Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 66 of 66

Thread: Do the NATO countries (not counting US) have the potential to match Russia's military?

  1. #61
    Sage
    Tangmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Seaview Tower 5 Condo 2602
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    8,150

    Re: Do the NATO countries (not counting US) have the potential to match Russia's military?

    Trump scared the bejezus out of Mattis and Dunford when Trump tweeted that dependents of the 28K US military personnel in SK needed to leave. As one who lived and worked in SK (as a civilian) there is no doubt as to the meaning. None.


    Trump told defense secretary Mattis to become Nato's rent collector, new Bob Woodward book claims

    Trump allegedly decided the US would stay in Nato during a last-minute meeting
    The President told Mattis at February 2017 meeting he would be 'rent collector'
    Legendary Watergate reporter Bob Woodward's new book contains the claims
    It also says Trump nearly declared war on North Korea in early 2018 with a tweet




    SecDef James Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. "Fighting Joe" Dunford, former commandant of USMC. Both Dunford and WH Chief of Staff John "empty barrel" Kelly served under Mattis in Iraq when the then two-star general Mattis commanded 1st Marine Division.

    Donald Trump decided early in his Presidency that the US would stay in Nato but defense secretary Jim Mattis would act as 'rent collector', according to the new book by legendary Watergate reporter Bob Woodward. In an emergency meeting in February 2017 to discuss whether the US was 'in or out' of the organisation, Trump reportedly told Mattis: 'You can have your Nato'.

    Mattis argued sternly in favor of membership and said he was confident Germany would meet its target of spending two per cent of GDP on defense. Eventually Trump capitulated, according to the book, telling Mattis that the US would support Nato but its allies must pay. He told Mr Mattis: 'You can have your Nato. But you become the rent collector.' Mr Mattis reportedly laughed and nodded.

    Woodward's explosive new book, seen by the Telegraph, also claims Trump nearly declared war with North Korea with a tweet in early 2018. Trump was said to have 'scared the daylights' out of Mattis with the proposed tweet ordering US military dependents – thousands of family members of 28,500 troops - to leave South Korea.


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ok-claims.html


    I post this now because it proves conclusively that the alleged brainstorm behind the thread topic is a bust. Nato will remain whole and coherent so long as the Russians threaten Europe and the USA.
    Last edited by Tangmo; 10-16-18 at 12:28 PM.
    All Enemies Foreign and Domestic

  2. #62
    defected to kekistan
    beerftw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    kekistan
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    15,478

    Re: Do the NATO countries (not counting US) have the potential to match Russia's military?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tangmo View Post
    Russia relies on its rail system to move tanks, trucks, troops, heavy and light weapons, ammunition, supplies and essential equipment. It is one of the Nato first tier targets. The rail system will also be destroyed in pinpoint actions of sabotage. Sabotage will occur at points rural and urban and will be executed by both locals and infiltration of Nato special forces.

    Let's look for a moment at the scenario of Nato forces advancing from Poland into Belarus which is a guaranteed offensive operation by Brussels. If the Russian high command -- deprived of movement by rail -- needed to reposition an armored brigade to or within Belarus they'd be mostly sol. Repositioning it locally up to 200mi or so would be a challenge but possible. Yet they'd need to choose their bridges, seize 'em and protect 'em, which is problematic. Russian vehicles tracked and wheeled would need to be able to negotiate bomb craters in roads which would also have felled trees, utility poles, hillsides and their rockslides, buildings etc etc -- while under Nato aerial assault.

    Concomitantly, the high command trying to reposition their armored brigade 600mi would be the end of the brigade and they know it. The distance imposes too much area to transit, too much time exposed and immediate fuel demands that would be too strenuous to satisfy. Apart from known tracking technologies fuel trucks would anyway present a trail of bread crumbs to wherever the brigade might be holed up for refueling. It's the old story of every S-2/G-2 intelligence staff officer licking his chops anytime he sees an image of bread crumbs. So without rail transport any Russian force 200mi - 300mi or so from relief or reinforcement by an armored brigade can write their last letter home. They'd need to use shorthand.

    It's also the case Nato forces rarely if ever go on FTE across people's potato fields or into their backyard tomato gardens. Training in off-road maneuvering to include offensive and defensive operations is always good, yes. Very good in fact. However, when it comes time for Nato land-air forces to counter a Russian offensive/invasion the Nato battle plans are clear. Point the tanks and troop carriers at the fields, farms, forests, houses, villages etc and then floor it. Go Go GO. German Panther tanks first of course. Alongside the M1A1 Abrams. It's the invading Russians who are going to have to deal with the thousand villages, farmers, resisters, rivers, mountains and Nato armies and air forces for hundreds of miles ahead of 'em. Moscow will need to commit its best units to the offensive which will also mean a lot of shorthand letters home yet again.
    Pinpoint actions of sabotage actually would be the easiest way of eliminating their rail system, as air strikes would be a waste given russias air defense systems would wipe out nato aircraft in extremely short order unless they focused on the air defense systems first.

    On craters in the road trees etc you do realize their tanks are very agile offroad as their trucks right? Infact one of the easiest tanks to get stuck is an abrahms, oh wait there is also the t-80 russian tank, case and point anything large and heavy for a tank can and will get easily stuck, while tanks like the t-90 and the leopard will perform much better in that terrain. Now you fail to realize their land based logistics, as well as their air based logistics, which is not the greatest but can support progress, their rail system is not their only means of logistics, russia went all the way up to germany in ww2 using trucks from siberia where it was too cold for anyone to attack, and so cold they had to keep the trucks running. They did not build a rail system to germany to get there, the russian rail system was designed to ship within the country efficiently not for an invasion or offensive outside it's controlled territory. Even when it would be used it would be used to speed up logistics into it's territory then ship by truck or air afterwards.
    Proposition 65 warning- my posts are known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

  3. #63
    defected to kekistan
    beerftw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    kekistan
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    15,478

    Re: Do the NATO countries (not counting US) have the potential to match Russia's military?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tangmo View Post
    German Leopard tank is of course the current Nato Main Battle Tank alongside the M1 and the UK Challenger. (I'd said Panther above chuckle.)

    Which reminds us anyway the French and the Germans have all but completed creating a common tank combining the best components of the Leopard and the Leclerk. It looks something very much like this...


    European Main Battle Tank: France and Germany's New Joint Super Weapon?

    France and Germany are also working on the Common Indirect Fire System, a self-propelled artillery piece that will replace the German PzH2000.



    One could say this is it in fact. Highlighted for our clarity thx.















    US Abrams 1A1 Main Battle Tank










    Russian T-90 Main Battle Tank


    It's a little bugger innit.
    The abrahms would perform very poorly in europe unless over very open plains, which is why the army is pushing the a-3 to be smaller and more suited for that combat, and to fill the role the m-60 once filled before the army decided the one size fit's all for tanks.

    The leopard actually performs very well in europe, but does badly in the middle east. The leclerc has almost no combat history but did very well the extremely few times it did. The t-90 actually has the best combat record for modern tanks, their reactive armor and small size has made them perform well against insurgents and in european terrain, the one big area they would lose is against an abrahms in a tank battle in a very open area like the deserts, as the abrahms has the range the t-90 nor the peopard or leclerc can match, as all of those were built for european combat, and range farther than what those tanks provide is not useful in europe, but widely usefull in the middle east open deserts.
    Proposition 65 warning- my posts are known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

  4. #64
    Sage
    Tangmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Seaview Tower 5 Condo 2602
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    8,150

    Re: Do the NATO countries (not counting US) have the potential to match Russia's military?

    Quote Originally Posted by beerftw View Post
    Pinpoint actions of sabotage actually would be the easiest way of eliminating their rail system, as air strikes would be a waste given russias air defense systems would wipe out nato aircraft in extremely short order unless they focused on the air defense systems first.
    Which is what Nato forces would do thx anway for playing.






    On craters in the road trees etc you do realize their tanks are very agile offroad as their trucks right? Infact one of the easiest tanks to get stuck is an abrahms, oh wait there is also the t-80 russian tank, case and point anything large and heavy for a tank can and will get easily stuck, while tanks like the t-90 and the leopard will perform much better in that terrain. Now you fail to realize their land based logistics, as well as their air based logistics, which is not the greatest but can support progress, their rail system is not their only means of logistics, russia went all the way up to germany in ww2 using trucks from siberia where it was too cold for anyone to attack, and so cold they had to keep the trucks running. They did not build a rail system to germany to get there, the russian rail system was designed to ship within the country efficiently not for an invasion or offensive outside it's controlled territory. Even when it would be used it would be used to speed up logistics into it's territory then ship by truck or air afterwards.

    I do realize of course thx anyway and I do not "fail to realize" thx again.

    Russian rail systems would be neutralized immediately in any outbreak of hostilities.

    Russia has 25K+ tanks because it's a bigass country -- the biggest. You never state any recognition of the fact and reality. So you're missing it by hundreds of thousands of square miles and some basic squared away thoughts. Because without the central rail system tanks and other armored vehicles become local forces only. They cannot be timely shifted to a military region nearby never mind to a more distant one.

    Were Russia to launch a war against Nato China would almost surely move into Siberia quickly and decisively. Japan would grab the disputed islands. US Pacific naval and air forces would move against the Russian far east. US special forces would infiltrate central Russia from Afghanistan and other countries that neighbor Russia to neutralize transportation, communication, command capabilities and slice Russia in two effectively -- or into three counting China's gain of Siberia. Without the rail transport system Russia would be wholly unable to defend or hold its borders from Europe to the Pacific. Further and as we've known for a long time most Russian tanks in storage are nature's newest rustbuckets or source of spare parts.

    Oil prices would fluctuate wildly. The Russian gas station economy is unable to sustain a major war never mind invasions into it from Europe to the Pacific and losing control of its borders in between. Assad would be taken out in a flash and Russian forces there demolished by Nato South Forces to include US Sixth Naval Fleet in the Med plus the US Fifth Fleet in the Gulf and by the land, air and sea resources of US Central Command.

    Your ops plans and contingencies are awfully limited not to mention inadequate. I'm trying to be polite when I state it in this way you're welcome.
    All Enemies Foreign and Domestic

  5. #65
    Sage
    Tangmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Seaview Tower 5 Condo 2602
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    8,150

    Re: Do the NATO countries (not counting US) have the potential to match Russia's military?

    Quote Originally Posted by beerftw View Post
    The abrahms would perform very poorly in europe unless over very open plains, which is why the army is pushing the a-3 to be smaller and more suited for that combat, and to fill the role the m-60 once filled before the army decided the one size fit's all for tanks.

    The leopard actually performs very well in europe, but does badly in the middle east. The leclerc has almost no combat history but did very well the extremely few times it did. The t-90 actually has the best combat record for modern tanks, their reactive armor and small size has made them perform well against insurgents and in european terrain, the one big area they would lose is against an abrahms in a tank battle in a very open area like the deserts, as the abrahms has the range the t-90 nor the peopard or leclerc can match, as all of those were built for european combat, and range farther than what those tanks provide is not useful in europe, but widely usefull in the middle east open deserts.

    Your common knowledge is okay congrats if a bit limited.

    I'd add to it that the US Army is working on one of its most pressing needs given we're moving from Generation 4 warfare against terrorists to Generation 5 state to state warfare, i.e., a tank that isn't a tank. A "tank" that can cross virtually any bridge and that is agile and fast enough to move with the troops offroad. You haven't mentioned it so I look forward to your awesome insights.

    Fear not because Pentagon weight watchers are on the case.
    All Enemies Foreign and Domestic

  6. #66
    Sage
    Oozlefinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,185

    Re: Do the NATO countries (not counting US) have the potential to match Russia's military?

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    No, I even said that and posted the data. Learn to ****ing read before you speak.
    However, would those troops be anywhere near as effective?

    In a simple word, no. Not even close. Those military forces would be strung among 28 different countries, with over a dozen different languages.

    Might as well make up a football team composed of 1 member from the other contenders in the World Cup, then simply throw them at the reigning champions.

    What you would have is chaos, with a great many top tier players, but unable to communicate easily with each other, and each trying to listen to their own coaches on the sidelines.

    It takes more than simply numbers to take on another country. And a great many of those forces are highly questionable in the first place. Only composed of a few thousand members, they would likely be overrun in the first days, so do not even count them.

    And the largest member state to operate in NATO defense if the US pulled out? Turkey.

    Yea, I am sure that would work out real well. Can you see England, France, and Spain allowing Turkey to be the main military force in NATO? Cause I sure do not see that happening. Germany allowing 200,000 Turkish troops moving in to help defend them from the Russians?

    Remove Turkey, and now NATO forces are more like 1 million.
    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. - John Stuart Mill

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •