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

beerftw said:

The conscripts do serve a just a year in service, but see often more training than many nato countries will, heck if someone really wanted to beat nato they would move independant of roads since germans british french australians etc piss themselves if they have to leave concrete, every time in the military I had to deal with a foreign nato soldier they had zero training in off road, and if a road got blown up they would probably stare at it until someone fixed it. Either way their training excercises are massive, and they are not just for conscript soldiers, they also work to train their officers and modify doctrine. In recent years they have been cycling them through syria because they found sending soldiers to a combat zone was cheaper than actual training.

I do not recall saying tens of thousands, they have around 20k tanks at their disposal, most of them could be running in short notice, however half of them are t-55 through t64 tanks that they are planning to export, while a little over 10k tanks are to remain in service. being the t-72 with the most reserves and the t-80 and t-90 being mostly active and the t-14 being active but not in full production or even full operational status. However you fail to account armored fighting vehicles, self propelled artillery, tow behind artillery, combat trucks, and this is just covering ground. Last I checked countries like germany were having a hard time keeping any of their military gear running, and people wonder why trump is always harping on germany when he is talking about nato spending.

Click to expand...

Which side are you on again plse thx?

While you're posting to another poster I ask because inquiring minds want to know. I like to know where some certain of our EP stand these dayze.

For instance, Russia would need absolutely -- and Russia will execute -- a massive pre-invasion bombardment of Europe. The focus would of course be against Nato military assets but civilian infrastructure would be included, such as roadways and railways, ports on the sea and for air travel, communications, centers of civil government to include police, hospitals, dams; bridges strategic to Nato initial response movements etc etc.

Nato would however acquire the Russian buildup to both a pre-invasion artillery/missile bombardment and the massing of tanks along the critical points at borders and boundaries. Putin would need to use nukes first because he'd know US-Nato nukes were being cranked up and counted down as the bombardment got underway -- in France first and foremost who would not wait. My point is there's a great deal more involved in initiating and conducting a continental war than counting tanks and other vehicles, figuring how many self-propelled can actually fire a round and in assessing whose conscript will fight and whose conscript will hide and watch.

beerftw said:

france and britain, mostly france with a policy of using nuclear weapons if invaded, meaning if the soviet union invaded into france after plowing through europe, france would launch their nukes. However russia's offense during the soviet union was actually a defense, they would roll forward into enemy territory to survive the retaliation nukes, and if they did an all out invasion it was because they felt their demise was coming, either through imminent nato invasion or imminent nuclear war.

Click to expand...

See the above plse thx.

beerftw said:

America has first strike in their nuclear doctrine, however during a nato invasion they would likely not use nukes unless defeat was on the horizon, france would use them at the onset of invasion.

Click to expand...

As noted above, yes, all indications are that France would launch nukes sooner rather than later and with an absolute certainty. Still, France would have to move rapidly and without hesitation to launch its nukes at the onset of the Russian pre-invasion bombardment. This is because there is virtually zero doubt the Russian initial bombardment would include nukes of low-yield. This is to be expected because we're talking about Russia invading Europe, not Russia tickling Macedonia. The US war plan for Iran for instance begins with a massive air bombardment of targets throughout the country using conventional bombs and nukes. (France is included in the order of battle.) The point being the attacking state force is not going to *****foot and wait for a doom scenario to use its ultimate weapons. The attacking force will go for the kill and quickly, massively, comprehensively, completely; decisively.

So neither side is going to wait to find itself standing at the precipice of doom to initiate use of low-yield nuclear weapons. And as SecDef Mattis points out, the low-yield nukes that are called "tac" nukes (so affectionately by some) are in fact strategic weapons. Nukes are simply of a different destructive power and scope with the variable in their use being purpose and desired overall result, i.e. to win the war. Nukes are not a last-ditch save your ass weapon. Talk like that is designed to make everyone look falsely reluctant to use 'em if an all-out war is initiated which is what a Russian move against Europe would be. It would be total war from the first shot. Nuclear war.

Tangmo said:

Which side are you on again plse thx?

While you're posting to another poster I ask because inquiring minds want to know. I like to know where some certain of our EP stand these dayze.

For instance, Russia would need absolutely -- and Russia will execute -- a massive pre-invasion bombardment of Europe. The focus would of course be against Nato military assets but civilian infrastructure would be included, such as roadways and railways, ports on the sea and for air travel, communications, centers of civil government to include police, hospitals, dams; bridges strategic to Nato initial response movements etc etc.

Nato would however acquire the Russian buildup to both a pre-invasion artillery/missile bombardment and the massing of tanks along the critical points at borders and boundaries. Putin would need to use nukes first because he'd know US-Nato nukes were being cranked up and counted down as the bombardment got underway -- in France first and foremost who would not wait. My point is there's a great deal more involved in initiating and conducting a continental war than counting tanks and other vehicles, figuring how many self-propelled can actually fire a round and in assessing whose conscript will fight and whose conscript will hide and watch.

Click to expand...

Nukes would be on standby, but for the sake of the thread including the us leaving nato, it would still leave british and french nukes as well as russian nukes on the field. I do not believe they would fire nukes first since that would pretty much bring upon mass destruction and the final move at the beginning, plus using nukes from the getgo would give russia an advantage there since they could retaliate and turn every inch of europe into dust, given the vast number of nukes at their disposal. I view it as nukes being the end game, with europe and russia trying to fight it out conventionally first as a conventional war is winnable while a nuclear war is not. Both the us and russia have pretty much given up on plans to use tactical and micro nukes in such a war as it still invokes mad, there was a time in the 60"s where russia and america though tiny nukes not much bigger than a moab was a good idea, however mad doctrine made that idea obsolete as any use of nuclear weapons against any nuclear country or their allies would lead to the whole world launching nukes at eachother.

Granted even if the us left nato, if france or britain did a first strike and russia leveled all of europe, america would launch nukes anyways then russia would launch more at the us and china would probably launch at both while recieve them as well.

beerftw said:

Nukes would be on standby, but for the sake of the thread including the us leaving nato, it would still leave british and french nukes as well as russian nukes on the field. I do not believe they would fire nukes first since that would pretty much bring upon mass destruction and the final move at the beginning, plus using nukes from the getgo would give russia an advantage there since they could retaliate and turn every inch of europe into dust, given the vast number of nukes at their disposal. I view it as nukes being the end game, with europe and russia trying to fight it out conventionally first as a conventional war is winnable while a nuclear war is not. Both the us and russia have pretty much given up on plans to use tactical and micro nukes in such a war as it still invokes mad, there was a time in the 60"s where russia and america though tiny nukes not much bigger than a moab was a good idea, however mad doctrine made that idea obsolete as any use of nuclear weapons against any nuclear country or their allies would lead to the whole world launching nukes at eachother.

Granted even if the us left nato, if france or britain did a first strike and russia leveled all of europe, america would launch nukes anyways then russia would launch more at the us and china would probably launch at both while recieve them as well.

Click to expand...

The argument is absurd. You position yourself as saying Russia won't fire nukes in the opening artillery barrage of the continent because it would mean nuclear war but that America would strike anyway and that Russia would strike last if it were losing because at that point there would have to be a nuclear war to stop the war. Which means you and I agree that Russia invading Europe necessarily means it would be a nuclear war. Yet you disagree, which is absurd. Then you throw in China which sounds to me like the kitchen sink.

Reality is that if you're going to start a war, which is what Russia would do against Europe, then you bring everything with you and you throw it at the other guy to lay him low, down and out. And you do it swiftly and decisively. Because, for instance, France would strike Russia with nuclear weapons, Russia would need to take out France as a leading priority of the invasion and the pre-invasion bombardment Russia would conduct. That would put nukes flying back and forth during the first hour.

Russia would need to include nukes in its pre-invasion bombardment to destroy immediately nuclear facilities such as the one at Buchel AFB in Germany. French sub launched nukes would not of course exempt the French population and territory from Russian nuclear attack. Russia needs to make clear to France it would pay for launching nukes at Russia and Russian invasion forces. This would be the case even if France knowing this launched regardless. The bottom line is that Russia would nuke France in hour one of the battle plan. And be nuked by France, all in the first hour. This would not of course exempt Russia from UK and USA nukes incoming.

You need to think this through. And presciently besides. Because we're in the middle of a nuclear war while we're still talking about hour one of the Russian battle plan and the Nato response to it. You might also want to do some coursework at the Army War College too but never mind if you think I might be asking too much of your standard issue grunt.

Tangmo said:

The argument is absurd. You position yourself as saying Russia won't strike first because it would mean nuclear war but that America would strike anyway and that Russia would strike last if it were losing because at that point there would have to be a nuclear war. Which means you and I agree that Russia invading Europe necessarily means it would be a nuclear war. Yet you disagree, which is absurd.

Reality is that if you're going to start a war, which is what Russia would do against Europe, then you bring everything with you and you throw it at the other guy to lay him low, down and out. And you do it swiftly and decisively. Because, for instance, France would strike Russia with nuclear weapons, Russia would need to take out France as a leading priority of the invasion and the pre-invasion bombardment Russia would conduct. That would put nukes flying back and forth during the first hour.

Russia would need to include nukes in its pre-invasion bombardment to destroy immediately nuclear facilities such as the one at Buchel AFB in Germany. French sub launched nukes would not of course exempt the French population and territory from Russian nuclear attack. Russia needs to make clear to France it would pay for launching nukes at Russia and Russian invasion forces. This would be the case even if France knowing this launched regardless. The bottom line is that Russia would nuke France in hour one of the battle plan. And be nukes by France in the first hour. This would not of course exempt Russia from UK and USA nukes incoming.

You need to think this through. And presciently besides. Because we're in the middle of a nuclear war now while we're still talking about hour one of the Russian battle plan and the Nato response to it. You might also want to do some coursework at the Army War College too but never mind if you think I might be asking too much of a simple grunt.

Click to expand...

You are not getting it, a conventional war is winnable nuclear war is not, both sides will try conventional war before going nuclear. Russia is not going to include pre invasion destruction of nuclear facilities, as it would lead to nuclear war. In relaity if nukes were used first in the war all of europe would be wiped out by nukes before they had a chance to fight, and mad doctrine would follow with everyone else nuking eachother.

beerftw said:

You are not getting it, a conventional war is winnable nuclear war is not, both sides will try conventional war before going nuclear. Russia is not going to include pre invasion destruction of nuclear facilities, as it would lead to nuclear war. In relaity if nukes were used first in the war all of europe would be wiped out by nukes before they had a chance to fight, and mad doctrine would follow with everyone else nuking eachother.

Click to expand...

You're missing the point that the conventional war you believe will be the only kind of war is impossible. Inconceivable.

If Russia is going to introduce its nuclear warheads once it starts losing the war then everyone knows the war will become a nuclear one. Russia knows this so don't think it doesn't know it. Everyone knows it.

You ignore that it has always been the Nato plan to use low-yield nukes to stop the Russian invasion in its tracks before it can leave any appreciable trail of tracks. You need to face the reality that the Russian pre-invasion artillery/missile massive bombardment of Europe would include low-yield nuclear weapons that within the hour if not in an hour or two Nato will respond to in kind. Nato is going to use nukes immediately and up front regardless of whether Russia introduces its nukes to the bombardment and/or invasion. The Russian offensive/invasion will not be a conventional war. It necessarily will be a war in which low-yield nukes will be used by each side during the first hour of the conflagration.

You've bought into the fairy tale that wise and sage nuclear powers will use nuclear warheads only if they begin to lose the conventional war they started. Even if that were true of every nuclear armed country it still would mean nuclear exchanges in the battlespace. And how far would Russia go in using nuclear warheads to stop a conventional war it is losing. What targets would Russia choose for its nukes in using its nukes to stop the already lost war. How many nukes? One as a warning? Ten in the first wave? How many waves? Russia does believe in escalating to de-escalate, so how much escalation of Russian nukes is desired, required, mandated by the Russian general staff. Under what circumstances, as if a formula, doctrine or policy could be used which it cannot.

So the Russian principle of escalating to de-escalate means Russia will introduce nuclear weapons to stop the conventional war it is losing and that you are certain would be conducted by both sides. You seem as assured of the success of this lunatic notion and gamble as the Krazy Russians are. That is, you assume Nato will throw in the towel once Russia uses its first nuke to stop its conventional war gone bad. You fail to consider the US-Nato response which matters at least as much as the Russian initiative matters in such a speculative scenario. Suppose a Gen. Patton guy is Nato supreme commander and a Mitt Romney guy is Potus. They go for it by nuking the entire Russian army as it moves toward Mother Russia or immediately inside of it. It becomes then that rare bird of war, a victory of annihilation, i.e., of the mass of the Russian army if not the Russian state too. (The Brits averted a Nazi victory of annihilation at Dunkerque.)


I dunno but you could sound like you were a fly on the wall of the Russian General Staff conference room. I'd like to think there's something for us to gain from it. But there isn't.

beerftw said:

The conscripts do serve a just a year in service, but see often more training than many nato countries will,

Click to expand...

No they don't. Some NATO personnel are in training longer than Russian troops are in service.

heck if someone really wanted to beat nato they would move independant of roads since germans british french australians etc piss themselves if they have to leave concrete, every time in the military I had to deal with a foreign nato soldier they had zero training in off road, and if a road got blown up they would probably stare at it until someone fixed it

Click to expand...

You realize Russian military doctrine explicitly stresses using paved roadways in order to move as fast as possible, right

Jredbaron96 said:

No they don't. Some NATO personnel are in training longer than Russian troops are in service.




You realize Russian military doctrine explicitly stresses using paved roadways in order to move as fast as possible, right

Click to expand...

In training longer than in service but what does the training entail? I know british troops are fairly well trained as are the croatians, but troops like germans were very good at rifle marksmenship but god aweful at running any of their equipment like tanks and trucks.

As far as roads I am sure any military even with offroad would utilize roads when available, however russia just like america trains for offroad, while much of europe has little or no offroad training. In actual war roads often get destroyed in short order, sometimes just in battles sometimes intentionally to slow progress of the opposing side, either way offroad capability is highly essential, yet many militaries never bother to train for it.

beerftw said:

In training longer than in service but what does the training entail? I know british troops are fairly well trained as are the croatians, but troops like germans were very good at rifle marksmenship but god aweful at running any of their equipment like tanks and trucks.

As far as roads I am sure any military even with offroad would utilize roads when available, however russia just like america trains for offroad, while much of europe has little or no offroad training. In actual war roads often get destroyed in short order, sometimes just in battles sometimes intentionally to slow progress of the opposing side, either way offroad capability is highly essential, yet many militaries never bother to train for it.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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/ar...y-Mattis-Nato-rent-collector-book-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.

Tangmo said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Tangmo said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

beerftw said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

beerftw said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

RabidAlpaca said:

No, I even said that and posted the data. Learn to ****ing read before you speak.

Click to expand...

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.