How America Could Lose a Land War in Europe to Russia (Thanks to Old Tanks)

Some haters of Russia wrote in other threads Russia was a 'Nigeria with snow'. Many greetings to Flinten-Uschi who can not produce even guns for 'armies' of some European countries.Due to stupid 'politic' of insane Obama and Merkel Europa has became instead of a friend an very angry enemy of its border.And its smells on coming war.

U.S. production of tanks has fallen to the lowest level in living memory. A grand total of 12 Abrams main battle tanks per year are coming out of the nation's last remaining tank plant in Lima, Ohio. Meanwhile, Russia plans to equip its forces in Europe with hundreds of next-generation tanks that look much more survivable than what U.S. soldiers have.


The U.S. Army thus faces a crisis in heavy armor as it races to catch up with Russia after being distracted for many years by the global war on terror. Although Congress is moving to increase spending on tanks, the modernization plan that the Trump administration has inherited from the Obama years would take nearly a quarter-century to upgrade the tanks in armored brigades to a more capable standard.

At that rate, war could break out long before modernized tanks reach most of the force. In fact, the failure of America and its NATO allies to replace their aging armored vehicles has become an invitation to aggression. Russia already enjoys a quantitative edge in regional armored forces. U.S. allies like Germany, France, and Italy each have less than 300 tanks in their active force. Russia has thousands. Moscow also would enjoy the tactical advantage of surprise in any westward thrust.

But now Russia is beginning to field a much better tank than the outdated vehicles operated by the U.S. Army and its allies. Dubbed Armata, the new tank will carry explosive reactive armor, active protection to intercept incoming antitank rounds, and a radar to enhance targeting of enemy forces. U.S. Army officials admit that Russia has reached "parity" with western armored capabilities, but as Armata is fielded it will pull ahead.

It is no exaggeration to say that this disparity in capabilities could lead to U.S. defeat in a future East-West war. It certainly doesn't help the cause of regional deterrence. Unfortunately, it is too late to start a new vehicle program aimed at restoring the U.S. Army's edge in ground combat. That would take decades to field. What the Army needs to do is greatly accelerate production of the latest Abrams tanks, and then add enhancements as they become available.


http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...-lose-land-war-europe-russia-thanks-old-21526

 

That entire article is bull crap. Is it a bad idea to make a few more Abrams? Naw go for it.

But.. For anyone to insinuate that there is any conventional conflict between the United States and anyone anywhere we wouldn't kick their teeth in is sheer retardation.

Let's talk about what that articles fool writer is going on about. They did a strictly tank vs tank number comparison then declared we are inviting a Russian invasion of Europe? We the US by ourselves have six times as many jets and four times I believe of choppers than Russia. Russia has more tanks and superior anti aircraft

That's the balance. Now if Russia had even close to our airpower well... It would be different but they don't and will never so /Shrug.




http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Russia/United-States/Military

 

I didn't know we were building new M1 tanks. Even if the Armata is a better tank, it's just fear mongering to think Russia would get into a war with us based on that. Just more saber rattling of the military industrial complex.

 

USA could not win a war against little Vietnam back in the early seventies...lol...how do they expect to beat Russia or China?

 

The USA couldn't even win against a bunch of tribal warriors in Afghanistan called the Taliban. I hasten to add, though, that it wasn't the fault of the brave lads and lasses on the ground, it was the fault of those in the White House and the Pentagon. The old 'lions led by donkeys' syndrome, if you will.

 

Wait, is this the 'new' Russian tank that stalled during one of their parades?

The M1 has actually been battle tested for over 20 years and many upgrades over the years have made this one of the best tanks in the world. The Russian tank wouldn't stand a chance if there was a tank vs tank situation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/07/russian-tank-parade_n_7235228.html

 

We didn't lose either. But our military had to fight with both arms tied behind its back.

 

This isn't 1985. There is no Warsaw Pact, and multiple Soviet divisions forward deployed right on the borders of NATO. There aren't Tank Divisions sitting on the ready to pour through the Fulda Gap. If Russia tried to initiate some sort of European land war, the territory that it's Tank Divisions would have to traverse before they even got to Germany is so great that NATO air power would have reduced those divisions to rubble. I think this article is all about some lobbyists trying to sell more tanks to the US military.

 

Soon in Russia, will host world military games (tank biathlon, Air strikes, special forces competitions of different countries ... etc) 28 countries take part. The Russians sent an invitation to all NATO countries, but the military of these countries refused to participate in the competitions. (In my opinion, only Greece agreed to participate)

Why? Are NATO countries afraid of getting a shame? What do you think?

 

'Nam wasn't a straight-up force on force battle - that comes @ the end of the guerrilla phase. The short version: We could have reduced VN & anyone fool enough to stand with them to a field of trinitite. That wasn't the point of the exercise, though. We were mostly showing the flag, & propping up the South VN government & military, hoping that SVN government would earn the trust & loyalty of its citizens.

Yah, we could have vaporized the place easily enough - much more easily than win through the tactical nightmare we were in. We weren't committed to either win the war or leave a desert. & so we temporized & hoped against experience. Pres. Nixon shot himself in the foot, & Pres. Ford couldn't muster the support in Congress needed to carpet-bomb the invading NVN regulars in the endgame.

 

The US spends more than 2x as much on defense as China and Russia combined.

The US spends 11 Billion more in defense than the next countries in the top ten in spending. 6 of those countries are very close allies of the US.

The US has more helicopters in the 101st air assault division than all the armed forces in the world.

The US has 10 aircraft carriers. The rest of the world has 7.

The US has around 3,300 combat aircraft. China and Russia combined have around 3,400 combined. If we including NATO allies we have a significant advantage.

The US has around 5,800 tanks and Russia has more. The majority are out classed by the Abrams. Just look at what happened during engagements during the Gulf War. The US also focuses more on air power and AT weapons to counter armor. The same has been true since during WW2. It was successful then and it still is.

As for the new Russian tank from what I have seen the Russians have finally tried to field a tank capable of going toe to toe with the Abrams. Now they just need to develop their air power and AA capabilities. The US plan for a war in Europe involves an extensive use of attack helicopters and other aircraft to destroy Russian armor.

The US will just likely need to upgrade the existing Abrams and not need to field more or field a new tank.

 

Forgot to add. When weapon systems are developed they plan on long life spans. So 20 or more years depending on what it is.

The Abrams has evolved since 1980 and older tanks have been upgraded. You can not judge it by when the first tank rolled off the assembly line alone.

 

And you didn't even mention the A-10 "Warthog" plane that eats tanks.
This is all B.S.
Russia is not our ally, but a war is not in the offing.

 

A-10's are impressive. Not sure what prompted Obama to try and have them all decommissioned ...

 

And Russia didn't win in Afghanistan.
Look up guerrilla war - that would not happen in Europe.
Guerrilla wars are extremely difficult to win - they require the native people to support you completely - not likely to be the case when we go into nations with ignorance, arrogance and contempt for their religion and customs.

 

Two words, AIR POWER.

 

Gutless politicians lost that war not the brave men and women that fought there. Find a major battle that US forces lost. Might pull up 1 or 2 but the majority we kicked ass. TET (the NVN biggest offensive was beaten) comes to mind. "Though initial attacks stunned both the US and South Vietnamese armies, causing them to temporarily lose control of several cities, they quickly regrouped, beat back the attacks, and inflicted heavy casualties on North Vietnamese forces."

 

LOL, what the USA had in vietnam was probably barely 1/4 of its total overall strength, and yes someone said here, we didn't "lose", but we're fighting with both hands behind our back.

If that 1/4 that was there, or a little better, had no "restrictions", on firepower, logistics, air force operations, and was given its full potential, it(Vietnam war), would've been over in a week, and the Viet Cong would've been at the negotiating table sueing for peace!!

 

Easy targets for A10 thunderbolts, Everytime those birds get in the air, there's collective flatulence everywhere!
One good BRRRRTT, and look behind to see pile of scrap iron.

 

Yah true, a bunch of goat shepherds wearing sandals and towels drove mighty russkis out.

 

Russia is not going to be invading Europe and certainly not invading the USA with tanks. A major war in Europe would not be decided by tanks. It would be decided by nuclear and atomic weapons. For example, when Turkey threatened to invade Syria, Putin responded that he would use tactical atomic weapons against the invading force. It doesn't matter how many troops or tanks you have if what is incoming are missiles with tactical nuclear warheads.

Russia has a reason to make a lot of tanks - reasons we do not have. Russia faces vastly greater dangers from radical Islamic terrorism than the USA and overall faces greater dangers of internal insurgency and revolution. Russia's tank production is 1.) for internal security and 2.) for sale to other countries. Remember, We have surrounded bases, missiles, troops and weapons all around Russia. Russia has no bases, missiles, troops or weapons on the Mexican and Canadian border.

 

Your tanks don't have reactive armor yet? No wonder you need so many....

I can only assume you are the only country developing a new tank with soldiers inside. Everyone else is developing unmanned tech.

Also, good job catching up with our tank. It only took you three decades but, you FINALLY did it! HOORAY!

 

The US isn't faring much better, but then that's probably by design.

That's kind of redundant since atomic weapons are nuclear. Russia wouldn't be the first to use nuclear weapons unless its territorial integrity was threatened.

 

Why would you reveal a hint of any tactics you might have?