It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Russian military doctrine is more important as the two wars in Iraq proved the Soviet military doctrine to be a load of crap.
Immediately after the Gulf War before the fall of the Soviet Union, Soviet policy makers and Generals were re-working the Soviet Military Doctrine to meet the concerns of growing US Military supremacy in doctrine (not in technology).
The war in Chechnya first proved the Russian doctrine to be ineffective, in 2000 Putin sent the army back in with a new doctrine, but still archaic comparitively.
If Russia will learn from these wars the technology they have will not matter as much...skill on the battlefield is always more important than tools.
Originally posted by longbow
Well, talking about Russian military strength, I cannot understand when someone says they "excelled" in subs.
Actually russian submarines were probably the weakest part of russian military machine, not counting their surface fleet.
They were always lagging at least 10 years behind.
That their recent stuff is equal - equal to what? Los Angeles Improved? Why not compare it to Seawolf of Virginia?
r their Typhoon - great concept really - huge sub, cataraman hull, very inovative, the only problem was it was loud as hell so at the end it was supposed to be used from their coastal waters.
And despite its enourmous size it still carried LESS SLBMs than Ohio.
Oscar class subs "hunting carriers"? Maybe, but they would never come close enough to them, because they would be all tracked by US attack subs.
Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
I would disagree.
A US Soldier is trained better than any other in EXACTLY what the US military understands is important.
Large scale joint-operations.
A soldier in a unit may be no better or worse than a soldier of another nation; but a US soldier is used to working with tens of thousands of men in huge fields of battle with helicopter and air support and Naval support etc.
Russia has a similar capacity but never exersized it, they believed in the "overwhelm" approach to war and didn't realize until the first gulf-war that steel on target is not as important as mobility. (which is an aspect of skill more than tech)
Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
StellarX, plainly, you're stupid.
From the facts, you ignore that the US has more than ten times the training space that Germany has. That is the NTC alone.
Another fact, the US knows more than most nations of Europe what it is truly like to lose your home...
France would always be france, even when invaded by the Germans, Germany like-wise...Russia...Britain etc.
Only the United States went through a war where the rift was so terrible that should the war have been lost there would be no US, no continuation of its culture...nothing.
There would have been two new entities to say the least, each of which would have departed too far from the beginning which could be considered an Anglo-Colonial beginning.
The US fought the first war where 70,000 dying in a day was a common thing...
You can't sit there and say the US never knew what war was...it made war what it is...and it dominates the field.
The US is the only nation capable of deploying around the world in a couple of days.
also germany in WWII was stronger than any nation in the world, it was the superpower, yet still it couldn't beat russia, and it's not about training space, it's about how much troops and resources you can put on the field, and in the begining of the war on russia in WWII, Germany had a lot more, but it still never won the war on russia. and i fyou look on the worlds oil rich countries, Russia has more oil than russia, even canada can't beat russia at resources, and imagine the USSR's resources, which would triple and quadruple the resources of present day russia!
for instance, Germany in World War II had the most advanced army in the world, yet it did not have resource rich countries on it's side, one of the main problems the Axis powers had constantly through the war was oil, in fact one of the main reasons the axis lost out in N Africa and in normandy and in Russia because they were short on fuel, they had to choose what front they would concentrate there resources on and that it is well known is deadly in a multiple front war, becuase while Rommel was asking for Tiger tanks and normal tanks in N Africa, the generals in russia were asking for coats and boots and more tanks and more fuel, and afterwards in Normandy where Rommel was asking for more tanks on the beach fronts to thwart the allied invasion back to the sea before the landed, other generals were asking for more tanks and troops on the bakcward lines to defend against any allied incursion, and generals in Italy and Russia were still asking for resources, but Germany did not have any resources enough to cover all this, you see Hitler made the grave mistake of splitting his armies in russia into 3 instaed of one going to moscow or just two going to the caucasus, or instaed of going into russia he should've gone to Iraq and Syria and Saudi Arabia, that way he would be dominant in the oil market instaed of the brits and the allies.
read articles from many soldiers who have been on joint missions with the US soldiers, those soldiers were from countries like gtermany, britain, france, and some others, and they all said that most US soldiers they worked with were "all kit and no skill" so the US troops are not the best trained
Originally posted by StellarX
How many American civilians died on the US mainland in the Second world war? Non?
Japanese propaganda broadcasts announced great fires and an American public in panic, declaring casualties as high as 10,000, but the six people killed in Oregon were the only casualties inflicted by the Japanese on the American mainland in World War II.
Originally posted by Heckman
You know every one of my freinds that have fought in Iraq and Afghanistahn and they all say simular things about european and other allied troops.
US troops win because they are "trained" in their units. No mater what people want to dream up basic training does not build good solders. Soldiers can be trained "basics" such as how to use their gear but cannot be trained real world fighting skill. Real world experience and a command chain based around experienced officers are what makes good solders and good military doctrine. Only experienced people can know what really works and what really does not. In a time of war with a chain of command that rewards success you automatically breed a group of elite officers and those officers use their doctrines learned from experiance... What works and what doesn't !!! Not some BULL%$#@ "professional" training. Flexibility,Teamwork, Experience are things that makes a skilled soldier. This notion of "best" basic training has nothing to do with it.