-1 engagement, but if used wisely... the "superior" western tanks may be in trouble



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 06:32 AM
link   


As for casualties inflicted on opposing armies you only hvae to look at the statistics. Hell teh Red Army lost 5 million soldiers in the first year of the war, not to mention they had 18 million wounded during the conflict - of course many were returned to duty. The Germans lost 3 million men on the Eastern Front during the entire war.


Red Army casualties in the beginning of WW2 were realy devastating, though big part of casualties came not from actual fighting but during retreat.
Alongside with Germans there were Italians, Fins, Romanians, Hungarians, some Spainish and also many Russians/Ukranians/Beloruss/Tatars who switched sides and decided to fight for Nazis cause they hated Soviet System and saw the Germans as liberators.

After 42nd Nazis vs Soviet casualties didn't differ much.

Also during beginig of war many people just didn't want to fight for Soviets they didn't appretiate it that much to die for and lots of them surrended. But when news came(not propaganda bs but folk talks) what is going on in "liberated" territories and what this "liberation" is actually about, Ivans put up the real fight.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
One huge reason for heavy soviet casualities during the early war, was the utter incompetence of the Red Army Leadership, most division and regiment commanders had no clue what they were supposed to do, nor did they have any tactical skills and thus they used Napolenic linear tactics and single line trench defences, that were simply disastrous against moder armoured tactics the Germans used.
Top Brass of the RA tried to change this after Timoshenkos Disaster in WinterWar, but they acted too late.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by prelude
80% General Chechens voted to stay with Russia ...and the Vote was supervised by international observers ...


Which international observers were they, the ones from Kazakhstan? Or the Belarus?

Chechen presidential elections 2003

BBC Correspondent


The elections we were about to witness were - according to Moscow - free and fair.


But foreign journalists are not free to move around Chechnya.

Being part of an official Kremlin excursion is the only way to get in and get around


More


In the end Akhmad Kadyrov, it turned out, had won more than 80% of the vote.

It had been a truly democratic election - well, at least that is what the string of officials said up on the podium.

Maybe they just had not heard the widespread accounts of vote rigging, intimidation and ballot stuffing.

Our tour over, it was time to go home.


Same election, different source. (this one is obviously biased, but the rules for quoteing primary sources are adhered to.)

Jamestown Foundation


Lord Frank Judd of the United Kingdom, the former Council of Europe rapporteur for Chechnya...

...Lord Judd told Chechnya Weekly that the Council of Europe does not at present plan to send official observers to Chechnya's presidential election.


Now this is free and fair, don't you think? Chechen parliamentary polls 2005

Election Q and A


Q: Who can vote?

Voters must be aged 18 and Russian citizens resident in Chechnya.

Nearly 597,000 are eligible to vote in 430 polling stations. Turnout in each constituency must be at least 25%.

Russian servicemen permanently stationed there, put at some 34,400, can also vote.


Next question?


Q: Will there be monitors?

The process is overseen by the Chechen Electoral Commission.

Russia's Central Election Commission says 10 international organisations, including the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, are sending observers.

There will also be about 1,000 Russian monitors.

EU bodies have declined to take part


Bold all mine for those who might not get it...



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Which international observers were they, the ones from Kazakhstan? Or the Belarus?

My Mother tongue is not english (and my english, specially my spellings are horrible )still as far as I know "International" includes international community including Belarus and Kazakisthan






But foreign journalists are not free to move around Chechnya.

Being part of an official Kremlin excursion is the only way to get in and get around

And who would have taken the responsiblity in case of any injury to the reporters....that's the problem with BBC if Russians havent given them such protection ...and if they were hit by the terrorists .....they would have complained of the same.


In the end Akhmad Kadyrov, it turned out, had won more than 80% of the vote.

It had been a truly democratic election - well, at least that is what the string of officials said up on the podium.

Maybe they just had not heard the widespread accounts of vote rigging, intimidation and ballot stuffing.

Our tour over, it was time to go home.


So a BBC correspondent is saying what he has "heard" and what he has been tought ...he havent given a single EVIDANCE that the elections werent "free and fair"....he havent himself seen any vote rigging,intimidation or ballot stuffing...he has just heard reumors ..and now for people like you it has become News.



Lord Frank Judd of the United Kingdom, the former Council of Europe rapporteur for Chechnya...

...Lord Judd told Chechnya Weekly that the Council of Europe does not at present plan to send official observers to Chechnya's presidential election.


That's the fault of the Council of Europe not Russia's.



Q: Who can vote?

Voters must be aged 18 and Russian citizens resident in Chechnya.


Russian servicemen permanently stationed there, put at some 34,400, can also vote.


Ofcourse since Chechnia belongs to Russia (as decided by a previous referendum )
so Chechens are "Russian Citizens resident (having thier registration ) in the republic of Chechnia"

And in your country "servicemen " are not allowed to Vote in their state of recidence ?...to which "democratic" country do you belong to?




Q: Will there be monitors?

The process is overseen by the Chechen Electoral Commission.

Russia's Central Election Commission says 10 international organisations, including the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, are sending observers.

There will also be about 1,000 Russian monitors.



So it proves that the ELections were witnessed by international observers...what's wrong with that?

And for your kind information a BBC correspondent dont fall into the catagory of OFFICIAL" International Observer".They are sent by corresponding Govts...So if you have any report from any official International Observer claiming that the Election wasnt "free and fair" be kind enough to post them ...else please dont spoil my thread


Chechen presidential elections 2003


BBC Correspondent


Before arguing with me go and checkup the diffrence between an "election" and "referendum" ...I was speaking of a referendum ...which gave Chechens right to choose wether to stay with Russia or not ....where Chechens decided to Stay with Russia ......you are quoting of Chechen elections that occured after the referendum went in favor of Russia.......... now I feel its baseless to argue with half educated people

[edit on 10-7-2006 by prelude]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   


Russia and the Chechnya Referendum

Douglas Davidson, Charge d'Affaires of U.S. Mission to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
Statement to the OSCE Permanent Council
Vienna, Austria
March 27, 2003
Released by the U.S. Mission to the OSCE
(As delivered)




"Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Government has closely followed the preparations for the conduct of the referendum on a new constitution, and we are pleased that it took place without acts of violence or terrorism.

We are also pleased that mobile ballot boxes were allowed to cross into Ingushetia to allow internally displaced persons to vote there.


Further, we have taken note today of the concerns expressed by Ambassador Strohal about some of the processes and procedures with regard to the organization and conduct of the referendum. We are certainly not in a position to comment on the accuracy of the Russian reports that the referendum received a 96 percent approval with a turnout of 79 percent of the electorate, given that of course, ODIHR itself was not in a position to fully observe the referendum"

www.state.gov...

[edit on 10-7-2006 by prelude]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   
What's all this rubbish about Chechen rebels not being terrorists...
they're terrorists and thats the end of that..



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Daedalus, they differ from your standard breed of Al qaida by the fact they are both Terrorists and Rebels (or freedom fighters, depends on your point of view) They wan't a free chechenya, they're not just blowing up Russians because they are infidel.

If they'd contained their attacks only against Russian military i'd support them, but now, i despise them because of the cowardly attacks against civilians... (and yes Russians kill civilians too, but i allready have a dislike for Russian government (not people) for other reasons)



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Heres something people can ponder over.

If you define a terrorist as someone who fights for his freedom, his family and his country how is someone defined when they sit in their armoured vehicles shooting at random people, kick peoples doors in, mid-night raids or using bombs to kill whole societies.?.

Strangly enough they are defined as the police AKA, good guys


Originally posted by Daedalus3
What's all this rubbish about Chechen rebels not being terrorists...
they're terrorists and thats the end of that..


Terrorist can apply to anyone using force

Terrorist as defined by Dictionary.com

One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.


Terrorism as defined by Dictionary.com

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


[edit on 11-7-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
Daedalus, they differ from your standard breed of Al qaida by the fact they are both Terrorists and Rebels (or freedom fighters, depends on your point of view) They wan't a free chechenya, they're not just blowing up Russians because they are infidel.

If they'd contained their attacks only against Russian military i'd support them, but now, i despise them because of the cowardly attacks against civilians... (and yes Russians kill civilians too, but i allready have a dislike for Russian government (not people) for other reasons)


Al Qaida aren't blowing up people because they are just 'infidel'. You don't see them blowing up chinese, South Americans etc etc. even though a overwhelming majority of these are not muslim, a key factor in being an 'infidel'. Al Qaida doesn't blow up people for no reason. Al Qaida want the americans and the Israelis out of the middle east.Obviously I don't support their but this categorisation of terrorists and freedom fighters is absolute balderdash. The chechens don't want freedom. They want peace. Few understand that the majority of the rebel supply influx comes from the middle east and YES western countries.It is a continuation of the afghan war which the US tried to capitalise on post cold war.
Only when the west withdrew clandestine support post 9/11 did the rebels/freak out and carry out the theatre and school sieges.
This is a well known fact amonst non-westerners. This is what happened in Kashmir, another continuation of the soviet afghan war. Its just that post 9/11 the west views kashmir and chechnya as terrorist plagued..before that it was a freedom struggle for most. People forget this shift in perception very easily. I have not. I remember the western opinion on Kashmir during the 90s.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
The chechens don't want freedom. They want peace. Few understand that the majority of the rebel supply influx comes from the middle east and YES western countries.It is a continuation of the afghan war which the US tried to capitalise on post cold war.


BS, the West didn't supply Chechan rebels or institgate the insurrection there. You can be damn sure Putin would be trumpeting it about and that Western Europe wouldn't be recieving any gas.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Chechens started attacking civilians post 9/11?
How about the '95 Hospital siege?

And i know that the Chechen violence atm is mainly funded and supported by Fighters from SA, Afganistan, Pakistan etc.
But the war started out as an independence struggle, and that is still the goal of Chechens who continue to fight... yes majority of chechens would like peace, but they would like to have both, peace and independence. Thus chechens are both rebels and terrorists (no arguing about the terrorism part)

On the other hand AQ wants to force someone to withdraw from somwhere they themseves have nothing to do with. (What right does a saudi OBL say israelis have to go?) Compared to chechens saying they want Russians out of their own land, big difference here.

Ps. I hate and despise both OBL and his bunch as well as Basaevs troops, but i feel obliqued to slightly support anyone who wants to break away from an opressive and terrorising country like Russia. (I've lost enough relatives when Russia attacked us '39)

PPs. Majority of the chechens voted to stay with Russia because they tought it would en violence, if the vote would have genuinely been a Independence - Remain as part of the Russia outcome might have been quite different...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join