Obama: US military ‘significantly superior’ to Russia’s

originally posted by: thegeck
a reply to: Snarl
Iraq is a joke.

No doubt. But, the Iraqi Republican Guard did employ the best Russian tank platform of the day (the T-72). Further Reading It almost didn't seem fair.

Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People: Major General Herbert Raymond McMaster
By Dave Barno, Time Magazine, April 23, 2014

He initially gained renown as a cavalry commander, earning a Silver Star in 1991's Gulf War after his nine tanks wiped out more than 80 Iraqi tanks and other vehicles. His reputation grew after his 1997 book, Dereliction of Duty, boldly blasted the Joint Chiefs for their poor leadership during Vietnam.

a reply to: Snarl

No doubt, the man is a great soldied and talanted commander. Good for him.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: thegeck
a reply to: Snarl
Iraq is a joke.

No doubt. But, the Iraqi Republican Guard did employ the best Russian tank platform of the day (the T-72). Further Reading It almost didn't seem fair.

Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People: Major General Herbert Raymond McMaster
By Dave Barno, Time Magazine, April 23, 2014

He initially gained renown as a cavalry commander, earning a Silver Star in 1991's Gulf War after his nine tanks wiped out more than 80 Iraqi tanks and other vehicles. His reputation grew after his 1997 book, Dereliction of Duty, boldly blasted the Joint Chiefs for their poor leadership during Vietnam.

Its funny that people bring up Iraq and how weak they were...and how the US only "picks" on the weak. But I guarantee you no other country could have done what the US did to Iraq. Yes, the US toyed with Iraq. But that is more of a testament to how good the US military is.

Russia couldn't have invaded the same Iraq with the same success that the US did. And don't get me started on Europe...The UK is probably the single strongest EU country militarily speaking, and they had to have the "Yanks" help them with Argentina during the Falklands war...At a time when the British military was more powerful than it is today...

Harp on Iraq all you want. But what country outside of the US could have had the same type of success in destroying Iraqs conventional forces? *crickets*

originally posted by: rock427

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: thegeck
a reply to: Snarl
Iraq is a joke.

No doubt. But, the Iraqi Republican Guard did employ the best Russian tank platform of the day (the T-72). Further Reading It almost didn't seem fair.

Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People: Major General Herbert Raymond McMaster
By Dave Barno, Time Magazine, April 23, 2014

He initially gained renown as a cavalry commander, earning a Silver Star in 1991's Gulf War after his nine tanks wiped out more than 80 Iraqi tanks and other vehicles. His reputation grew after his 1997 book, Dereliction of Duty, boldly blasted the Joint Chiefs for their poor leadership during Vietnam.

Its funny that people bring up Iraq and how weak they were...and how the US only "picks" on the weak. But I guarantee you no other country could have done what the US did to Iraq. Yes, the US toyed with Iraq. But that is more of a testament to how good the US military is.

Russia couldn't have invaded the same Iraq with the same success that the US did. And don't get me started on Europe...The UK is prText when the British military was more powerful than it is today...

Harp on Iraq all you want. But what country outside of the US could have had the same type of success in destroying Iraqs conventional forces? *crickets*

I wonder if you could expand on your bold statement that the UK had to have the help of the "yanks" in the Falklands War ? As a 30yr veteran in the UK Army and a Falklands Veteran amongst all my other forays on behalf of her Majesty I cannot recall seeing a "Yank" anywhere near the Falklands in 1982. When our helicopters went down on the supply ships sunk by French supplied Exocet Missiles I don't recall seeing any "Yank" helicopters in replacement. When we had to Tab (March) 56 miles from San Carlos Bay to Port Stanley with 80lb packs I don't recall any "Yank" transport to help us. When 23 miles in I took a round in the foot but didn't get any "Yank" medical assistance. after hobbling the last 23 miles in great pain cold starving wet and totally exhausted There were no "Yank" units to assist us. When Port Stanley was taken the British Artillery were down to a few dozen shells It could have swung either way I didn't notice any "Yank" Artillery in support ???? Now don't get me wrong the US Military has frightening capability (of course I didn't notice you mention Vietnam) but as for the Falkland you are talking a crock of #.......

a reply to: 18731542

amongst all my other forays on behalf of her Majesty

I find the way that reads appropriately fitting. There's something about you Red Coats I've always admired. You've got swagger, intelligence, and wit ... all in the right proportion. I salute your service!!

Now, if the US military had a reason to rally behind a leader, with the goal of the permanent elimination of a threat, combined with sending a message to other potential belligerents not to be described in words ... Well, that would be something to behold indeed. I've never been in favor of the way America prosecutes war. We make it seem like winning is something to be ashamed about ... more comparable to a violent act of rape -vs- outright justifiable homicide.

-Cheers

originally posted by: benrl

“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

So you think this only applies to Obama, and not to Putin?

originally posted by: 18731542

originally posted by: rock427

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: thegeck
a reply to: Snarl
Iraq is a joke.

No doubt. But, the Iraqi Republican Guard did employ the best Russian tank platform of the day (the T-72). Further Reading It almost didn't seem fair.

Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People: Major General Herbert Raymond McMaster
By Dave Barno, Time Magazine, April 23, 2014

He initially gained renown as a cavalry commander, earning a Silver Star in 1991's Gulf War after his nine tanks wiped out more than 80 Iraqi tanks and other vehicles. His reputation grew after his 1997 book, Dereliction of Duty, boldly blasted the Joint Chiefs for their poor leadership during Vietnam.

Its funny that people bring up Iraq and how weak they were...and how the US only "picks" on the weak. But I guarantee you no other country could have done what the US did to Iraq. Yes, the US toyed with Iraq. But that is more of a testament to how good the US military is.

Russia couldn't have invaded the same Iraq with the same success that the US did. And don't get me started on Europe...The UK is prText when the British military was more powerful than it is today...

Harp on Iraq all you want. But what country outside of the US could have had the same type of success in destroying Iraqs conventional forces? *crickets*

I wonder if you could expand on your bold statement that the UK had to have the help of the "yanks" in the Falklands War ? As a 30yr veteran in the UK Army and a Falklands Veteran amongst all my other forays on behalf of her Majesty I cannot recall seeing a "Yank" anywhere near the Falklands in 1982. When our helicopters went down on the supply ships sunk by French supplied Exocet Missiles I don't recall seeing any "Yank" helicopters in replacement. When we had to Tab (March) 56 miles from San Carlos Bay to Port Stanley with 80lb packs I don't recall any "Yank" transport to help us. When 23 miles in I took a round in the foot but didn't get any "Yank" medical assistance. after hobbling the last 23 miles in great pain cold starving wet and totally exhausted There were no "Yank" units to assist us. When Port Stanley was taken the British Artillery were down to a few dozen shells It could have swung either way I didn't notice any "Yank" Artillery in support ???? Now don't get me wrong the US Military has frightening capability (of course I didn't notice you mention Vietnam) but as for the Falkland you are talking a crock of #.......

First off, learn to break your wall of texts up into paragraphs if you want people to read your posts in the future..Secondly, it is widely acknowledged (even by people on your side of the Atlantic) that had the US not helped via sat imagery with Argentinian positions along with providing the latest Sidewinder missiles, the war would have been lost and Britain would have limped home.

Margaret Thatcher would have lost the Falklands war in 1982 if America had failed to provide crucial missiles to bolster British air defences, according to an adviser to the former prime minister.

America, which angered the Thatcher government with its initially even-handed approach to the conflict, was believed to have provided little more than intelligence once Washington lost patience with the Argentinians.

But British and American officials say in the BBC documentary that Washington provided the latest Sidewinder missiles at 48 hours' notice after the British task force came under fire.

Lord Renwick, a senior diplomat in the British embassy in Washington, who went on to become ambassador, told the programme: "My role was to go along to the Pentagon and ask them for 105 Sidewinder missiles. These were the very latest version, which were far more accurate than the earlier versions and we wanted them delivered within 48 hours. That meant stripping part of the frontline US air force of those missiles and sending them to the South Atlantic."

Lord Powell of Bayswater, Lady Thatcher's key foreign affairs adviser, said that Britain would have lost the war without such assistance.

His remarks were echoed by Richard Perle, an assistant US defence secretary at the time, who said: "Britain would probably have lost the war without American assistance. That's how significant it was."

www.theguardian.com...

At a time when the US was embroiled in a dangerous Cold War with the USSR; the US stripped 105 of its latest sidewinders off of the front-line of the USAF in order to help out our friends across the Atlantic. Thatcher and several personnel in the British Government then acknowledge that had the US not intervened, the Falklands would have likely been lost.

I salute your service. I respect the pedigree it takes to join the armed forces regardless of whether or not you're an American. And thankfully you came home to your friends and family alive and well instead of in a body bag...That could have been a different story had the US not assisted your country in a time of need. Thankfully it didn't come to that.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: thegeck
a reply to: Snarl
Iraq is a joke.

No doubt. But, the Iraqi Republican Guard did employ the best Russian tank platform of the day (the T-72). Further Reading It almost didn't seem fair.

Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People: Major General Herbert Raymond McMaster
By Dave Barno, Time Magazine, April 23, 2014

He initially gained renown as a cavalry commander, earning a Silver Star in 1991's Gulf War after his nine tanks wiped out more than 80 Iraqi tanks and other vehicles. His reputation grew after his 1997 book, Dereliction of Duty, boldly blasted the Joint Chiefs for their poor leadership during Vietnam.

The Iraqi T-72s were not the same T-72s that Russia developed and deployed within the USSR.

Iraqi T-72s were built by Iraqis from parts shipped to them from the USSR.

When the Americans invaded, they knew that Iraqi armour was useless at night because they lacked modern (or any) night vision or infrared optics. So most American missions against Iraqi armour were carried out at night. Also, the Americans virtually had air supremacy anyway, so a good portion of the hostile armour were taken out by gunships and attack planes.

It's said that the toughest armour battle in Iraq involved a few actual modernized T-72s, at Baghdad airport I believe. They had ERA kits and NVG, but with so few of them surrounded they didn't stand much of a chance.

And T-72s were designed to be exported. T-72s and T-90s were designed to be medium MBTs that are good for fast engagements. But Russia herself deploys an arrangement of modernized T-62s, T-72s, T-80s, T-90s. T-80s are important because they are heavier and more tactically defensive than T-90s. T-62s are important because the USSR built 22,000+ of them.

And Russian tanks have features that its exports will never have. T-72s with ERA, full sensor arrays, rifle-fired guided missiles, etc. now imagine T-80s or T-90s in full Kactus ERA, full sensors, active counter measures like smoke dispensers (anti-laser/optical) or kinetic (anti-projectile), anti-tank guided missiles like Reflekts, SABOT rounds in an auto-loader, etc etc.