Post: #2426

(05-31-2015 09:32 AM)rover Wrote:  

(05-31-2015 07:48 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  People still go on about which tanks are better?

Do you also forget the use of tactical and ballistic nuclear weapons renders any toy like a tank null and void?

Nuclear weapons are the last resort, which neither side is going to use, at least not in Europe. Besides they tend to be shot down fairly reliably, just like the aircraft. The wars in Europe are won or lost by the tank armies.

Wouldn't be so sure about not using nukes in Europe. The Russians have said they would use tactical nukes if push comes to shove.

Also, it is much harder to shoot down ballistic missiles in real life versus training exercises since you won't know the trajectory beforehand and in exercises you are working with easy to shoot down missles.

Modern Russian ballistic missiles have anti-ABM features: mid-course maneuverability, penetration aids (decoys, chaff, electronic jammers, etc), multiple warheads.

I posit that if nukes ever get used, they will be tactical nukes on a weapon system like the Iskander-M (short-range ballistic missile) fired from Kaliningrad against missile defense sites and forward NATO operating bases in Europe.

Post: #2427

(05-31-2015 10:57 AM)Tex Pro Wrote:  Wouldn't be so sure about not using nukes in Europe. The Russians have said they would use tactical nukes if push comes to shove.

I have no doubt that if push comes to shove, nuclear weapons will be used. Including the dead hand scenario when USA and Russia territories will be rained on by ballistic missiles. I just don't see similar scenario likely in a purely European context since NATO land forces there are massively outmatched by Russian firepower, even before two thousand T14 tanks are ready for action.

Another thing to consider is the difference in the military and maybe even national psyche with regard to wars: USA/NATO like to "hit and destroy" (with rockets preferably) and then run away, "mission accomplished". Russians seem to prefer to "conquer and hold", strictly within their sphere of influence - the strategy that worked for centuries, just look at the map. So why use ballistic missiles that would make the land unliveable, when sending a a few tank divisions would do the job and keep everything kosher. Now, if/when they run out of tanks, all bets are off.

Post: #2428

(05-31-2015 11:46 AM)rover Wrote:  

(05-31-2015 10:57 AM)Tex Pro Wrote:  Wouldn't be so sure about not using nukes in Europe. The Russians have said they would use tactical nukes if push comes to shove.

I have no doubt that if push comes to shove, nuclear weapons will be used. Including the dead hand scenario when USA and Russia territories will be rained on by ballistic missiles. I just don't see similar scenario likely in a purely European context since NATO land forces there are massively outmatched by Russian firepower, even before two thousand T14 tanks are ready for action.

Another thing to consider is the difference in the military and maybe even national psyche with regard to wars: USA/NATO like to "hit and destroy" (with rockets preferably) and then run away, "mission accomplished". Russians seem to prefer to "conquer and hold", strictly within their sphere of influence - the strategy that worked for centuries, just look at the map. So why use ballistic missiles that would make the land unliveable, when sending a a few tank divisions would do the job and keep everything kosher. Now, if/when they run out of tanks, all bets are off.

Nuclear war isn't like a conventional war. There will be huge resistance to firing ICMBs since once those get fired, all hell breaks loose.

Tactical nukes are small enough that the damage from them is not much. A 1kt tactical nuke is a large bomb, but it is tiny from a nuke perspective. A nuke of this size can be used to surgically destroy missile defense sites and forward NATO operating bases, and not much else. By sparing civilian populations and only targeting military assets, the case for escalation is reduced.

The Russians have specifically war gamed limited nuclear war scenarios: they would take out missile defense sites and forward NATO operating bases at the beginning of a conflict in order to make the case that "this war will be unwinnable for you."

I doubt the Europeans, after having been steamrolled with a surgical tactical nuke strike, will have any appetite for escalation since at that point it would be pointless.

But, who knows. Some people believe that limited-nuclear war is pipe dream while others see it as a realistic option.

The Russian military doctrine seems to view limited-nuclear war favorably, so who knows.

Post: #2429

(05-28-2015 07:38 PM)Rocha Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 01:49 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 01:45 PM)Eskhander Wrote:  Is the Armata tank good or a white elephant project?

I watched on the news that the tank had issues during that 70th anniversary parade.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/russ...d=30872959

Being towed.

One thing Russians make better than the others is weapons, they do not play with this. For sure it is an amazing machine.

Here is detailed analysis of the T-14 Armata. It looks like a very advanced tank.

http://defense-update.com/20150509_t14-t...Ws6Ls9Viko

Definitely more advanced than anything currently fielded by the West.

Post: #2430

(05-31-2015 09:32 AM)rover Wrote:  

(05-31-2015 07:48 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  People still go on about which tanks are better?

Do you also forget the use of tactical and ballistic nuclear weapons renders any toy like a tank null and void?

Nuclear weapons are the last resort, which neither side is going to use, at least not in Europe. Besides they tend to be shot down fairly reliably, just like the aircraft. The wars in Europe are won or lost by the tank armies.

(05-31-2015 07:48 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Russian generals would have no issue with nuking a battlefield they will surely lose I am sure.

You seem very informed about Russian generals. Must have watched every Hollywood movie. I am not sure about Russian generals but what we do know about American generals, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that they will have no problem nuking any battlefield, or any large civilian population for that matter, even when they are winning. Just ask the Japanese.

What the hell did I just read? Are you suggesting a war or even skirmish between two superpowers would not lead to anything short of a mass attack on each others land mass?

Did you even read up on the Cold War? Do you even know what escalation is?



The whole point of having nukes is so the other guy doesn't use their big guns because nobody wins. This leads to the question of; "who is going to use them first?"

The Russians are terrified of being attacked with nuclear weapons so don't let their posturing blind you. It is why they created a fail safe system to launch every available nuclear weapon in their silo's should a blast be detected on mainland Russia.

Look it up, they admit it.

They also admit that Russian military doctrine indicates the use of tactical battlefield nuclear weapons are a considered option if the tide of battle runs against them.

They admit this.

At the time of the cold war the western allies had enough tanks to blitzkrieg like the Germans did in WWII. They were better than the Russian made tanks then and they certainly are now.

So when a few hundred of our tanks threaten to bulldoze their way through Russian lines to capture important targets and humiliate the Russians, what do you think they will do considering their past history?

Russian Generals: They threw every available man and woman at the Nazis. They went through communism and to this day they annihilated Chechnya.

And you want to tell me I don't know what they would do?

We all know what the US generals would do. They'd want to call Putins bluff by parking as many Abrams under his nose and say "just try it". That is the American way, to posture and to threaten.

The problem is the Russians will go with their fear and attack pre-emptively.

Doesn't take an arm chair general to figure that one out.

Nukes > tanks

Post: #2431

(06-01-2015 06:19 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Nukes > tanks

There was an Aussie tank used in a British atomic test in the 50s that not only survived it, but later saw use in 'Nam -> http://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-arti...a-war.html

Post: #2432

(06-01-2015 07:34 AM)Seboist Wrote:  

(06-01-2015 06:19 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Nukes > tanks

There was an Aussie tank used in a British atomic test in the 50s that not only survived it, but later saw use in 'Nam -> http://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-arti...a-war.html

So it got exposed to radiation and then put back in service? I wonder if they microwaved food inside the tank.

Post: #2433

So there is a lot of talk of tanks and nukes. But from what little I have read owning the skies is a critical thing in a combat environment. By owning the skies tanks can get taken out with air power. So who would own the skies?

Post: #2434

(06-01-2015 06:19 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  At the time of the cold war the western allies had enough tanks to blitzkrieg like the Germans did in WWII. They were better than the Russian made tanks then and they certainly are now.

So when a few hundred of our tanks threaten to bulldoze their way through Russian lines to capture important targets and humiliate the Russians, what do you think they will do considering their past history?

Russian Generals: They threw every available man and woman at the Nazis. They went through communism and to this day they annihilated Chechnya.

Lol, yeah they saved your granddads' ass so that they wouldn't have to speak German now. Annihilitate Chechnya? - please, what is this, amateur hour? Chechnya was pure CIA op/gas transit play to destabilize Russia.

(06-01-2015 06:19 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  And you want to tell me I don't know what they would do?

Again, you seem to have watched too many Hollywood movies. Please cite one instance of Russians actually using nuclear weapons against a well known instance of Americans doing so before continuing your bullshitting. We can cite doctrines but they are just just ,"theoretical plans". I can cite a bunch of docs by Americans actively advocating and planning a preemptive strike on Russia , can you find Russian plans of the same level of aggression? Words are words, the actual score as of 2015: Americans have used nuclear weapons to annihilate hundreds of thousands of peaceful citizens while Russians have never used their nuclear weapons against anyone.

(06-01-2015 06:19 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  We all know what the US generals would do. They'd want to call Putins bluff by parking as many Abrams under his nose and say "just try it". That is the American way, to posture and to threaten.

No kidding, American way. They sure "threatened" Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Syria etc. Millions of innocents dead but sure, that was all "posturing".

Post: #2435

(06-01-2015 04:38 PM)rover Wrote:  Words are words, the actual score as of 2015: Americans have used nuclear weapons to annihilate hundreds of thousands of peaceful citizens while Russians have never used their nuclear weapons against anyone.

And let's not forget the depleted uranium bombs routinely used by the US on practically defenseless countries, after which there's a sharp increase of leukemia and genetic disorders in newborns in the region where used.

So far I'm not aware of any other country to have used it in a real war (not even Russia vs Georgia in 2008), although about 20 countries or so have plenty of it in their stockpiles.

So it's pointless of arguing what would happen in a hypothetical doomsday scenario when we have evidence of nuclear atrocities being committed when they're completely unnecessary, not only 70 years ago but also a few short years ago.

I guess when you own all the major world media services and there's a sufficiently brainwashed world population to watch them, you can get away with atrocities that no other normal country would dare to attempt.

Post: #2436

(05-31-2015 12:06 AM)Caveman Wrote:  [quote='Guitarman' pid='1032556' dateline='1432991480']


And ISIS is nothing but Al-qaeda renamed, and just like Al-qaeda has always been an obedient execution arm of Washington so is ISIS today:

Apparently the man in the background between the Senator and the ISIS operative is a MOSSAD agent who now poses as al-Baghdadi.

Post: #2437

Just saw now that there was an assassination attempt on Givi.

This guy is the ultimate alpha.

Post: #2438

who is this guy?? ^^
DPR commander? he sounds like Michael Corleone

Post: #2439

Yes, he is a commander of a DPR battalion. Most people who don't follow the conflict know him for this:

Post: #2440

The late winter / spring vacation is over. Let the Ukraine Games officially resume.

To sum up the last 3.5 months. UAF jabs a lot without hurting the East Ukrainians. East Ukrainians hold their punches. Boom, East Ukrainians finally give the UAF a real punch and knock them on their asses.

http://fortruss.blogspot.se/2015/06/brea...d-naf.html

Quote:BREAKING: Maryinka captured, NAF advancing on Krasnogorovka and Kurakhovo

Cassad: After massive shelling of Donetsk, DPR troops advanced on Maryinka in order to capture the town.

NewsFront and numerous DPR sources reported the capture of Maryinka. DPR flag was raised above the city.

Fighting continues in Maksimilyanovka and Georgievka.

"Vostok" brigade confirmed the capture of Maryinka, reported "Gazeta.ru". "Shakhterskaya" division of "Vostok" and international brigade "Pyatnashki" participated in the capture.

Militia fighter Pavel Kuhmirov reported about an advance on Krasnogorovka and Kurakhovo, according to site "Frontline updates from militia".

Near Krasnogorovka and Gornyak two artillery batteries and an ammo warehouse were blown up.

Tim Zlatkin (UAF fighter):

Maryinka is hell. Grads and everything heavy flying on our positions. UAF is holding defense. A lot of wounded. Situation is critical. Pulling reserves. Sorry for bad news.

Cassad: Apparently, activation on this front is related to UAF artillery in Krasnogorovka, which relentlessly shelled Donetsk. The fighting resumed as a response to shelling just as in winter 2015.

Post: #2441

https://belsat.eu/en/articles/russia-set...-document/

Russia was set to seize left-bank Ukraine for 15 days: Plan leaked to web (+document)

In accordance with the published plan, the Russian troops were due to enter the territory of Kharkiv, Donetsk, Poltava, Chernihiv and Kyiv regions. The offensive was to have been disguised as the actions of separatist 'militia'.

Among other things, the document studies strengths and weaknesses of the Ukrainian army. The fact that a significant proportion of the population supports the actions of the Russian armed forces and separatists is considered as an advantage.

Russians were planning to hold a series of provocations against the Ukrainian troops to set up the people against them, Gerashchenko states.

Post: #2442

Did they run out of mud to throw at Russia so now they resorted to conspiring things Russia could have done but didn't end up doing?

Post: #2443

"The 40-page document was published on the website of the research centre 'Peacemaker'."
But of course.

Post: #2444

(CNN)The U.S. military will be sending dozens of tanks, Bradley armored fighting vehicles and self-propelled howitzers to allied countries in the Baltics and Eastern Europe in response to Russian actions in the Ukraine, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Tuesday.

Carter also addressed comments Putin made last week, announcing the addition of 40 intercontinental ballistic missiles to Russia's nuclear arsenal, a move Carter said reflected "posturing" on the Russian leader's part.
CNN Link

Admittedly I have not been keeping up with this conflict as much as I should...however I am planning a trip to Odessa for a month in 6 days.... While things will probably be fine, what % of a chance is there that they may not be?

Post: #2445

I think you'll be fine.
Drago talking about you... "If he dies, he dies."

In other news, looks like the good ol' USA is putting in a serious Color Revolution effort in Armenia. If that gets out of hand, then the USA may start up the Ukraine games to try and overwhelm Russia with multiple problems/situations.

Armenian leaders must be stupid. They've had a year + to observe what is happening in Ukraine and don't seem to have taken any real measures to crack down on NGO's to prevent that nonsense in their country.

Post: #2446

Interesting HBO episode. I couldn't find the clip, so here is the trailer.

Post: #2447

(06-24-2015 10:30 AM)Big Nilla Wrote:  I think you'll be fine.
Drago talking about you... "If he dies, he dies."

In other news, looks like the good ol' USA is putting in a serious Color Revolution effort in Armenia. If that gets out of hand, then the USA may start up the Ukraine games to try and overwhelm Russia with multiple problems/situations.

Armenian leaders must be stupid. They've had a year + to observe what is happening in Ukraine and don't seem to have taken any real measures to crack down on NGO's to prevent that nonsense in their country.

I saw that. According to Paul Craig Roberts Armenian "students" are protesting higher electricity bills - even though they aren't up all that much and nobody thinks they are the ones paying the bills.

You'd think the former Soviet states would all be on alert now given what happened in Georgia and what's going on in Ukraine now (and seeking Saakshavili running Odessa after being appointed by his corrupt oligarch buddy (and effectively wrecking Georgia for a bit)).

To be honest it shouldn't be much of a secret that US NGOs are a big part in stirring up all these "protests" and "revolutions" now days. I guess they used to do reasonably supportable work back in the day but now they are essentially causing trouble for geopolitical reasons (in order to get a better foothold trade-wise and also to export gay marriage and tranny rights to these "unfree" lands who have the audacity to have intact family structures and traditions

Who wants some freedom?

(06-16-2015 05:21 PM)turkishcandy Wrote:  Did they run out of mud to throw at Russia so now they resorted to conspiring things Russia could have done but didn't end up doing?

Heh. Well, yes, that's pretty much it!

BTW now that Turkey is having some issues and Erdogan's party lost some power in the latest elections I'm sure the US and NATO are pushing them to get back in line big time. That Turkish-Russian pipeline has got to be in their crosshairs re "things to try and stop next" right?

Post: #2448

(06-27-2015 06:59 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  Interesting HBO episode. I couldn't find the clip, so here is the trailer.

The lines for food. Jesus these people can never get away from the breadlines.

I read an article written by a Russian-American where he talks to his grandmother, a Russian woman, about Putin. She says "Listen, I don't like to talk about politics. There's food in the stores and there are no Nazis invading. Things are fine."

These poor babushkas have Nazis invading and no food in the stores. I can't imagine how ready they must be for someone, anyone, to end this.

Post: #2449

(06-28-2015 12:18 AM)Akula Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 10:30 AM)Big Nilla Wrote:  I think you'll be fine.
Drago talking about you... "If he dies, he dies."

In other news, looks like the good ol' USA is putting in a serious Color Revolution effort in Armenia. If that gets out of hand, then the USA may start up the Ukraine games to try and overwhelm Russia with multiple problems/situations.

Armenian leaders must be stupid. They've had a year + to observe what is happening in Ukraine and don't seem to have taken any real measures to crack down on NGO's to prevent that nonsense in their country.

I saw that. According to Paul Craig Roberts Armenian "students" are protesting higher electricity bills - even though they aren't up all that much and nobody thinks they are the ones paying the bills.

You'd think the former Soviet states would all be on alert now given what happened in Georgia and what's going on in Ukraine now (and seeking Saakshavili running Odessa after being appointed by his corrupt oligarch buddy (and effectively wrecking Georgia for a bit)).

To be honest it shouldn't be much of a secret that US NGOs are a big part in stirring up all these "protests" and "revolutions" now days. I guess they used to do reasonably supportable work back in the day but now they are essentially causing trouble for geopolitical reasons (in order to get a better foothold trade-wise and also to export gay marriage and tranny rights to these "unfree" lands who have the audacity to have intact family structures and traditions

Who wants some freedom?

(06-16-2015 05:21 PM)turkishcandy Wrote:  Did they run out of mud to throw at Russia so now they resorted to conspiring things Russia could have done but didn't end up doing?

Heh. Well, yes, that's pretty much it!

BTW now that Turkey is having some issues and Erdogan's party lost some power in the latest elections I'm sure the US and NATO are pushing them to get back in line big time. That Turkish-Russian pipeline has got to be in their crosshairs re "things to try and stop next" right?

Here's a great write-up on the Armenian color revolution. http://fortruss.blogspot.se/2015/06/elec...color.html

Post: #2450

Kyrgyzstan probably has a date with its color revolution destiny later this year, too. 150 tons of US diplomatic mail. WTF!
http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/03/18/4656