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

The US was completely hamstrung by the hippies. The US never hit Vietnam with its full military capability.

Instead we shuffled troops, at inefficient numbers, in and out ofbthe country for years hoping for success while managing opposition.

If politics would have gotten out of the way it would have been a different outcome.

 

https://arma3.com/

http://worldinconflict.uk.ubi.com/

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?l=russian&id=719416488​

Just have fun, generals.

 

Arma 3 is a bit of a classic.

It's not just a game based on a fully modelled Greek island, it's also a training software used by many militaries and police forces.

Comically, the developers sent some employee's to take photographs of the Greek island they were modelling for their war game. Textures and the like. Foliage, colours and all the rest.

But they got caught and went to prison in Greece for spying.

https://www.polygon.com/2013/2/8/3968814/arma-3-developers-arrested-for-spying-on-military-in-Greece

 

Guy, I am officer of armored forces. And who are you? What nonsense do you write here? I can't understand you. May be because I am Russian and my English is bad. Could you explain your thesis?

 

Very interesting.

Can you watch this movie: posted a few posts above http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ks-to-old-tanks.509938/page-4#post-1067764149
and tell me which of Ts T55, T65, T72 in the USSR or Russia ever had a task or a training or an ammunition to shoot any air craft using its cannon.

Please.

Was not that Iraqi guy a genius almost getting a US helicopter by shooting at it from his finger gun?

Was not he trained by Russians?

Did Russians give their T55, T65, T72 the capability and ammunition the Iraqi tanker was wishing for when he was engaging the US copter and disregarding all manuals and instructions?

Were you trained to fight a war disregarding all manuals and instructions?

Is Armata's cannon designed to do what the Iraqi tried to do?

Shooting at an air target with HEI.....

Very interesting.

 

It's the same thing Patton talked about, Russia could be in Spain and their is not a dang thing we could do about it to stop them..


.

 

They make so many because so many get blown up.

 

Ha. Ha. Hahaha. Hahahahahahah. Hahahahahahahhaha. HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

That's cute. The idea that you ruskies actually think you could win a war. Adorable.

 

I do not know anything about your verbal English of course, but your writing is just fine. Actually, it is better than plenty of my fellow Americans.

Without getting into the merits of anyone's argument, I think his thesis is "F#### Yeah! America Rules!."

While I agree we are great, some people do devolve from being patriots into worshippers of our country.

 

@st256

I'm really interested in decoys, ST256.
I want to build a radar decoy in my garden to attract Apache's with.

I'd love one of those inflatable tanks with the petrol engined air blower providing all the IR signatures.



For radar I want to try something cheaper. Something along this design principle, but in tank sized dimensions.


So a caltrop/tank trap styled piece of metal. But matching the overall dimensions of a tank.
Simple and cheap to make. 4 railway tracks, welded together for example.

I can't find any pictures of the ones I am trying to copy. Here is a pic of a sea based radar decoy.



I think I should be able to make a tank shaped radar decoy from cardboard boxes covered in tin foil.

But I won't get away with a tank in my garden or even an inflatable tank. And I won't get away with a big pile of boxes covered in tin foil also. Girls don't get into that stuff.

I would get away with an odd bit of angled metal if I kept quiet as to why I want it and left it in a dug out down the bottom of my field.
As bait, to attract Apaches. So I can watch them!

Can you picture the kind of decoy I am thinking of? I don't know which nation uses them. So I can't find the template I seek online.
Can't remember what words I used to search it last time.


Stories have it that Russians built these by the sides of their roads to work as counters vs ground mapping RADARs like Eerie. Which scan vast areas of the country at a tiome and then compare terrain map scans to find moving vehicles.

I could set one of those up in front of the speed camera, and waste all it's film!

 

The Armata is definitely cool, and would be a nightmare if feilded in good number, but Russia is a long way from doing that. Russia has the GDP of Italy. Most of its military bulk is antiquated cold war tech. They are quite adept at retrofitting their old crap for modern effectiveness, but the Abrams still outpaces most of what they got, and we got lots of Abrams. And A-10s.

The biggest combat advantage Russia holds is its efficiency and adaptability. For example: while we spare no expense on our military, keeping pristine bases and state of the art equipment, Russia's military exists in a permanent 'wartime' atmosphere- potholes in runways, cobbled equipment, etc. While I suspect this is in part due to economic constraints, this has been a deliberate strategy since the cold war to keep personnel on their toes. In an attrition scenario, Russian troops are already prepared to do more with less, and this could go a long way in closing the military resource gap... While I think we would *eventually* win any conventional conflict with Russia (short of trying to invade The Motherland) due to the vastness of that gap, it would be a long, grueling, possibly pyrric victory.

 

Time fuses.
http://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizv...ank-t55-spg-100mm-m44-and-coast-gun-100mm-m87

HE can be flak. For AA or for airbursting above trenches.

Russian tank ammunition is pretty advanced. They have all the usual warheads but a also barrel launched guided missiles that follow the laser beam in for up to 8km. Which gives it an incredible range advantage over anything our tanks have.

 

Your link confirm my words: T55 cannon and ammunition for it were not meant to fight flying targets.

Even Soviet T72 cannons were not meant and barrel launched guided missiles just were being introduced in the USSR in quite in a secret in time of Iraq war.

The whole documentary is quite upside down.

It is obvious that the Iraqi tanker was improvising with a great courage and was trying to do impossible beyond all instructions and manuals.

He is deserving high respect from anybody who served as a tanker.

 

?
"The HE M63/P1/P2 is general purpose tank round family, with possibility of using both Western and eastern origin type of impact, superquick and delay action fuzes, due to application of simple screw type fuze adapter. High terminal effectiveness is obtained by modern shell body design, material and manufacturing technology, use of modern explosives and fuzes"


My link shows they are equipped with a time fuse.
I.E. they are FLAK capable.

If you watch that video again you will see the graphical recreations of them airbursting near the helicopter.

What difference does it make when in the past Russia adopted superior tank munitions than you?
They have them you don't.
T 55 first got barrel launched guided missiles in 1981. T 72 in '86.
Ukraine makes ones that attack from the top down like a Javelin. So does India.
These are not the weapons you use on aircraft since they are very slow and very visible. A tank round is invisible at Mach 4.
They are long range tank killers, you could kill a helicopter with one but an HE is better for the job. Frankly a sabot probably is too.

FLAK rounds, you probably do have. Everyone else does. It's at least 100 year old technology and common place on any battlefield since then. They aren't just used against aircraft, but also against entrenched infantry.

Think the German 88 Gun in WW2. Built to shoot planes, it shot a lot of tanks.



From memory, main battle tanks have shot down aircraft in battle using their main guns, in Korea, and at least two other wars since.

You can Google it yourself.

 

I wonder how many posts like this there have been since 2014.....

 

Ever watch an A-10 Warthog take apart a tank?

End of thread.

 

Just look at recent history, the Russia aircraft is no match for ours..yes it would take time.. but our military would rule in a conventional battle over both the Russians and Chinese.


If they want to go nuclear? Dare to find our Ohio class subs


.

 

Well no actually, I haven't.

Has one ever?

Has it got a single confirmed tank kill to it's name?
News to me if it has.


Cool looking plane though. I'll give you that. Love that plane.


The Russians have close air support too. I can't remember what they call theirs.
Here it is.

284 A10's in service vs 286 Russian Su 25's in service. And about another hundred serving in other airforces.

 

Something around 1000 tank kills during the first Gulf War in 199............something whatever it was.

 

Tanks are becoming more and more obselete. The future of armored warfare will be mules. They are rugged, require far less fuel than conventional vehicles, reliable in combat as they won't move for anyone no matter how many bombs or bullets they shoot at them until the mule decides on its own that it wants to move and they are stealthy with only a small neigh instead of the huge VROOOOMS!!!! that conventional armored vehicles make.

 

It was amusing.the 4th largest military in the day getting destroyed in days .

The USA has no competition, when a adversity has a home address.
.

 

Days?
How many days exactly?
About ten years worth of days.

3,650. So that's around a one tank per day average.
And not just the US. A coalition,

Claimed but not confirmed.
You may want to research this one further.

Pentagon reports offer that total tank kills in that war were around 600.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground-equipment-intro.htm
There is no suggestion that the A10 got all or even most of those kills.

It is notable that in the Iraq war tank battles, tank kills could not be confirmed because they were all shot by tanks, tows and airstrikes and artillery all at the same time.
No one could work out who killed what in all that mess.

It is also notable that the airforce had claimed to have destroyed 1/3-1/2 of Saddams armour prior to the land invasion, but when the tanks showed up on the ground, it turned out to be very far from the truth.

Tank kills were revised down from 4,000ish to 600ish after the event.

In Serbia the airforces again claimed a large amount of tank kills but when forces arrived on the ground no evidence of destroyed tanks were found. As per usual, flyboys.

 

Wa-ay too many, but then again - I already offered them few games where they can do exactly same stuff they do right now. I guess they just prefer forum roleplay games.

 

So in your alternative world the Iraq army beat the USA?


.

 

Nope.

No alternative world on offer here.

In Gulf War one, Saddam's tank army was not destroyed.
Hence Gulf War 2.
In which they were.

A ten year air campaign took place between those two operations.

And the bulk of all Saddams tanks were not killed from the air.
They were destroyed in massed tank battles.

Pilots talk **** about the number of kills they make.
That is the truth. In the end, when the wars are won, we have checked.

They talk bollocks. Utter pants.
Like one of those training exercises where they all claim victory.
Each side claims loads of kills and no deaths. But they can't both be right.
Expect bollocks from pilots.