Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 63 of 63

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 @ 02:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    6,923

    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 11:28 AM.
    All Enemies Foreign and Domestic

  2. #62
    defected to kekistan
    beerftw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    kekistan
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    14,807

    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 @ 12:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    14,807

    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.

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
  •