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.

 

Russia could destroy NATO ships in 20 mins: Admiral

page: 14
6
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


when will you stop dancing around the topic:




Actually, Japan imports most of its electronics these days as well. Semi-conductors were developed by the U.S., and the technology sold to Japan, because the U.S. was already busy working on integrated circuits, which put them decades ahead of the Soviets.

Japan is one of best makers of semiconductors , and ultimately was ahead of USA in semiconductors



Numerous discoveries have been made throughout the decades on developing stronger atomic structures for stronger materials. The key is making the technology happen. The U.S. is obviously far ahead of Russia in these areas. If Russia knew what they were doing in these areas, they would have succeeded in putting the technology to use. Always you have some evidence of some technolgy that the world doesn't know about, proving Russian superiority, but never any solid proof to point at.

what are you talking about??? Soviets were leaders in metallurgy sector , they made a lot of use of titanium fabrication in their industry



The U.S. is obviously far ahead of Russia in these areas. If Russia knew what they were doing in these areas, they would have succeeded in putting the technology to use.

what are you talking about ??? russians used it carbon nanomaterials in military and space industry ..... particularly for military equipment like ICBM missile cones according to xakep.ru and even other more classified uses ...





I guess the Soviets should have used a great deal more of those advanced tanks that were so invulnerable to U.S. technology, if they existed, and then they would have gotten their butts kicked in Afghanistan.


Soviet T-80 tank in the late 80's was considered virtually invulnerable to any KE rounds that USA had .... and yes Soviets used composite armour first in their T-64 tanks... and yes, most T-80's were deployed in the Europe during afghan war



The first widespread use of a composite armour appears to be on the Soviet T-64. It used an armour known as Combination K, which apparently is glass reinforced plastic sandwiched between inner and outer steel layers. Through a mechanism called thixotropy, the resin changes to a fluid under constant pressure, allowing the armour to be moulded into curved shapes. Later models of the T-64, along with newer designs, used a boron carbide-filled resin aggregate for greatly improved protection.
www.nationmaster.com...


soviets were to develop and use Composite armour on their tanks and 12 years later , the Composite armour was used in Abrams and Challenger 2 , known as Chobham

by the way, USA has lost 80 abrams tanks in iraq to crappy Rpg and IED ,
and lol, Afghan resistance had much more advanced weapons than soviet resistance ....




Gee, if the Soviet nanotechnology was so advanced, why couldn't they ever develop a Mach 3 aircraft to match the SR-71 built with U.S. 1950ties technology. If Russia were to succeed in building a Mach 3 aircraft like the SR-71 today, they would still be fifty years behind U.S. technological capabilities.

Russians never felt the need for SR-71 , and yes heres a excellent book on russian nanotechnology(particularly related carbon nanomaterials) and its application for commercial and medical purposes
books.google.co.in... CyU8ldk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA201,M1


refer to page 205 firstly , refers to many commercial applications like in various composites, and medical applications of carbon nanomaterials in Soviet union, before nanotech became the buzzword of the West


by the way, there are unconfirmed reports about two units of AYAKS manned hypersonic Craft in early 80's which are capble of mach 50 speeds ....

this has been claimed by Russian author Maxim Kalashnikov , he has a book related to this known as : 'The Broken Sword of The Empire' and former Soviet Colonel Ivan Sergeyvich Krutov
thefinalphase.boom.ru...
on the broken sword of the empire:


Achievements

One of the key accusations Kalashnikov makes against the Soviet government and the modern media is the fact that the Russian people have lost sight of their heroes and achievements. That is why the author decided to tell about these achievements himself with the main goal of inspiring his compatriots with pride and honour. That is why his books have become popular, especially among the Russian youth.

It is true that the elements exposed in the book are very hard to find anywhere else. Such things as the AYaKS aerospaceship program, the Soviet plasma anti-friction generator, the Ekranoplan program, and most importantly the names of the unknown heroes that fought in Korea, Cuba, Algeria, Viet-Nam, Egypt, Somalia, Syria, Afghanistan but also on the territorry of the Soviet Union.To Kalashnikov, those people were the "Hammer and Sword "of the Soviet nation. They were unknown in the Soviet era because of the secrecy policy. That is the main reason for the respect and popularity of Maxim Kalashnikov in modern Russia."[2].
en.wikipedia.org...



Where is the Russian space shuttle?

It was Buran
Space Shuttle is also maintainence intensive and very expensive , due to russians invest in Soyuz capsules , which are very cheap




By the way, the U.S. has been using laser technology in industry for decades.

so have the russians ......



We now have a laser cannon that we can mount on aircraft, where as the Russian laser cannon must be mounted on a semi-truck.


Russians had already tested a military grade laser on IL-76 aircraft in the 80's



The Beriev A-60 was a Soviet airborne laser laboratory aircraft based on the Ilyushin Il-76MD transport.

In the middle of 70's a special aviation complex was established at Taganrog machine-building factory by George Dimitrova for the purpose of creating an airborne laser. Its purpose was to solve the complex scientific and engineering problems regarding the creation of an airborne laser. In the early 80's, the United States' SOYA program was in the development stages of their own laser weapon.
en.wikipedia.org...

This was before american ABL


Chances are the that it constantly breaks down, and can't be relied upon for tactical military uses. Good for bragging rights, but not much else.


this is pure speculation BS.... that laser was reported to be designed to used for Cruise missile defence and against aircraft like A-10 Warthog,F-16 etc... but was reportly cancelled and discontinued due to betterment of soviet-american relations




Good for bragging rights, but not much else.

silly ignorant one ....
Go , watch fox news ..................

[edit on 14-9-2008 by manson_322]




posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 

All this stuff about russian stuff breaking down, well I love their watches, I mean I've had Russian watches of the mechanical automatic type and they're cheap as chips and they just go on and on and on. They are superbly manufactured and take a bit of a pounding to say the least. Russian stuff is extremely well made and lasts the course.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


Yeah, yeah, yeah, Russian tanks are better than yours, we just didn't use them in battle because blah, blah blah. Then again, most likely they didn't use their super advanced tanks because they knew that they wouldn't fare any better, and be shown once again to be another Russian advertisement that doesn't live up to its name.

The carbon filament stuff has been around for decades in the U.S.. When the word nanotechnology is talked about these days, they are talking about building tiny robots. That is one huge leap above carbon filaments. The U.S. is already using nanotechnology with their most advanced microprocessors and memory systems. The Russian are still decades behind in these technologies.

Also, semi-conductor technology has been outdated since the development of the first integrated circuit.

Russia uses titanium because they have most of the ore, and yet with vast amounts of titanium, they still have failed to produce superior armour.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
.reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 
I will address this post though.
If your whole point is that "diplomacy should never involve threats," and you're making that statement as a criticism against the United States, then you should take a look at the TOPIC and the TITLE of this thread. At any rate, I'll be starring your post when I'm done writing this because in spite of the side-splitting irony I do agree with it to a large extent.


It wasn't a threat merely a observation as to the capability of the Russians.



Now, on to the topic at hand.
First of all, the Phalanx is considered by many analysts to be worthless against multiple incoming supersonic cruise missiles. If you look at the numbers, it makes sense. However, SeaRAM has demonstrated a 95% success rate against such missiles in trials, which means that Russia would have to fire a whole lot of ordnance to saturate the NATO navy's defenses.


It's still not very fast and without a larger engagement distance i wonder how much more effective a heat seeking missile is going to be in this capacity.Either way it's probably a step up from filling the sky with metal...


Second of all, well, Russia has a whole lot of ordnance. If they had a brain in them, and when it comes to war they definitely do, they might decide to launch their old, low-tech missiles in a massive strike at the NATO ships. Once the anti-missile defenses were busy engaging all those smaller threats, NATO's fleet would be open to a more advanced attack from the "good stuff," so-to-speak.


That's true but maybe then 'new stuff' isn't really required?


The Immutable Nature of War

Wake-up call

Ex-General:War Game Rigged

War games rigged?

The carrier myth

Well that's if wargames are anything to go by!

Obviously there are plenty of defense specialist and analyst that basically says that the USN does not have a credible capacity to stop modern cruise missiles but that will just that much more space.


Third, however, is the fact that 20 minutes is more than enough time for NATO to respond by firing off just as many missiles as Russia fired at them. It doesn't take 20 minutes to push a button, after all.All these people arguing "which side would win" need a serious clue in. The situation would never boil down to one fleet being sunk by the other. The only issue would be which fleet was sunk first.


Something like that is possible/probable. The Russian surface fleets were pretty much designed for salvo battles that would ensure that they at least got the first blow in provided they could closely shadow US carrier groups before a general war broke out:


The Late Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, US Navy (Retired), himself a former aircraft carrier skipper, was also an outspoken critic of the Navy and its infatuation with big aircraft carriers and its collective fear of change. He once said that if the United States continues on its path to build ever larger and ever more expensive aircraft carriers, it will eventually degenerate into a “bankrupt nation.” The most damning comment ever made by a senior officer was that of the Late CNO, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, US Navy, who in 1971 confessed that with the advent of long-range Soviet anti-ship missiles, if there had been a US-Soviet conventional naval war, the US Navy “would lose.”

If Zumwalt was correct, the only way the US Navy could handle the Soviet Navy was through the use of nuclear weapons, which in turn would provoke a Soviet response, and then, in all likelihood, both sides would be destroyed. Apparently, Admiral Thomas Moorer, US Navy, was worried also. When Soviet and US ships confronted one another in the Mediterranean during the October War of 1973, Goldstein and Zhukov observed: “Soviet battle groups were using the actual U.S. aircraft carriers in the area as virtual targets, an act comparable to holding a cocked pistol to an adversary's temple. Adhering to a kamikaze-like, "battle of the first salvo" doctrine, the Soviet force of 96 ships was poised to launch approximately 13 surface-to-surface missiles (SSMs) at each task group in the U.S. 6th Fleet deployed in the Mediterranean. U.S. Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, then chief of naval operations, recalled a Washington Special Action Group meeting at the peak of the crisis, during which Adm. Thomas Moorer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, estimated: "[W]e would lose our [expletive] in the Eastern Med [if war breaks out]."

www.g2mil.com...

www.transasianaxis.com...



It's just like mutually assured destruction - there's just so much firepower involved that can be launched so easily and so quickly, that when the smoke cleared there wouldn't be anything left. Even if one side is more advanced than the other, neither is advanced enough to survive the sheer quantity of weaponry that the other side is fielding right now.


I don't believe that at all. Claiming Mutual assured destruction is basically admitting that you don't want to fight and refuse to prepare for the worse which has basically bean the motto of the various US administrations since the 70's. The 'problem' with mutually assured destruction lies ( that also being a appropriate description of MAD) in the fact that you expect the enemy not to prepare in the logical ways of creating shelter space for it's population as well as the food and medicine stocks that would allow it to sustain itself for the time it takes to repair the critical damage caused.


I do believe the moral of the movie "Wargames" is very applicable to a war between the U.S. and Russia: "The only way to win is by not playing."


Like any war in the past nuclear wars can and will very likely be won by the side that prepares best, knows it's enemy best and can adjust to the unexpected best.

PS: The sad thing about all this is that those hillbillies might have the right idea with guns&basements and living in areas where you can still find game to shoot.
It might not be something their actively enjoying today but yes, city living might not work out so well in a major war.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


From my understanding, if war broke out between Russia and the USSR, the carriers were not expected to last long. That was what the U.S. military planned for. While the carriers would be taken out, the entire Russian fleet would have been taken out, and penty of U.S. warships would have survived. Of coures, then there is the capability of the U.S. to rapidly build replacement ships, a capability which the Russians do not have.

The likelyhood of all out war breaking out between the U.S. and the USSR was always very small, because the only final solution would have been a nuclear confrontation. In the mean time, U.S. carriers allowed the U.S. to projects her power around the globe.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Somehow I doubt that the U.S. has the capability to "rapidly" rebuild new warships. I'm sure they could do it faster than Russia at the moment, but I don't think they could do it fast enough. Plus, if you're talking about building new aircraft carriers, I would be pretty surprised if we could replace every one of them without crashing our economy entirely.

Look at all the problems they had rolling out their new "stealth" ships. I forget what they were all called, but every time I turned around I was reading a new article about problems with their development, and constant scaling back of their deployment.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 




Yeah, yeah, yeah, Russian tanks are better than yours, we just didn't use them in battle because blah, blah blah. Then again, most likely they didn't use their super advanced tanks because they knew that they wouldn't fare any better, and be shown once again to be another Russian advertisement that doesn't live up to its name.




Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.

"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.

"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.

"Richard M. Ogorkiewicz"
russianarmor.info...


This was waht a T-72B was K-5 Heavy ERA was capable of and T-80U had a armor of 720 mm RHA versus KE rounds ....
your M1 abrams in 80's had armor 430 mm versus KE rounds

saddam's T-72 was a fleet of monkey model of basic T-72 'Ural ' version whose manufacturing was halted in 1977


The carbon filament stuff has been around for decades in the U.S.. When the word nanotechnology is talked about these days, they are talking about building tiny robots. That is one huge leap above carbon filaments. The U.S. is already using nanotechnology with their most advanced microprocessors and memory systems. The Russian are still decades behind in these technologies.


but scientists heavily disagree with you , americans were using carbon at micro level in the 60's and 70's not nano level, and soviets were keeping it secret due to military implications of nanotechnology , they made it open source in 1987 , in fact soviet military scientists created diamond nanorod based material ,(stronger than diamond ) for military dual purpose tech in
1963....
this is a book written by a chinese scientist Liming Dai who is in nanotechnology

books.google.co.in... en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

refer to page 8

by the way,



they are talking about building tiny robots.


these are known as molecular assemblers , according To Eric Drexler , the father of Western nanotechnology and molecular assemblers...




Russia uses titanium because they have most of the ore, and yet with vast amounts of titanium, they still have failed to produce superior armour

soviet submarines whose inner hulls were made of titanium had much more superior diving depth and yes , T-80U uses titanium components , and even Boeing for its boeing 787 , imports , titanium based components from Russia


reply to post by ufoorbhunter
 


precisly , Russian reliability is legendary , like Ak-47 the most reliable weapon, while M-16 lol, it keeps jamming and breaking down



[edit on 14-9-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 14-9-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


So why didn't they use their heavily armored tanks in Afghanistan? I have heard about this supposedly superior tank Armour, but why wasn't it put to use when Russia needed it? Could it be that these tanks were overrated? Could it be that the U.S. military was happy to pretend that these Soviet tanks were so impenetrable, so they could justify more arms expenditures? Or could it be that these tanks were so heavy that they simply weren't maneuverable enough to be effective in battle. Armour is great, but if the tank is heated up enough to cook the men inside, it still isn't worth much. One can only speculate.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you just keep telling yourself that Russia is really the worlds technological leader, and the U.S. is nothing but a pretender. Never mind that the U.S. economy is the most productive economy in the world, never mind that the U.S. pioneered the industrial age, mass production of steel, development of electrical generation and telecommunications, and computer technologies. Russia's secret weapons programs are ahead of the U.S.. Sure, of course, I buy that.

Chances are that if these Russian supersonic surface to surface missiles have any maneuvering capabilities, then they are extremely inaccurate, and would be lucky to hit an aircraft carrier. In addition, the Russian navy probably has very few of these missiles to fire. Russia isn't exactly known for their quality.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
So why didn't they use their heavily armored tanks in Afghanistan?


Because NATO existed?


I have heard about this supposedly superior tank Armour, but why wasn't it put to use when Russia needed it? Could it be that these tanks were overrated?


There is nothing 'supposed' about it as the armor in question were superior as Soviet tank armor was for almost the entire cold war. While the tank armor was that good as always that is just a small part of it as the Russians had the use of tanks with generally superior tank armor in 1941 as well. As with any fighting system it's a synthesis and the Warsaw pact tanks had their own sets of strengths and weaknesses that had to be countered/exploited.


Could it be that the U.S. military was happy to pretend that these Soviet tanks were so impenetrable, so they could justify more arms expenditures?


In theory yes, the Abrams tanks were after all built, surely but why always a decade after they were in fact needed at the front line? Since when has the pentagon had to do much to justify expenditures when they were always so massive and almost always so inefficiently spent?


Or could it be that these tanks were so heavy that they simply weren't maneuverable enough to be effective in battle.


Soviet tanks were nominally around forty tons which with modern engines and drivetrain were well suited to European conditions and would not have 'maneuver' issues related to ground pressure. Dust and heat would have been primary concerns but that's something neither the NATO or Warsaw pact designed tanks for.


Armour is great, but if the tank is heated up enough to cook the men inside, it still isn't worth much. One can only speculate.


Heated up enough ?


Yeah, yeah, yeah, you just keep telling yourself that Russia is really the worlds technological leader, and the U.S. is nothing but a pretender.


I think Manson could acknowledge the fact that US scientist were not and are not 'inferior' to Russian one's and that most of these oversights/choices were due to the 'market' or US politicians interfering in design. I don't think either Manson or myself have in the main argued that Russia had to be the outright technological leader to have focused it's research on defense related matters where it arrived at novel designs and technological breakthroughs that were not quickly or always rivaled in the West.


Never mind that the U.S. economy is the most productive economy in the world,


It isn't. The Japanese economy as well as a few other in South East Asia and Europe are more productive per hour worked and certainly more so per dollar paid to workers. As for overall economies nothing rivals the Japanese one in either efficiency or productivity.


never mind that the U.S. pioneered the industrial age,


It couldn't as Europeans did.


mass production of steel,


More isn't very meaningful considering the population size of the US and there was no revolution there. If Europeans countries where that rich in iron ore reserves....


development of electrical generation and telecommunications,


Foreigners who moved to the US? What does it matter any ways?


and computer technologies.


While the built hospitals in schools in Europe, yes, we all applaud 'you' as if the American citizens every chose to have their government redirect their money to defense spending.


Russia's secret weapons programs are ahead of the U.S.. Sure, of course, I buy that


Once again neither Manson, and certainly not me, goes around the forum trying to convince the world of that. The chest thumping and 'US Uber Alles' nonsense comes almost exclusively from American kids who then become absolutely enraged when others tries to display pride in their own countries achievements or generally try to dispute the 'fact' that America rules the world. This obviously doesn't prevent these same kids from denying empire and loudly proclaiming democratic ideals for all US national security state outrages.


Chances are that if these Russian supersonic surface to surface missiles have any maneuvering capabilities, then they are extremely inaccurate, and would be lucky to hit an aircraft carrier.


Why? Did the Russians, unlike the US, never test their weapons against it's likely targets?


In addition, the Russian navy probably has very few of these missiles to fire. Russia isn't exactly known for their quality.


They have more missiles than they know what to do with and unlike back in the US there are very few if any good ways to validate how many spares they have on board or on resupply/equip ships. As for the quality remark it's typically vague and typically dismissive so i am ignoring it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am still not sure about the accounting method employed but i don't believe that the Russians will 'lose' for adire lack of equipment/weaponry. As there are many, many more ways to end up second best you really don't have to make the quality argument as if there is much/any merit to it.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   
You gotta love this fully-fledged penal flexing competition (russias d*ck is bigger than theirs etc..). It's quite amusing.

The simple fact of the matter is that conflict between Russia and the US is extremely unlikely, if not damn near impossible. Military technology and it's actual application has almost become somewhat paradoxical, in the sense that it now serves to prevent warfare rather than encourage it.

poet1b, ignore Manson, his agenda is quite clear and such bias equates to nothing but anti-US garbage and cannot be taken seriously. I love opposing views and relish debate, we all learn from it and is vital to personal development, but his brand of opposition is that bigotted and abhorant that it warrants not an acknowledgment.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


You need to go check your facts, U.S. labor is more productive then every other nation in the world, per man hour, and has always been, and in fact has increased its lead over the last decade. A few areas of France compete on an hourly basis, but that is it. Japan's productivity peaked back in the eighties, and even then they were never as productive as U.S. workers.

The U.S. developed the methods to mass produce cheap steel shortly after the civil war, and that really was the beginning of the industrial age. You need to read up on the development of the modern world.

Yes, you have all steadily claimed Russian superiority in weapons technology, on all levels. It really is quite the joke. You talk on and on about weapons systems that have never been proven. It's always the same, the latest and greatest models are far better, some day you will see. These ones that were defeated were the older, inferior units. Somehow the Soviets could never sell tanks to the Iraqis with good quality armour to stand up to U.S. tanks. Why not, certainly the Soviets needed the money. They had to keep every decent tank on the line in Europe because of course, NATO was going to attack any day. Sorry, don't buy it.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


poet, your right Us labor is the most productive in the world. Although, apparently second in the world per hour to Norway. But americans work more hours and are therefore, overall, more productive. I found a good link here.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by theblunttruth
 


And the reason Norway's productivity looks so good these days is because of the vast amounts of oil they have tapped on their northern border. Otherwise, they wouldn't be near U.S. productity. When you consider how large and diverse of a nation the U.S. is, I think our worker productivity is the thing we can boast about the most.

As I have said before, all this talk about superior weapons only plays into the hands of the IC's and the weapons manufacturers, and being that now Russia is Capitalistic, those people are now all on the same team, and the posturing by Putin and Bush is just a game to herd the sheoples.

We sell you super anti-ship misile, and now the Americans can no longer bully you and you can do what ever you want, terrorist nation.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Didn't the US and Canada get their asses kicked in Somalia?



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by theblunttruth
 


Sorry, didn't see this post. Yep, you are right, I don't know why I participated in this debate. I just wanted to point out how these bragging rights about new superior weapons technology are just ways to try and re-start the cold war for the benefit of the arms dealers on both sides.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
You need to go check your facts, U.S. labor is more productive then every other nation in the world, per man hour, and has always been, and in fact has increased its lead over the last decade.


Even if you believe in the common statistics the US is not the leader:

www.ilo.org...
www.bls.gov...

Since it's impossible to really add thing that are not the same these measures are totally subjective even if one presuppose the data employed to be accurate. Either way in terms of managers to worker ratio's America is pretty far behind so i don't for a moment believe that the American workplace is the most efficient or productive in the world. .

mises.org...


A few areas of France compete on an hourly basis, but that is it. Japan's productivity peaked back in the eighties, and even then they were never as productive as U.S. workers.


Japan peaked in the eighties? France is productive? Any other unlikely revelations you have for us?


The U.S. developed the methods to mass produce cheap steel shortly after the civil war, and that really was the beginning of the industrial age. You need to read up on the development of the modern world.


Oh for gods sake!

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, Carnegie were a force for change but to suggest that the 'revolution' had much to do with the US itself and not just it's natural riches and uniquely isolated position is going as far overboard as you always seem to go when your talking about the United States. If you want to prescribe the success of US steel to anything do so for the low wages Carnegie ( and almost every other industry) could force on 'his' workers while preventing unionization that could prevent such exploitation. My reading indicates that Carnegie were probably near as enlightened as these industrialist types get so while i respect that and his implementations of a good few innovations this is about the man and not the society.


Yes, you have all steadily claimed Russian superiority in weapons technology, on all levels. It really is quite the joke.


I really haven't and it would be silly to try if i felt so inclined. 'Superior' simply encompasses too many presumptions and 'facts' that are subjective to be very meaningful and that's a good reason why i should stop using the term even when i on occasion choose to. Russian weapons are not always 'superior' and neither side always deploys the best fighting systems it can for doctrinal, financial or political reasons.


You talk on and on about weapons systems that have never been proven. It's always the same, the latest and greatest models are far better, some day you will see.


Sometimes i do but it's about as often as i see some "US everything Uber Alles' threads popping up loudly proclaiming that US weapons are overwhelmingly superior because they were successfully employed against third world nations that were outnumbered and over matched in the generations of technologies deployed. If these people were not so close minded and read a bit more there wouldn't be much for me to say or correct.


These ones that were defeated were the older, inferior units. Somehow the Soviets could never sell tanks to the Iraqis with good quality armour to stand up to U.S. tanks.


Well they were and when the same ammunition that were so easily defeating Iraqi built T-72's bounced off older generation T-72's, equipped with Kontakt-5 ERA, in the warsaw pact service. The T-72's were by no means the most heavily armed or armored tanks either.


The effectiveness of Kontakt-5 ERA was confirmed by tests run by the German Bundeswehr and the US Army. The Germans confirmed that in tests, the K-5, mounted on older T-72 tanks, 'shattered' their 120mm DM-53 penetrators, and in the US, Jane's IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness confirmed that "When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which were among the most formidable tank gun projectiles at the time."

Newer KE penetrators like the US M829A2 and now M829A3, have been improved to defeat the armor design of Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well; see T-84 and T-90) . The M829A2 was the immediate response, developed in part to take on the new armor bricks. The M829A3 is a further improvement of this as well and designed to fight future armor protection methods. As a response to M829A3 russian army produced new type of ERA, Relikt, most modern russian ERA, which is claimed to be twice as effective as Kontakt-5.

en.wikipedia.org...


The fact that the Iraqi's were using downgraded T-72's they assembled themselves which had no thermal sights or night vision and were using very old perpetrators with half charges ensured that they couldn't even respond effectively before being destroyed. Had they had proper sights, proper training modern and well loaded tank ammunition they would have given a better account of themselves as outmaneuvered as they were. Basically the US would have still won the war by far if it fought with those same underarmed T-72's using modern shells against a Iraqi army with Abrams tanks.


Why not, certainly the Soviets needed the money. They had to keep every decent tank on the line in Europe because of course, NATO was going to attack any day. Sorry, don't buy it.


Well you wouldn't as your about as misinformed as you are reasoning is subjective and unreasonable. The USSR didn't need the money and had no reason to supply a US puppet state with weapons it could then easily sell to it's benefactor. Fact is the USSR sold what it could do without unlike how the US consistently compromises it's technology by selling it overseas.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   
After reading this thread here's my opinion..

I hope Russia and the US kick the f*** out of each other. i hope that a nuclear bomb lands on the steps of Washington and Moscow. When will anybody realize that war is good for nothing. it costs lives, billions of dollars and for what

Ohh, we have the better military!!

BS!!!!!!!

instead of spending billions on military, why not on medicine. A cure for cancer, Aids, HIV etc etc

or how bout farming techniques where we can grow food in 3rd world countries so no one starves

did anybody think about that while you Stupid patriotic Americans and Russians talk about who has the better weapons .

No because you guys don't care. F*** Bush and F*** Putin and F*** every weapon ever developed



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SauberBMW
 


Hmmmm....and after the nukes land in DC and Moscow, just what do you think will happen next?

Kinda hard to grow anything with a assload of fallout in your neighborhood. A cure for AIDS? Why waste time on that? Better to spend the money on a cure for radiation induced cancer instead.

Sorry, but I think you are a no-go at this station.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


I don't know why I bother to reply, but in short, your sources back up the reality that the U.S. remains the most productive work force.

Carnegie never developed the production of cheap steel, the U.S. steelsmith workers did, because Carnagie talked up the value unions. Carnegie then turned his back on unions, doing everything he could to break them, at which he failed. The U.S. is hardly the only nation in the world with the resources for steel. The U.S. has simply been the best at utilizing our resources.

As I stated earlier, you don't have to penetrate a tanks armor, you only have to cook it and the occupants inside. Speed and accuracy are far more important than armor. The worlds weapons manufacturers aren't going to admit this, it would cut into their profits.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
I don't know why I bother to reply, but in short, your sources back up the reality that the U.S. remains the most productive work force.


Not even superficially does it do that unless you believe that the pressure to work longer hours than anyone else in the industrialized world is something Americans do because they just 'love to be productive'. When proper statistics are employed US production is simply nowhere near the highest even if one believes that this can be calculated objectively and accurately.

Here is another summary for you if you really wish to believe that something as subjective as 'productivity' can be so easily calculated.


In terms of output per hour we have three European countries doing better than the US _ that's Belgium, Norway and France, and they have done so ever since the mid-80s,'' Schmidt said.

Norwegians lead the league, with an output of US$38 per hour worked last year.
French workers were in second place, with an average of US$35 an hour, the report said. Belgians were third at US$34. US workers were in fourth place at US$32 per hour worked.

Schmidt said it wasn't clear why the three countries outscored the United States.
``There are many, many reasons,'' she said. ``One might be that during the time that these people work, they work more efficiently. It might be that the technology they use enables them to be@efficient in this one hour.''

www.chinadaily.com.cn...


EDIT: Yes and apparently the French are more productive than US workers; WHO KNEW! If that doesn't show up the weakness in comparison and standards i do not know what will!



Carnegie never developed the production of cheap steel, the U.S. steelsmith workers did, because Carnagie talked up the value unions.


Source please. Carnegie was a Union buster like so many others of his age.


Carnegie then turned his back on unions, doing everything he could to break them, at which he failed.


Which must explain why the US has the most poorly organized unions in the industrialized world as well as the smallest percentage of workers in such unions.


The U.S. is hardly the only nation in the world with the resources for steel. The U.S. has simply been the best at utilizing our resources.


Source please.


As I stated earlier, you don't have to penetrate a tanks armor, you only have to cook it and the occupants inside. [/quotte]

Right and your going to do that how exactly?


Speed and accuracy are far more important than armor. The worlds weapons manufacturers aren't going to admit this, it would cut into their profits.


Speed and accuracy of weapons are but part of the issue as you would know if you did not presume that weapons automatically penetrated by virtue of being on target.

As for the manufacturers i will wait for your source on that one.

Stellar

[edit on 29-9-2008 by StellarX]




top topics



 
6
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join