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

And the only successful Russian nuclear test was Chernobyl. Everything else is just rumor.

 

Ukraine. Chernobyl is in Ukraine. (Just being picky).

It's open now. 10,000 years of nuclear wasteland appears to be a bollocks scare story.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki. Chernobyl all inhabitable again a few years after.

 

There are three types of people on forums

1) people who come to debate ideas and are open to understanding that/how people have vastly different morals and ideals

2) people who get paid to be or morally justify being hyper partisan to the point that they are here to argue, attack people and push their agenda at all costs

3) people who are here to basically be a troll, tell jokes, poke fun and change the conversation away from anything worthwhile.

The second is pretty easy just to poke back and ignore, the third however causes even more problems IMO because they go out of their way to do as much damage to the conversation as possible,

 

I think you have to be a troll, this is honestly just a funny statement to make.

I actually have a personal friend who has knocked out a tank in Iraq, it is widely known what this plane can do

 

Now this one is actually true, although still quite a bit of a poking troll like comment.

The "myth" that people cannot live near where nuclear weapons have been used (or Chern) has been a good propaganda tool to help keep nuclear weapons from being used regularly. While there are definitely cases of deformities and caners, nuclear war most likely wouldn't bring the end of the human race

 

I am not sure you are sincere, but I am sure you are gentleman are

The key word is "while" here.

 

Guy do you really want I discuss your promotional video? Let we do following, I'll admit you won

 

In modern combat I'm not sure about, but in past wars such as WW II, the reason kills were so exaggerated is because you'd have different groups shooting at the same target and many of them might claim the kill. It's also hard to confirm a ground kill from the air, you might hit it, but it might not be destroyed.

 

That's what I think, it's hard to confirm kills from the air. A long away from your target to eyeball it clearly.

You are susceptible to both decoys, and wishful thinking.

 

So widely known by your friend.
Who has no bias whatsoever being a pilot of an A10. Or did he kill knock it out with something else?
Really your statement is rather vague here.

What it can do and what it has done are not the same thing.
I can go to the moon, but I haven't.

The A10 tank buster hasn't busted a lot of tanks.
It hasn't had much opportunity.
It's been deployed in a maximum of 3 operations involving enemy tanks.
In one of which zero tanks were destroyed.

In the two operations it was deployed to in which tanks were destroyed it took a very junior role in that combat. Was not the dominant fighting force in it. Airstrikes were conducted at high altitude. 10,000 feet to avoid ground fire. I doubt the A10 even flew those missions. Only CAS missions and there were not very many of those because the ground fighting was over in days.
I have seen no evidence of any A10 tank kills. None.

Those ground combats I expect it to have been involved in, the major tank battles, did not accredit it with any kills explicitly. No confirmations there.

The evidence you have now updated me with is more hearsay evidence. You have a friend who has claimed to have killed a tank (in an A10?).
I have friend with a Nobel prize and another friend with an Oscar. But I can't act and my economics is not that good.
I know that they are telling the truth because there is public record of them receiving their prizes.
I don't suppose their is any public record of your friends victory?
No?
Didn't think so.

Now, I've read of A10 pilots claiming 23 tank kills. I don't remember is that 's total tank kills or just one pilot, I suspect total.
But pilots talk ****. They really do.
None of their kills are confirmed kills. They give highly inflated numbers. In the Iraq war for example, the military reported initially to have destroyed 5000 pieces of Iraq armour, but later had to admit that it was only 500. And this is the nature of wars.
I'm not trolling you in this. Over reporting of enemy kills is a big issue. It provides bad intelligence. Gets people killed when they turn up to check the dead enemies but find a load of live and very angry ones.
It is a fact of war and you should get used to this. We call It "the fog of war".

So the A10 is a bit mythical. If you like me think it's an awesome machine you may be predisposed to prejudice it with victories it may not have actually had.

 

i think it would be very easy to lose a land war to russia. All they would have to do is stay on the defensive. The "national psyche" of the US cannot withstand massive casualties. The people would have revolted.

Russia lost something like a million people in stalingrad if that were ever to happen to the US in a war the president would be impeached.

 

i would imagine its because they dont want to be compared to russia.

for better or for worse the US is not a land power. It is an air/sea power. This is why all of the strategies of China (like the new silk road) already assume the US will control the sea.

 

the US spending 4x as much as china would probably mean we spend about as much in real terms.

More than half the US budget is spend on troop pay and benefits (healthcare etc) A US seargant earns as much as a luitenant colonel in China. Want to massively cut the military budget? Pay a US private the same amount as a Chinese one. except you cant as there would be no soldiers left.

 

@Destroyer, I'm very up for our people training with your people.

Not just so we can have sneak peak at your gear, but also because I want us to develop channels of communication and chains of command within. To be become more interoperable.

The best thing that NATO has ever done is this.
Our militaries communicate with other militaries directly in real time.

No intermediaries. They are well integrated. I would welcome the opportunity to do this with Russian forces, I'm not sure if the politicians would be willing to give up such an obvious bugbear as Russia however. And none of us want to give our secrets away.

Tank biathlon is cool. I'd like us to try and win it. We make tanks too.
No one buys our tanks anyway, so even if we lose it's not a disaster.... but we may win. Because we are full of win.
That said, last tank trial, competing for the Greek order, we lost.
I think they bought German.

 

Drones, small, cheap and safe.

 

In what scenario will the west invade Russia ? the only thing I canb think of that will get the west be bold enough to declare war is if Russia invades a diffrent country, sorry, I meant if Russia gets "invited" to another country with Tanks and all.
Buuut Putin is no idiot, this whole thread is just blowing steam......

 

Drones require more fuel than a mule. Mules can live on just whats in the immediate vicinity.

 

Yes but animals are unpredictable......and lack firepower that's important in battles, by the time they will finish to develope a reasonable sub for tanks I think it will run on batteries, if its small enough.

 

You can't eat a tank.

 

The M1 is an old design

What the article says is that russia has more modern tanks and the is a big deal

 

@OP

Why would anyone fight "a land war" in Europe. If the US comes to fight, we will be bringing our air superiority with us. I hope your tanks shoot high in to the air, like miles high.

 

You clearly have never seen a donkey with rocket pods or an elephant with a howitzer on its back.

 

But you can get food by using a tank. Also using the tank you can get other useful things, money and women.

 

There's video of Tsar Bomba. The flash was visible from Britain.

 

Is that adjusted for PPP?