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

Without escort I agree.

 

You need to ask? That was the as$hole of a fake president who ran from his syrian redlines, and bent so far over for iran he looks like a pretzel. Worst. president. EVER.

One of the reasons people with actual mil exp like me laugh at idiotic articles like this, and especially at weak countries like russia, is that the US spends more on SPARE PARTS than russia and china COMBINED. The US has MASSIVE warehouses loaded with spare parts for its helis, tanks, etc. that allow it to fight practically FOREVER.

To people who have no clue or mil exp like the writer of the article, as important, if not more so, than the tanks themselves are the spare parts. Tanks and helis have lots of parts that break down in warfare, get damaged, clogged from mud (tank engine parts), worn out from high heat and friction (heli blades) etc. so to sustain an army you need a readily available supply chain - which the US has in spades with hundreds of worldwide bases, plus VAST amounts of spare parts that can be sent right to the front lines.

The way that weakling, pathetic countries like russia fight is like iran; they try to surprise a vastly more powerful foe with a tactic, or a weapon that makes noise but either isn't sustainable or is more smoke than fire. For example, little putie boy's gas station might have a tank with reactive armor - but then it breaks down, or the poorly trained, poorly paid russkies "on vacation" fighting the war aren't able to use the system properly, and get overwhelmed.

Mind you, any country with nuclear weapons is a threat certainly, and that's assuming little putie boy's still work given the low maintenance budget russia has, but being that as it may, in any conventional conflict, russia with its 140 MM people, a large portion muslims who won't fight for little putie boy, are not going to be able to hold up for very long against a billion-strong EU and US. That's just laughable nonsense, from any angle.

 

Do you have a link for this?

 

Airpower destroyed no tanks in Serbia and very few in Iraq.
It was utterly redundant in the Six Day war, because Egyptian tank forces were accompanied by their own SAM umbrella.

Today however, tank forces are more vulnerable to infantry with guided missiles than ever before. Hesbollah stopped the IDF tank forces with zero tanks and zero planes.

 

America doesn't need to fight a land war in Russia with old tanks or new tanks. If Russia invades Europe, that is the EU's problem. The UK is and will continue to be our only steadfast ally in Europe worthy of shedding American blood and they are an island, so them tanks won't matter.

 

How wrong can you be? Just the A-10 destroyed 23 tanks in one day in Iraq.

https://theaviationist.com/2012/12/20/warthog-in-action/

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/pu...an-tactical-nuclear-response-ground-invasion/

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/putin-threatens-turkey-saudi-arabia-tactical-nuclear-response-hamdan

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/18/risking-nuclear-war-for-al-qaeda/

 

Kinda yes, kinda not. Atomic bombs are, from what I understand, different from hydrogen bombs.

 

LBJ refused to allow the military to go to war against N. Vietnam, remember? No invasion. Bombing yes, but no invasion.

Nuclear weapons makes the discussion pointless. Tank versus nuclear weapon? Hmmm, and you claim the tank can win?

 

Vietnam was not a war in any normal sense given no invasion of N. Vietnam was allowed. It was the extra stupid idea that a war can be fought defensively only and the other side will just tire of fighting. Give the enemy a safe home base to operate out of and such a war never ends.

 

My point how much armor does NATO have in its combined armed forces and combined with air power and other forces how well do we match as a combined alliance against Russia if we end up going to war?

 

Thanks. To be fair, I don't believe even a piece of total trash like putie boy would actually do something THAT stupid. He is guilty of many, many idiocies, but using nuclear weapons in syria would not be one of them.

 

The hez filth were effective against older tanks, but not so much the Merkava IVs.

http://defense-update.com/analysis/lebanon_war_3.htm

 

Yeah, isn't Merkel in charge of the free world now?

 

I don't think it matters much, since much of Russia's military is still Soviet era, they've got some good equipment, and will probably get a couple good licks in, the end result still, i believe is , they'll get pummelled beyond any imagination. They (Russians) like to attack weaker defenseless nations, WW2, where Germany attacked, in first 6 mos. They suffered 4-5 mln dead, and over 5 mln POW?

 

How's Iraq doing these days? Afghanistan? We sure kicked their teeth in, didn't we? They don't have any planes or tanks, just whatever leftover crap they can scrounge up.

What's truly dangerous is the hubris that you present. And the fact that the USA always prepares to fight the last war - and the "last" war (which is still going on) is desert centric. Now, the USA focuses on the desert and special forces. Everyone trains in the desert, learns to shoot long range, assumes good intelligence and on-call support and air superiority, and acts as if all the enemies are ignorant camel jocks. And they all assume they will have GPS based communications and navigation and situational awareness.

Of course those ignorant camel jocks have done quite well. People are not stupid, they don't fight to the enemies strength, they fight to their weakness.

 

Yep. They have as many super high tech new toys that are better than our new toys as the Russians. I bet her blue water cav torpedoes that can sink a US carrier will wipe out all them superior Russian tanks in like 48 hours. 72 at the most.

 

All military secrets of NATO countries in Moscow are known before the defense ministers of NATO countries. Military secrets of NATO are the secrets of Polishenel.

But loss in military games ... for NATO countries and especially for the United States - this is a political catastrophe....It will be difficult for the governments of NATO countries to explain the huge expenditure on armaments. Which go to the detriment of social programs for example.
And why - having a virtually unlimited military budget, a military, for example the United States, lost to the military of Russia or China .... or Syria. (The team of Syria will participate in competitions)

I think this is the real reason for not participating in competitions.

 

In 2014 the US stopped the military cooperation with Russia on all levels.

 

They are falling apart.

 

Not too smart a post. The afghan war involves fighting a group of terrorists who hide amongst a scattered, highly sympathetic civilian population across a terrain that is highly mountainous and provides no room for tanks to operate, poor sightlines, and caves/underground camouflage in which to hide. No such war, where the stronger side is operating under the GC and the other isn't, would end quickly.

Remove the laws of war, and the afghan war would end. Would take some time, but it would end.

 

Whew! Well thank goodness she can handle the Russkies without our help!

 

Russian tactics in the event of war with NATO is pretty obvious. They don't have to defeat all of NATO, they just have to take the Baltic territories they want fast enough and then sit on them. The people of the Baltics would almost definitely prefer to sue for peace rather than be corpses if their homelands turned into massive battlegrounds.

Russia can't beat NATO air power, so they won't even try. They'll interdict NATO air bases with missile attacks to bring them offline for the crucial 48 to 72 hours they'd need to conquer the Baltics.

 

Explosive reactive armor is neither active protection nor new. ERA has existed since the 60's. Tandem warheads defeat it fairly easily.

 

What happened to your profile picture dude? Aaawwwww... I see... We hurt your feelings by telling you were from Tiblisi or Ukraine. We were joking... I'll talk to @vis for you, he won't do it again, I promise... Bad vis...

You look like a RRRRRRRRUSSIAN I'd say but they never back up, never stop fightin, never be ashamed of what they do just because people say so... Iranians just the same... So you can't be Russian or Persian... Tblisi is not that bad tho... Better than Dniper, helloooo...
Come on, put that picture back on yaw.

 

Mmmmm, maybe because I'm probably putting up a new one soon, and the last one was an old one?