• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. blocks Turkey's F-35 equipment over S-400 deal with Russia

Jredbaron96 said:
My god man you really are just not capable of reading are you.

How many S-75s were deployed as tactical air defense systems? Oh, what? They were used to defend strategic targets like airfields and cities, so they have no impact on the discussion since we're talking about CAS?

Jesus dude. This is sad.
Click to expand...

It does not matter how many were, the military was already aware of their mobility, infact sams even if tactical were not even their biggest issues in vietnam, it was radar, because the north vietnamese had superior radar due to being heavy fixed ground radars, while the us military had no equivilent they could muster for rapid use in a hostile environment short of trying to construct a ground based radar in a hostile environment. This led to the creation of awacs, to allow the near equivilent of ground based radars anywhere so we would not have to worry about the enemy fixed radars seeing our aircraft long before we saw theirs.


But back to air defenses, the s-75 and s-125 were mobile capable systems, they were designed as such to shuffle around to prevent the enemy from scoping exact locations of air defense assets and trying to wipe them out since the relocated on a regular basis. It is not rocket science to assume since they could move to avoid being mapped out by enemy forces, they could also be moved and used to back an offensive.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
lol, okay

In Reality, the machine gun is the one providing covering fire, which was central to German tactics. It was in fact very successful, which is why on numerous occasions during the Allied push across France and Germany you had literal handfuls of German soldiers holding up much larger American formations.

Secondly, most armies of the time understood the importance of the LMG; it's why the British pumped out as many Brens as they could. Your claim that "everyone was just scared of how fast is fired" is nonsense. Both the Russians and the British recognized the importance of having a machine gun to lay down covering fire and did their best to implement it themselves. Meanwhile the Americans tried to shoehorn the BAR into the LMG role, along with trying to press the "walking fire" tactic; which proved to be largely ineffective.

The ability to lay down suppressing fire has time and time again proven to be an essential capability in infantry warfare; it's why every country in the world that is capable of doing so has pursued machine guns in that mold.
Click to expand...

Actually you must have misread it, everything I read on german squad formations puts the machine gunner as the main offensive weapon with light infantry providing cover for the machine gunner, their entire squad was designed around the machine gun rather than the machine gun integrated into the squad.

For the french and germans against the americans, they were in defensive positions not offensive positions, hence the trench warfare mentality. The americans and the french and the british had not fought any major war enough to have enough experienced troops since ww1, so the majority of all those forces were people who never experienced war, trained by a majority that never experienced war, and under a command who mostly had never seen a war.


The war shown in the end those german squads were garbage, if not defending a position they were too immobile to take anything against an actual light infantry. Even after ww2 the us military army shrank from 3 teams to two for a squad and deemed the 3 teams too slow for light infantry. Today the infantry packs firepower but puts mobility as a high priority rather than firepower as top priority and there is a reason for this. Fire power sounds great but it does little when you are facing a light infantry that can progress your position and outflank and outmaneuver your troops, the extra firepower is only a benefit until the ones you fight know that is all you have and learn to exploit your lack of mobility.
 
braindrain said:
Visual confirmation is absolutely not needed.
We can and have had the AF drop a bomb based of the grid we give them from our EUDs(really nothing more then a Samsung smart phone) Our JTACs can see what the pilots are seeing when they are using their rover to receive the down link from fighters and drones. Is visual confirmation a nice to have thing. Of course but it's no where near a requirement.
Click to expand...

Visual confirmation is well needed, need I remind you america lost a handful of sf in afghanistan in 2001 simply using a bomber using the same ideas. It has been a big issue, wrong coordinates, in the most recent friendly fire blunder a controller who was incompetent, confusing enemy and ally, all can be solved with visual confirmation.

Fyi drones such for visual confirmation, their view of the battlefield is inferior to aircraft like the a-10, and may I point out socom was the one who pushed the a-29 because they considered the airforce cas in afghanistan such garbage and wanted a turbo prop plane that was nothing more than a cheaper version of the a-10 because they considered the 8 minute airforce rule too poor, and especially against enemies like the taliban who exploited the delay knowing they could hide and the aircraft could not do another pass giving them more time unless it was a b-1 which could loiter for a very long time but still lacked the low speed maneuverability to make quick passes over and over again still giving the taliban plenty of time to exploit the weakness.
 
4093c08c09f14f58bc38e814e748a372.jpg

Russian transport delivering S-400 (SA-21 Growler) systems to Turkey.

Pentagon Will Raid F-35 Spare Parts Budget To Help Pay For Kicking Turkey Out Of The Program

Pentagon takes steps to replace Turkey in F-35 programme as sanctions loom

Will Trump Keep Turkey In F-35 Program? Washington Mum on Russian S-400 Delivery

Acting Defense Secretary Mark Esper spoke on the phone with his Turkish counterpart for ~30 minutes. The usual readout of the conversation for the press was not held, indicating that there was little common ground between the two countries on the S-400 issue.

Trump, as is typical for him, blamed the Turkish acquisition of the S-400 on Obama rather than on his pal Erdogan. Trump said Obama "Wouldn’t let him buy the missile he wanted to buy, which was the Patriot. You have to treat people fairly. And I don’t think he was treated fairly.” This Trump assertion is [of course] inaccurate. The US has offered to sell the Patriot system to Ankara since 2013, but Erdogan also demanded a transfer of the Patriot technology so Turkey could "borrow/steal" the US technology and manufacture its own version. The US declined Erdogan's technology transfer demand, but has always been willing to sell the Patriot to Turkey.

Erdogan said Donald Trump has assured him that there will be no sanctions on Turkey. If true, this belief is at odds not only with the Pentagon, but also with the rest of his administration (State/Defense/NSC). Washington insiders say that three sanction options are being considered and a decision will be made by the end of the coming week.

And no, I don't particularly care for Erdogan and his conservative AK Party who are engaged in waging war on the secular Turkey of Ataturk and Kurds. **** Erdogan.
 
Rogue Valley said:
4093c08c09f14f58bc38e814e748a372.jpg

Russian transport delivering S-400 (SA-21 Growler) systems to Turkey.

Pentagon Will Raid F-35 Spare Parts Budget To Help Pay For Kicking Turkey Out Of The Program

Pentagon takes steps to replace Turkey in F-35 programme as sanctions loom

Will Trump Keep Turkey In F-35 Program? Washington Mum on Russian S-400 Delivery

Acting Defense Secretary Mark Esper spoke on the phone with his Turkish counterpart for ~30 minutes. The usual readout of the conversation for the press was not held, indicating that there was little common ground between the two countries on the S-400 issue.

Trump, as is typical for him, blamed the Turkish acquisition of the S-400 on Obama rather than on his pal Erdogan. Trump said Obama "Wouldn’t let him buy the missile he wanted to buy, which was the Patriot. You have to treat people fairly. And I don’t think he was treated fairly.” This Trump assertion is [of course] inaccurate. The US has offered to sell the Patriot system to Ankara since 2013, but Erdogan also demanded a transfer of the Patriot technology so Turkey could "borrow/steal" the US technology and manufacture its own version. The US declined Erdogan's technology transfer demand, but has always been willing to sell the Patriot to Turkey.

Erdogan said Donald Trump has assured him that there will be no sanctions on Turkey. If true, this belief is at odds not only with the Pentagon, but also with the rest of his administration (State/Defense/NSC). Washington insiders say that three sanction options are being considered and a decision will be made by the end of the coming week.

And no, I don't particularly care for Erdogan and his conservative AK Party who are engaged in waging war on the secular Turkey of Ataturk and Kurds. **** Erdogan.
Click to expand...

On your first link why? The spare parts issue is so bad on the f-35 that it is impossible to keep them up and running for any serious mission due to massive shortage. Why in the hell would the pentagon rob funds from the one thing that will keep them airborne just to spite turkey, talking about cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
\
The f-35 is in such a massive parts shortage that keeping them mission ready is near impossible, and now that funds are put towards that they want to rob those funds?
 
beerftw said:
But back to air defenses, the s-75 and s-125 were mobile capable systems, they were designed as such to shuffle around to prevent the enemy from scoping exact locations of air defense assets and trying to wipe them out since the relocated on a regular basis. It is not rocket science to assume since they could move to avoid being mapped out by enemy forces, they could also be moved and used to back an offensive.
Click to expand...

The fact that they could be moved does not make them tactical air defense systems. Let me ask you this again; how many S-75 and S-125s were used as tactical air defense systems by NVA forces in the field? Because that's actually what we're talking about.
 
beerftw said:
Actually you must have misread it, everything I read on german squad formations puts the machine gunner as the main offensive weapon with light infantry providing cover for the machine gunner, their entire squad was designed around the machine gun rather than the machine gun integrated into the squad.
Click to expand...

Not only did I never distinguish between being integrated into or being centered around, none of what you said counters anything I said.

For the french and germans against the americans, they were in defensive positions not offensive positions, hence the trench warfare mentality. The americans and the french and the british had not fought any major war enough to have enough experienced troops since ww1, so the majority of all those forces were people who never experienced war, trained by a majority that never experienced war, and under a command who mostly had never seen a war.
Click to expand...

This is nonsensical and not even true.


The war shown in the end those german squads were garbage, if not defending a position they were too immobile to take anything against an actual light infantry. Even after ww2 the us military army shrank from 3 teams to two for a squad and deemed the 3 teams too slow for light infantry. Today the infantry packs firepower but puts mobility as a high priority rather than firepower as top priority and there is a reason for this. Fire power sounds great but it does little when you are facing a light infantry that can progress your position and outflank and outmaneuver your troops, the extra firepower is only a benefit until the ones you fight know that is all you have and learn to exploit your lack of mobility.
Click to expand...

This is directly countered by the proliferation of light machine guns and GPMGs throughout virtually every military in the world. Your light infantry meme is garbage and not at all reflective of what actually happened.
 
beerftw said:
Visual confirmation is well needed, need I remind you america lost a handful of sf in afghanistan in 2001 simply using a bomber using the same ideas. It has been a big issue, wrong coordinates, in the most recent friendly fire blunder a controller who was incompetent, confusing enemy and ally, all can be solved with visual confirmation.

Fyi drones such for visual confirmation, their view of the battlefield is inferior to aircraft like the a-10, and may I point out socom was the one who pushed the a-29 because they considered the airforce cas in afghanistan such garbage and wanted a turbo prop plane that was nothing more than a cheaper version of the a-10 because they considered the 8 minute airforce rule too poor, and especially against enemies like the taliban who exploited the delay knowing they could hide and the aircraft could not do another pass giving them more time unless it was a b-1 which could loiter for a very long time but still lacked the low speed maneuverability to make quick passes over and over again still giving the taliban plenty of time to exploit the weakness.
Click to expand...
And there have been friendly fire accidents that involved the A10 and visual confirmation.
And again visual confirmation is nice to have. It is not needed. As proven by the hundreds of CAS missions conducted without it.

And I am not sure whar exactly you are talking about when it comes to the view of the battlefield sucking from drones. You are way of base here. ISR from preds and reapers is pretty much the gold standard for all SOF missions. They provide excellent eyes on the battlefield. And as to why SOCOM wants A29s it's not to surprising that they would want an aircraft that they can control and not have to rely on the AF. I am sure if they could get away with it they would love to own some F22s as well.
 
braindrain said:
And there have been friendly fire accidents that involved the A10 and visual confirmation.
And again visual confirmation is nice to have. It is not needed. As proven by the hundreds of CAS missions conducted without it.

And I am not sure whar exactly you are talking about when it comes to the view of the battlefield sucking from drones. You are way of base here. ISR from preds and reapers is pretty much the gold standard for all SOF missions. They provide excellent eyes on the battlefield. And as to why SOCOM wants A29s it's not to surprising that they would want an aircraft that they can control and not have to rely on the AF. I am sure if they could get away with it they would love to own some F22s as well.
Click to expand...

The view of a drone is not a wide view like from the cockpit of an a-10 or even the scrapped but being pushed again a-29. The a-10 has a cockpit designed to hold a wide view of the battlefield. Yes friendly fire has occurred with them as well, however if up close visual confirmation fails, it is likely that non visual confirmation or confirmation from high up would fail far worse.

Also the a-29 was not wanted just because they wanted their own plane, it was because the airforce fought tooth and nail to keep the a-10 out of afghanistan as much as possible despite it being the best terrain for the a-10 to operate in, and instead widely used them in iraq the most hostile terrain for them to operate in almost like the airforce was being the airforce and trying to make the aircraft look bad which they still failed at.


The a-29 was not just socom wanting an aircraft, they wanted one with a very long loiter time, visual confirmation, the ability to carry a wide range of munitions from small 100 and 250 pound bombs as well as cannons to larger 500 pound bombs, as well as rockets and also hold the ability to work in day and night missions where friendly and hostile forces were in extremely close proximity. The literal aircraft that already met those demands was the a-10 but the airforce did not want to use them in afghanistan, usually having only a few at any given time for the entire country and instead relying almost entirely on the b-52 and the f16 with the 8 minute rule.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Not only did I never distinguish between being integrated into or being centered around, none of what you said counters anything I said.



This is nonsensical and not even true.




This is directly countered by the proliferation of light machine guns and GPMGs throughout virtually every military in the world. Your light infantry meme is garbage and not at all reflective of what actually happened.
Click to expand...

Can you counter what I said or is all information on german squad formations wrong and you hold the only secret book on it? All research I have done shown the german squad focused on the machine gun and even used light infantry to support the machine gun.



It fyi is not directly countered by machine guns in every military, take for example the us military, the most basic infantry layout is one per team two per squad, but there is a major difference, those machine guns are there to support the squad and the teams, unlike th german squads where the squads were there to support the machine gun.


It was literally impossible for them not to use the squad as support because the mg42 had such a massive rate of fire that every soldier needed to carry extra ammo and barrels for the mg42 otherwise it was worthless since it burned through ammo faster than politicians burned through money. Most nations on earth use slower rates of fire now because firing 1800 rounds per minute does not mean crap if it bogs an entire team down to carry enough ammo to do controlled bursts longer than a minute or two.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
The fact that they could be moved does not make them tactical air defense systems. Let me ask you this again; how many S-75 and S-125s were used as tactical air defense systems by NVA forces in the field? Because that's actually what we're talking about.
Click to expand...

That does not matter how many were used, the military leaders would have to be dumber than a preschool kid just learning colors to not figure out how they could be used tactically. The us govt was already gaining an understanding of soviet air defenses back in the 50's, and it bit them hard in the early 60's with the u2 shot down over the soviet union which they deemed air defenses could not hit that high, and later again during the cuban missile crisis. By vietnam being in full swing they already knew soviet systems were capable and engineers built aircraft based off failures of the day.

For example the f-14 f-15 and f-16 all older that the a-10 were all built off of failures in vietnam, the a-10 was built off of cas demands from vietnam, all of those aircraft took into consideration soviet defenses as well as the systems used by soviet proxies.
 
beerftw said:
That does not matter how many were used,
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.

all of those aircraft took into consideration soviet defenses as well as the systems used by soviet proxies.
Click to expand...

Except as a CAS platform the A-10 wouldn't have had to worry about strategic air defenses, because that's not there CAS takes place at.
 
beerftw said:
Can you counter what I said or is all information on german squad formations wrong and you hold the only secret book on it? All research I have done shown the german squad focused on the machine gun and even used light infantry to support the machine gun.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt you've done any research at all, since you never bring it up during these debates.



It fyi is not directly countered by machine guns in every military, take for example the us military, the most basic infantry layout is one per team two per squad, but there is a major difference, those machine guns are there to support the squad and the teams, unlike th german squads where the squads were there to support the machine gun.
Click to expand...

The German troops were not there to "support" the machinegun. The MG, like all weapon systems used by the squad, was there to help them carry out there tasks.


It was literally impossible for them not to use the squad as support because the mg42 had such a massive rate of fire that every soldier needed to carry extra ammo and barrels for the mg42 otherwise it was worthless since it burned through ammo faster than politicians burned through money. Most nations on earth use slower rates of fire now because firing 1800 rounds per minute does not mean crap if it bogs an entire team down to carry enough ammo to do controlled bursts longer than a minute or two.
Click to expand...

The MG42 fired so fast because it was a cheap design and the need to improve the firepower of German squads which had been depleted by Barbarossa.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Yes, it does.



Except as a CAS platform the A-10 wouldn't have had to worry about strategic air defenses, because that's not there CAS takes place at.
Click to expand...

No it is not where it takes place, however tactical defenses would have been planned before they ever saw the soviets build them. Hell america has had the hawk since 1959 literally capable of being used as a tactical system, systems as such were known long before that they were capable of being used otherwise.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
I seriously doubt you've done any research at all, since you never bring it up during these debates.





The German troops were not there to "support" the machinegun. The MG, like all weapon systems used by the squad, was there to help them carry out there tasks.





The MG42 fired so fast because it was a cheap design and the need to improve the firepower of German squads which had been depleted by Barbarossa.
Click to expand...

Actually I seriously doubt you researched it much, you keep claiming it was to support but everything I have read has shown it as the main offensive and defensive weapon of the squad with the squad to support the machine gun not the other way around.


The mg42 fired that fast because they designed it to, it was a cheap gun to make but hell to keep on the battlefield, it can burn through ammo even in burst fire so fast that every soldier needed to carry ammo just to have any duration, unlike modern systems like the saw or 240b or m-60(ok the m60 is not too modern) which fire at a much slower rate allowing a longer period of fire on a smaller amount of ammo, and also kept light infantry from being burdened with being the machine gunners pack mule by needing to carry such an extreme amount of ammo to last any amount of time with a gun that fires 1800 rounds a minute.


I got a question, have you ever had to carry even an m249 with the ammo? The ammo carried is not that much however it does add weight, but with 400-600 rounds the saw can stay in a battle with suppressive fire for quite a while. Now imagine needing far more than that with an mg42, with a much heavier round than the the 5.56, and needing to have everyone carry your extra ammo. There is a literal reason the us military did not copy their tactics, the german tactics were rehashed trench tactics that relied more on firepower than mobility rather than a balance.
 
beerftw said:
No it is not where it takes place, however tactical defenses would have been planned before they ever saw the soviets build them. Hell america has had the hawk since 1959 literally capable of being used as a tactical system, systems as such were known long before that they were capable of being used otherwise.
Click to expand...

But did the Soviets have tactical air defense SAM systems? No, they had SPAAGs. Which is what the A-10 was designed in mind.
 
beerftw said:
Actually I seriously doubt you researched it much, you keep claiming it was to support but everything I have read has shown it as the main offensive and defensive weapon of the squad with the squad to support the machine gun not the other way around.
Click to expand...

You haven't listed a single source to back up any claims you've made in this thread.


The mg42 fired that fast because they designed it to, it was a cheap gun to make but hell to keep on the battlefield, it can burn through ammo even in burst fire so fast that every soldier needed to carry ammo just to have any duration, unlike modern systems like the saw or 240b or m-60(ok the m60 is not too modern) which fire at a much slower rate allowing a longer period of fire on a smaller amount of ammo, and also kept light infantry from being burdened with being the machine gunners pack mule by needing to carry such an extreme amount of ammo to last any amount of time with a gun that fires 1800 rounds a minute.
Click to expand...

The MG42 fired fast because it took the complex parts out of the MG34 in order to make it mass produce able. It also was necessary to make up for squad deficiencies in the Germany Army after Barbarossa. Numerous first hand accounts by American soldiers indicate how badly outmatched they were by the MG42's rate of fire.


I got a question, have you ever had to carry even an m249 with the ammo? The ammo carried is not that much however it does add weight, but with 400-600 rounds the saw can stay in a battle with suppressive fire for quite a while. Now imagine needing far more than that with an mg42, with a much heavier round than the the 5.56, and needing to have everyone carry your extra ammo. There is a literal reason the us military did not copy their tactics, the german tactics were rehashed trench tactics that relied more on firepower than mobility rather than a balance.
Click to expand...

Yeah I did, I was a SAW gunner for about a year in my section. Which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, since the 249 is a Light machine gun and the MG42 is a GPMG.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
But did the Soviets have tactical air defense SAM systems? No, they had SPAAGs. Which is what the A-10 was designed in mind.
Click to expand...

You using tactical sams is a bs stretch at best, the soviets were capable of using them tactically since the early 50's and america had the same capability since 1959 with the hawk, claiming it was not designed to deal with such would be to claim the military leadership was so inept they could not figure out the absolute basics of movement.

Let me give you a hint, both the russians and americans knew quite well before the a-10 was a cratch on a piece of paper air defenses could be used in a tactical sense.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
You haven't listed a single source to back up any claims you've made in this thread.




The MG42 fired fast because it took the complex parts out of the MG34 in order to make it mass produce able. It also was necessary to make up for squad deficiencies in the Germany Army after Barbarossa. Numerous first hand accounts by American soldiers indicate how badly outmatched they were by the MG42's rate of fire.




Yeah I did, I was a SAW gunner for about a year in my section. Which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, since the 249 is a Light machine gun and the MG42 is a GPMG.
Click to expand...

Meant to quote this just look above
 
beerftw said:
Meant to quote this just look above
Click to expand...

None of your links proved your points nor disproved mine, even the war is boring site which is not a good website to begin with.
 
beerftw said:
You using tactical sams is a bs stretch at best, the soviets were capable of using them tactically since the early 50's and america had the same capability since 1959 with the hawk, claiming it was not designed to deal with such would be to claim the military leadership was so inept they could not figure out the absolute basics of movement.
Click to expand...

No, the Soviets did not use SAMs as tactical air defenses until the late 60s earlier 70s, and it didn't become widespread until the mid-70s.

Let me give you a hint, both the russians and americans knew quite well before the a-10 was a cratch on a piece of paper air defenses could be used in a tactical sense.
Click to expand...

What does this even mean
 
beerftw said:
The view of a drone is not a wide view like from the cockpit of an a-10 or even the scrapped but being pushed again a-29. The a-10 has a cockpit designed to hold a wide view of the battlefield. Yes friendly fire has occurred with them as well, however if up close visual confirmation fails, it is likely that non visual confirmation or confirmation from high up would fail far worse.

Also the a-29 was not wanted just because they wanted their own plane, it was because the airforce fought tooth and nail to keep the a-10 out of afghanistan as much as possible despite it being the best terrain for the a-10 to operate in, and instead widely used them in iraq the most hostile terrain for them to operate in almost like the airforce was being the airforce and trying to make the aircraft look bad which they still failed at.


The a-29 was not just socom wanting an aircraft, they wanted one with a very long loiter time, visual confirmation, the ability to carry a wide range of munitions from small 100 and 250 pound bombs as well as cannons to larger 500 pound bombs, as well as rockets and also hold the ability to work in day and night missions where friendly and hostile forces were in extremely close proximity. The literal aircraft that already met those demands was the a-10 but the airforce did not want to use them in afghanistan, usually having only a few at any given time for the entire country and instead relying almost entirely on the b-52 and the f16 with the 8 minute rule.
Click to expand...

Wide field of view is not the only thing that matters when it comes to having a good view of the battlefield. Your claim that drones suck for providing visual confirmation is simply ridiculous. Yeah they suck so much that they are the preferred tool for ISR. If a commander is looking to get eyes on a target or an enemy position no one requests an A10. And one of the main reasons is drones like preds provide much better eyes on.

And you claiming that if close up visual confirmation failed then non visual would fail is simply you making things up. CAS is done all the time without visual confirmation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom