Military Issues

User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Alexis »

noddy wrote:europe doesnt really count, they will stay peaceful until they cant, then they will go bezerk and butcher everything, about the only rough guess id make is 'be on the same side as the germans'
:lol:

You mean, it will be just as healthy to be on the same side as the Germans, as it was the two last times? ;)
(warning: the link is graphic)

Seriously now: no Europeans will go berserk on anybody in any conceivable future, Germans even less than the others. As far as "staying peaceful", well if there is ever a "hot war" between the US and China, I would except us Europeans to be just as heavily implicated in that war, as South Americans were in WWII... if you see what I mean :)

There is this great American invention... popcorn.

As far as Russian implication is concerned, Beijing would be sure to receive as strong a support as would be good for the Rodina... Code word: "Warm wishes from Moscow".

I stand ready to share this popcorn with Russians, by the way ;)
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by noddy »

a) just because it was germany vs everyone else the last 2 times doesnt mean it will be next time - they did pretty good all by themselves all things considered.

b) just because common wisdom says ww3 has to be nuclear, doesnt mean the big players cant have an understanding - many conflicts through history had understandings keeping them contained.

the scenario for (b) is a stagnant or worsening global economy which leaves all the big powers with an excess of angry population and an avenue for conventional warfare in violent proxy wars in places like the middle east without going the next step to nuking the home countries.

anyway, that was just a throwaway muse - my main concern was south east asia, europe will do whatever europe does, hopefully for you guys it is cheese and wine.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Endovelico »

Yes. We will have to sit the next one out... Let the US, Russia and China reduce the world population to a more manageable level - hopefully leaving everybody else alone - and Europe can afterwards establish a profitable partnership with Africa and Latin America. But if Northern Europe wants to side with the US that's fine with me... :twisted:
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Military Issues

Post by Typhoon »

Endovelico wrote:Waiting for NATO...

Image
Russia's Buk-M3 antiaircraft missile, target-destruction probability 99.99%...
Nonsense.

Military types can only wish for such accuracy.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Military Issues

Post by Typhoon »

Endovelico wrote:Yes. We will have to sit the next one out... Let the US, Russia and China reduce the world population to a more manageable level - hopefully leaving everybody else alone - and Europe can afterwards establish a profitable partnership with Africa and Latin America. But if Northern Europe wants to side with the US that's fine with me... :twisted:
What's wrong with the world's current population level?

In the case of a MAD nuclear exchange, no one gets a pass except to their hereafter of choice, real or imagined.

There's a good reason that Russia [former SU] and the US agreed to an above ground nuclear test ban treaty during the height of the Cold War.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Endovelico »

Waiting for NATO...
Russia’s new T-50 fighter jet ‘almost a flying robot’
May 25, 2015 15:38 - RIA Novosti / Grigory Sisoev
http://rt.com/news/261853-russia-fighter-jet-robot/

Innovative technologies used in the Russia’s fifth generation T-50 fighter jet, which is currently undergoing tests before the start of production in 2016, makes it more of a flying robot than a plane, the developer said.

The Sukhoi PAK FA fighter jet, also known as T-50, is “already to some degree a flying robot, where the aviator fulfils the function not only of pilot, but is actually one of the constituent parts of the flying apparatus. That is, the reaction of the aviator is a part of the control loop,” Vladimir Mikheev, an advisor to the deputy head of the Radioelectronic Technologies Concern [KRET], said.

Image

According to Mikheev, another innovative featured employed in the T-50 jet fighter is “smart paneling.”

"If we take the wingtip, from one perspective it functions as a wing, but from another it's also a part of the Himalaya active defense system," the official is cited by Sputnik news agency.

KRET, which is a unit of state-run Rostech Corporation, has delivered the batch of Himalaya systems for the aircraft in October last year.

“The unique system of active and passive radars and optical rangefinders is integrated into the aircraft body and acts as a 'smart skin'. Its use not only enhances the aircraft’s protection against jamming and its survivability, but also counters, to a great extent, the effects of low-observability [stealth] technology of enemy aircraft," the developer explained back then.

Previously, KRET said that T-50 is going to have the most advanced stealth capabilities, leaving even the only combat-ready fifth-generation fighter, the US Air Force's Lockheed F-22 Raptor, behind.

“The T-50 is now ahead of not only all other fighters of the Russian Army, but also foreign models. For example, the visibility of the American fifth-generation F-22 fighter is 0.3-0.4 square meters," the developer stressed.

The Sukhoi PAK FA’s visibility stands at between 0.1 and 1 square meters, KRET added.

Such high level of stealth was achieved by moving all weaponry s the inside of the jet and redesigning the shape of the air intake channel, which was also lined with a material that absorbs radio waves.

According to KRET, T-50 is the first jet fighter in the Russian Air Force to be “made from a high proportion of composite materials, making up 25 percent of the mass of the aircraft and covering 70 percent of its surface."

The T-50 is set to replace the Sukhoi Su-27 and Mig-29 fourth generation fighter jet, which entered service in 1985 and 1983, respectively.

Five T-50 jets have already been produced and three more are now under construction at the Sukhoi facilities in Komsomolsk-on-Amur in the Russian Far East, Vladislav Goncharenko, deputy director of the United Aircraft Corporation's (UAC's) combat aircraft department, said in December.

The Russian Air Force plans to purchase 55 T-50 fighter jets between 2016 and 2020, Goncharenko said in December.
User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Alexis »

Typhoon wrote:
Endovelico wrote:Let the US, Russia and China reduce the world population to a more manageable level
What's wrong with the world's current population level?
Precisely nothing, clearly.

As for those (very real) ecological issues Endo might have been alluding to, they would be increased by a US-Russia nuclear exchange, not ameliorated.

Endovelico wrote:
Russia’s new T-50 fighter jet ‘almost a flying robot’
The Sukhoi PAK FA fighter jet, also known as T-50, is “already to some degree a flying robot, where the aviator fulfils the function not only of pilot, but is actually one of the constituent parts of the flying apparatus. That is, the reaction of the aviator is a part of the control loop,” Vladimir Mikheev, an advisor to the deputy head of the Radioelectronic Technologies Concern [KRET], said.
(...)
“The T-50 is now ahead of not only all other fighters of the Russian Army, but also foreign models. For example, the visibility of the American fifth-generation F-22 fighter is 0.3-0.4 square meters," the developer stressed.
The Sukhoi PAK FA’s visibility stands at between 0.1 and 1 square meters, KRET added.
(...)
The Russian Air Force plans to purchase 55 T-50 fighter jets between 2016 and 2020, Goncharenko said in December.
Reality check:

- Reaction of the aviator being "part of the control loop" is certainly a feature of Russia's T-50 design. It also was a feature of France's Nieuport 17 design... back during WWI. Pilot being part of the control loop is a characteristic of every piloted system... it could even serve as its definition. Calling such a system a "flying robot" is possible. just like calling it a "flying saucer", or a "flying dragon", and with similar justification. Nieuport 17 could also have been called a flying robot... except the very word "robot" had not been invented yet! :mrgreen:
Mikheev is being silly. That is: his sales pitch is hilarious rather than convincing

- I don't know what are F-22 and T-50 respective radar cross-sections. What is certain however is that while claims of T-50' RCS are 0.1-1.0 sq.m, claims for F-22' RCS are much lower. Mikheev is either disinformating, or just (gravely) misinformed

- Yes, 55 was the planned order tally for 2016-2020, late last year. Then, that order was brought to 12. Supposedly because of the economic crisis and such... no further detail was communicated from Russian side. However, Indians were not so quiet and silent... they complained very loudly about serious performance and fiability issues for T-50 designs (which they have a stake in), in addition to unclear communication from their Russian partners. Why couldn't these Indians not keep mum, черт возьми! :lol:

Bottom line: Russia's T-50 is still in the development stage, and will remain there for quite some time more. When it's completed, if it is completed (F-35 nightmare comes to mind...), it will be possible to assess its real performance level for sure, and not before. First signs are that it should indeed be better than present Russian fighters. As for being better than a F-22, signs are rather negative. Being better than a French Rafale: totally unclear.
User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Alexis »

100 US and European fighter jets just started an exercise near Russia's borders
OSLO (Reuters) - About 100 fighter jets from the United States and eight European nations began an Arctic training exercise in the Nordic nations on Monday, a region worried by increased Russian military activity.

The exercise, based in the north of Norway, Sweden and Finland with 4,000 personnel, is meant to test cooperation among Arctic nations near Russia. It was planned before Moscow’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region last year raised regional tensions.

"The aim is to exercise and train units in the orchestration and conduct of complex air operations, in close relations to NATO partners,” Norwegian brigadier general Jan Ove Rygg, heading the exercise, said in a statement.

The exercise, lasting from May 25 to June 5, is one of the biggest fighter jet exercises in Europe this year and the second of its type after one in 2013. Plans are for exercises every second year, testing everything from shooting down airborne targets to mid-air refuelling.

NATO members involved were the United States, Germany, Britain, France, the Netherlands and Norway, as well as non-members Sweden, Finland and Switzerland, which are linked to the alliance via NATO’s partnership for peace.

Russia has stepped up military activity around the Nordic and Baltic region. Incursions into airspace have especially rattled the Baltic states and Sweden last year hunted in vain for a suspected submarine in its waters.

This kind of exercise is generally a good thing, no matter who organizes it, because it is a reaffirmation of the status of borders, which helps reassuring everybody who needs reassuring.

Irrespective of whether scenarios of Russia rolling over Norway or Baltic states, or alternatively NATO rolling in Russia, are realistic or fanciful (I think the latter), the fact is that fears have increased both among NATO's Easternmost and Northernmost members, and in Russia. Everything that helps allaying those fears is good.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Military Issues

Post by Typhoon »

One can't help but wonder what the mean survival time would be of all these advanced fighters in a dogfight
in terms of tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars per minute.

Especially in the rapidly advancing age of drones which don't have to concern themselves with g-force, at least not to the same degree.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Endovelico »

NATO Believes Russia Can Take Over Kiev, Baltic Countries Within Two Days
http://sputniknews.com/politics/2015052 ... 27513.html

Czech General Petr Pavel who will assume office of Chairman of the NATO Military Committee on June 1, 2015, said that Russia is capable of seizing the Baltic countries and the Ukrainian capital of Kiev within two days, Ceske Noviny reported.

The general made the claims during the "Our Security" conference which is currently underway in Prague.

Following US President Barack Obama, Pavel considers Russia a threat to the security of all NATO countries. He ranks Russia together with the Islamic State terrorist organization.

The general also believes that if Russia launched an offensive then NATO forces would be incapable of repelling the attack.

"NATO is incapable to react properly when the situation changes. The measure Europe takes to counter threats from Russia and ISIL are surprisingly ineffective," the general said.

"The alliance has one significant flaw – the complicated procedure of decision making. NATO embraces 28 member countries, and all of them have to reach an agreement," he added.

According to Pavel, Russian official can make a decision within few hours while NATO Command would spend too much time to come to a joint stance. During his speech, the general also noted that NATO would have to make a difficult decision: whether to start a war against Russia which can turn into a nuclear conflict.
NATO and the US are creating a problem they cannot solve. They either accept Russia has legitimate interests in Eastern Europe or they go to war and risk killing hundreds of millions people...
User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Alexis »

Endovelico wrote:NATO Believes Russia Can Take Over Kiev, Baltic Countries Within Two Days[/size]

Czech General Petr Pavel who will assume office of Chairman of the NATO Military Committee on June 1, 2015, said that Russia is capable of seizing the Baltic countries and the Ukrainian capital of Kiev within two days, Ceske Noviny reported.
More than a little bit debatable. The time needed for Russian armored forces to conquer Baltic States or to seize Kiev might be as short as two days, but this would have to assume fully operational forces massed at the border, and it would take time for Russia to mass significant forces in preparation for such an attack, which move would surely be detected before the start of the offensive.

Maybe as short as two days from crossing of border to conquest of Baltic countries. Definitely longer total time including preparation of necessary forces.

The general also believes that if Russia launched an offensive then NATO forces would be incapable of repelling the attack.

"NATO is incapable to react properly when the situation changes. The measure Europe takes to counter threats from Russia and ISIL are surprisingly ineffective," the general said.
First, the general is grouping two very different situations: Russian conquest of Kiev, which has no security guarantee from any NATO country, and Russia conquest of a Baltic country, which all NATO countries have sworn by treaty to protect.

Then, he is grouping two very different questions: what European countries are doing now, as Russia has not violated the sovereignty of any country under NATO protection, and what they would do if Russia did that.

If Russia massed forces then conquered one or several Baltic countries, its geographical advantage would probably enable it to achieve conquest before other forces had time to intervene. But Russia would be incapable to hold her conquest when faced with European military reaction. All the more so since America would also take part into the liberation of Baltic countries.

During his speech, the general also noted that NATO would have to make a difficult decision: whether to start a war against Russia which can turn into a nuclear conflict.
Pakistan was nuclear armed when it attacked India in 1999 on the Kargil hills. India reacted militarily all the same, and won.

China was nuclear armed when it attacked the Soviet Union in 1969 in the Far East. The SU reacted militarily all the same, and won.

I don't think Russian leaders are stupid enough to want such a misadventure. But if they were, they would be handed their defeat.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Endovelico »

Alexis wrote:If Russia massed forces then conquered one or several Baltic countries, its geographical advantage would probably enable it to achieve conquest before other forces had time to intervene. But Russia would be incapable to hold her conquest when faced with European military reaction. All the more so since America would also take part into the liberation of Baltic countries.
European military reaction? With which forces? Fragmented mercenary forces, lacking popular support, against a well equipped and motivated citizens army? Defeat would be assured in a matter of weeks, and there would be no political will in Europe for conscription and a prolonged war with uncountable casualties... After Afghanistan one may be justified in doubting NATO's capacity to win wars...
User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Alexis »

Endovelico wrote:European military reaction? With which forces? Fragmented mercenary forces, lacking popular support, against a well equipped and motivated citizens army? Defeat would be assured in a matter of weeks, and there would be no political will in Europe for conscription and a prolonged war with uncountable casualties... After Afghanistan one may be justified in doubting NATO's capacity to win wars...
There is this rule that Russian strength is either underestimated, or overestimated, rarely assessed correctly. This rule was good to recall in 1999, as NATO forced Serbia out of her Kosovo province, with Russia reduced to unhappy spectator: No, Russia was not that powerless.

Now the balance has gone the other way, and it's necessary to recall: No, Russia is not that powerful.

Few facts:
- Modern military forces are not good at breaking long term insurgencies, which is true for US, European, Russian forces. However, high intensity wars is another matter: that's what they were designed for in the first place
- The Soviet Army, which was a citizen army, is no more. Russian Army is much smaller and in large part professional
- Equipment of Russian Army is theoretically large, because old types are maintained in the list of materiel, although they are not serviced and many of them are no longer functional. What equipment has been built since 1992, plus the part of old equipment that has been modernized and maintained, is what counts
- A large part of old (pre-1992) Russian equipment, even when maintained and modernized, is inferior to Western equivalents
- Case in point: Main Battle Tanks. Russia sports 1,500 T-72 plus 700+ newer T-90. T-72s are good enough to serve as targets to newest Leclerc, Leopard II A6 and Challenger II types, but not much more. T-90s are better, however still not equivalent to Western tanks. As for numbers... Poland alone has 400 tanks as modern as T-90s. Germany, France, Britain between them have 700+ which are more modern than T-90s. Plus those they have in reserve, which are modern types, contrary to Russian situation
- Case in point: Fighter Aircraft. From 1992 to 2008, Russia procured a total of 2 (that's: TWO) fighters. For comparison, even after strong military reduction, France alone procures 11 per year. Yes, from 2009 onwards, Russia has been procuring more and more recent fighters. However, such a long period of no new fighter buy cannot be compensated in a mere 5 or 6 years. Plus, many of Europe's fighter aircraft are superior to the most recent Russian types, French Rafale and European Typhoon

As for the political, we are speaking of a situation when Russian leadership would be deluded and out of their mind enough to invade a country which all European members of NATO (plus the US but we neglect them for the benefit of debate) have sworn and are treaty-bound to protect.

I think you might be underestimating the scale of such a event, the risk European countries would run if they let a treaty they are bound in and which guarantees their security come to naught, and the resolve that this risk would create.

As far as casualties are concerned, they would be extensive obviously, in the tens of thousands on each side. However, they would be even more numerous on the Russian side, whose military personnel is much less numerous than the combined European NATO personnel. How long would Russian population support a war where they know that they are the aggressors? Knowing more than a bit Russians, I can say that they are not interested in getting control of Baltic countries, which they -rightly- see as foreign.

If you want to assess probable support of Russians for a costly endeavour of military conquest of countries that are to them foreign, ask yourself what you would think of a Portuguese leader ordering a costly war to grab the Canarias from Spain... I think you would like this guy sent to mental asylum. Well, Russians are no different.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Military Issues

Post by Typhoon »

Endovelico wrote:
Alexis wrote:If Russia massed forces then conquered one or several Baltic countries, its geographical advantage would probably enable it to achieve conquest before other forces had time to intervene. But Russia would be incapable to hold her conquest when faced with European military reaction. All the more so since America would also take part into the liberation of Baltic countries.
European military reaction? With which forces? Fragmented mercenary forces, lacking popular support, against a well equipped and motivated citizens army? Defeat would be assured in a matter of weeks, and there would be no political will in Europe for conscription and a prolonged war with uncountable casualties... After Afghanistan one may be justified in doubting NATO's capacity to win wars...
The Pill of Murti-Bing does wonders for perception.

After all, Russia performed brilliantly in Afghanistan.

So well, in fact, that it helped to speed the collapse of the former artificial construct known as the USSR.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Endovelico »

After all, Russia performed brilliantly in Afghanistan.

So well, in fact, that it helped to speed the collapse of the former artificial construct known as the USSR.
The Russians at least had the excuse that their aircraft were being shot down in large numbers by US supplied Stinger missiles. NATO troops were defeated in Afghanistan on the ground, by Talibans with AK 47 and IED's... One can imagine how well those mercenary NATO troops would do against properly trained and equipped Russian troops on their own soil or backyard. But this is something our Shogun would have trouble understanding...
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Endovelico »

Alexis,

I agree with you that Russia is not interested in invading and occupying the Baltic states. But if war ever occurs between Russia and NATO you may be sure that the Russian people will stand behind their troops and that the various European peoples will not support any military adventure against Russia. It will be a collection of mercenary armies, isolated from the European peoples, fighting a cohesive military strongly supported by the Russian people. Without recourse to nuclear weapons NATO - having to fight far from their bases - would have no chance of winning. Just as it happened to Napoleon and Hitler, who both underestimated the Russians will to fight. Of course it will not happen because even the present European leaders are not stupid enough to go down that path... But we can speculate...
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Military Issues

Post by Typhoon »

Endovelico wrote:
After all, Russia performed brilliantly in Afghanistan.

So well, in fact, that it helped to speed the collapse of the former artificial construct known as the USSR.
The Russians at least had the excuse that their aircraft were being shot down in large numbers by US supplied Stinger missiles. NATO troops were defeated in Afghanistan on the ground, by Talibans with AK 47 and IED's... One can imagine how well those mercenary NATO troops would do against properly trained and equipped Russian troops on their own soil or backyard. But this is something our Shogun would have trouble understanding...
If RT has not already hired you, then they should. You're the master of excuses.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Endovelico »

Russia could establish a "no-fly zone" over Odessa region to deblock Transnisttia
May 28, 2015 - Roman Nesterenko
http://fortruss.blogspot.pt/2015/05/rus ... -over.html

[Translated by Kristina Rus]

Russia is capable of "punching" an air corridor to Transnistria with ECM (electronic countermeasures). S-300 will not help Kiev.

As you know, recently Kiev made one more attempt to provoke Russia into an armed conflict, illegally reversing the the agreement on transit through the territory of Ukraine of Russian military personnel stationed in Transnistria. Ukrainian command demonstratively transported a S-300 division, placing it in the Chernomorskoe [meaning "Black Sea"- KR] village in the Eastern suburbs of Odessa.

Since the territory of Transnistria is surrounded by Moldova and Ukraine from all sides, Rada believes that it put Russia in a desperate situation - either a loss of face and Transnistria, or "aggression against a sovereign Ukraine". By the way, this does not prevent the Ukrainian leadership from begging for a discount on gas (mysterious Ukrainian soul)...

However, one of our military experts, who agreed to comment on condition of anonymity, believes that if the Ukrainian leadership will not come to its senses soon, it is quite possible that a group of Russian peacekeepers in Transnistria will be supplied in the regime of "neither peace nor war", arranging a no-fly zone for Ukrainian air force in the Odessa region without any physical aggression.

According to the expert, the modern electronic warfare equipment, which Ukraine does not possess, but Russia does, is able to simply "turn off" and close for Ukrainian aviation the district from Ishmael to Kherson. And devices able to arrange such electronic "mayhem", will be located in international waters. If any Russian aircraft will fly 70 miles in the airspace of Ukraine and land in Tiraspol — then who can blame the "lost" crews? The most important thing in this scenario is that we have crews able to navigate and fly in conditions of radio blackout and lack of communication, and Ukrainian air force doesn't have such pilots.

With regards to S-300, the expert assured that in such circumstances the "fossil" system S-300PS just won't work, especially against our aircraft.

This is only one possible scenario in a hybrid war — said the expert. — Actually there are many more opportunities of responding to presumptuous Kiev, ranging from immediate fuel and energy blockade, and ending with a proclamation of Odessa Republic.

What will be Russia's response to the demarche of Kiev, we will see in the near future.
They keep trying to provoke Russia and one of these days they will succeed...
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

TOS-1SA Solntsepyok heavy flamethrowing systems

Post by Endovelico »

psF70eKERPk

An interesting weapon which Russia might use against NATO stray tourists...
User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Alexis »

Endovelico wrote:But if war ever occurs between Russia and NATO you may be sure that the Russian people will stand behind their troops and that the various European peoples will not support any military adventure against Russia. It will be a collection of mercenary armies, isolated from the European peoples, fighting a cohesive military strongly supported by the Russian people. Without recourse to nuclear weapons NATO - having to fight far from their bases - would have no chance of winning. Just as it happened to Napoleon and Hitler, who both underestimated the Russians will to fight.
What you say applies to the situation when NATO forces would attempt the "Let's take Moscow" project initiated by Napoleon and imitated by Hitler. And only to that project - which incidentally does not interest anybody in Western Europe.

As for the words of the Czech general that you cited "The general also believes that if Russia launched an offensive then NATO forces would be incapable of repelling the attack", which described a situation when not NATO, but Russia would attack, I have already explained my arguments, and you did not provide any counter-argument: it does nothing to call reaction to aggression a "military adventure", on the contrary it's aggression against Balts that would be a military adventure by Russia.

I therefore stand on my conclusion which I reiterate: after initial conquest of Baltic countries due to geographical advantage, Russia would be soundly defeated and would need to evacuate its conquests in disarray, even if only European countries applied the Atlantic Treaty. Quicker, if America was also on board.
User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: TOS-1SA Solntsepyok heavy flamethrowing systems

Post by Alexis »

Endovelico wrote:An interesting weapon which Russia might use against NATO stray tourists...
Hellish fire, if one is an infantryman retranched even in a well-protected bunker.

Convenient targets, if one is a cavalryman in a modern tank, or an airman in a modern attack helicopter.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Endovelico »

Alexis wrote:I therefore stand on my conclusion which I reiterate: after initial conquest of Baltic countries due to geographical advantage, Russia would be soundly defeated and would need to evacuate its conquests in disarray, even if only European countries applied the Atlantic Treaty. Quicker, if America was also on board.
I don't know on what you base your conclusion. European armies (sort of halfhearted mercenary armies) are not aggressive enough nor motivated enough to be truly effective against a Russian patriotic army. They would also lack support from most European peoples who would be horrified at the casualties suffered. If you think an army - even a mercenary one - can fight without the people's support, you are wrong. Short of an attack on Paris, London or Berlin, most Europeans would be set against any war on Russia, even in the unlikely situation of Russia invading the Baltic states. And definitely not if the Ukraine was the target. That being so, what are NATO's objectives?
User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Alexis »

Endovelico wrote:I don't know on what you base your conclusion.
That's here. :)

European armies (sort of halfhearted mercenary armies) are not aggressive enough nor motivated enough to be truly effective against a Russian patriotic army.
Go tell in their face to Portuguese, Italian, French, British or German soldiers that they are mercenaries and not patriotic.

(note: this advice is rhetorical, provided for debate only and not to be applied in real life... we want to avoid any case of street violence ;) )

They would also lack support from most European peoples who would be horrified at the casualties suffered.
By contrast with Russians, who would jump in joy at the spectacle of thousands of casualties suffered in the course of a war of aggression (this is the crucial factor, that in my opinion you don't take into account enough) to get control of a country they don't deem to be theirs.

Endo, do you know many actual Russians? They are neither bloody aggressors like some NATO propaganda would have them, nor Hail To The Chief types like some Russian propaganda would have them. They support Putin's policy in Ukraine because they believe their country has been genuinely if indirectly aggressed. If Putin started a war of aggression, their attitude would be very different.

Short of an attack on Paris, London or Berlin, most Europeans would be set against any war on Russia, even in the unlikely situation of Russia invading the Baltic states.
"The alliance which is protecting you will come apart if you fail to apply its provisos, then you might be next" is motivation enough.

Except for us French of course, since our protection is by ourselves not by NATO. But don't imagine the French out of this in case of armed conquest of a country France is sworn to defend.

That being so, what are NATO's objectives?
You and I can only guess.

My guess: stay in business. Find a new raison d'être, a rationale for its continued existence.

Careers, markets are at stake.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Endovelico »

Alexis wrote:
Endovelico wrote:European armies (sort of halfhearted mercenary armies) are not aggressive enough nor motivated enough to be truly effective against a Russian patriotic army.
Go tell in their face to Portuguese, Italian, French, British or German soldiers that they are mercenaries and not patriotic.
I don't know many people who have joined the military because they thought there was going to be a war and wanted to fight for their country... In fact, just the opposite. They join because the chances of a war breaking are very tiny and the military have it pretty easy. And when there is the need to send a unit abroad, on some peacekeeping mission, those who actually volunteer are a very small minority. Do you really expect most of those people actually fighting well against a real enemy, well trained and equipped, like the Russians? Only if their own country was actually invaded by Russia. Otherwise they would do their best to get back home in one piece, preferably without taking too many risks. Of course special forces will be different, but those are only a small part of any army. If Russia actually intervenes in a more robust manner in the Ukraine, you may be sure that any intervention by NATO would end in disaster.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Military Issues

Post by Endovelico »

Russian aircraft head off U.S. warship in Black Sea
REUTERS 05/30/2015 1:19 PM ET
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/world/rus ... -1.2241158

MOSCOW — Russian military aircraft were scrambled to head off a U.S. warship that was acting "aggressively" in the Black Sea, state news agency RIA reported on Saturday, citing an anonymous source in Russia's armed forces in Crimea.

The source was quoted as saying that the U.S. destroyer Ross was moving along the edge of Russia's territorial waters and heading in their direction.

"The crew of the ship acted provocatively and aggressively, which concerned the operators of monitoring stations and ships of the Black Sea Fleet," RIA quoted the source as saying.

“Su-24 attack aircraft demonstrated to the American crew readiness to harshly prevent a violation of the frontier and to defend the interests of the country."

Russia's Defence Ministry was not immediately available to comment on the report.

The incident is the latest example of encounters between Russian and Western militaries, as tensions continue over the crisis in Ukraine and Russia's annexation of the Crimea peninsula, home to Russia's Black Sea Fleet, last year.

Earlier this month both Britain and Sweden said that they had scrambled fighters to intercept Russian bombers near their territory.

The United States said last month that it was filing a complaint to Russia over a Russian fighter's "sloppy" and unsafe interception of a U.S. reconnaisance plane in international aerospace over the Baltic Sea.
Keep trying and you will eventually get it...
Post Reply