If they needed to fend off war with RF, US military leaders worry they might not get there in time

[beerftw]

I have read plenty about it. And yes it was more maneuverable at slow speeds then US fighters. It also had crappy radar, very limited range and horrible electronics that forced the pilot to spend way to much time looking down instead of up and out. And like I said high maneuverability is not the only thing that makes a great fighter. Up against US aircraft the Mig29 would more then likely blown from the sky before they ever got close enough to engage in a close range dogfight. Such is proved by the actual real world results when Mig29s have went up against Western AFs.

You make a lot of claims that run exactly opposite or real world results. Why do you think that is.

I suggest you spend some time on some of the forums that are filled with fighter pilots. They don't agree with your assessments either.

So I think I will believe real world results and the thoughts of actual fighter pilots over your opinion pretty much every time.

And the US did not shift our strategy due to the Mig29. Fighting beyond visual range and not getting in dog fights was already the focus of the US Air Force. Proven by the very planes the US had when the Mig29 came out. Planes linked the F15 and F14 were never designed as with close range dogfighting as the primary mission. It was that way way back in the 60s when the US stopped putting guns on its planes for a short time.

I think your love affair over Russia planes is causing you to come to some pretty ridiculous conclusions.

The mig29 the us had was nothing more than the export model, which was far inferior to the russian one, but was identical to the one iraq had. Even the stripped down export model though came with helmet mounted offbore sighting, meaning up to 45 degrees they could launch missiles without the jet facing the target.

You also mention beyond visible range and removing guns in the 60's. but ignore that the us has been wrong on that mentality and lost many jets with the mentality dogfights are dead. The aim9x which is the current sidewinder only has around 30% chance of success, even the most antique russian jets from the 50's are capable of dodging them, the aim120 is not much better, this is where guns came into play and dogfighting, as often beyond visual range weapons fail especially when flares are deployed or evasive maneuvers are used. It is a shame some of the f35 configurations only carry 2 missilles given the poor success rate of both american and soviet air to air missiles.

Case and point the mig29 was a better dogfighter than american fighter jets, and the mig29 was utter crap compared to the su27 in a dogfight. America seems to be the only major power calling dogfights dead, they however engaged in quite a few in the first gulf war despite what they thought would happen. Since the gulf war the us has not engaged any competant military force, it is right now looking like they geared their military to only fight third world nations, while russia and other nations geared up to handle first world nations.


Oh heck here is a documentary on the dogfights of the iraq war, the information is literally there.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Would they?

Remember, in 1941 the Germans moved almost 4 million soldiers and their equipment to the German-Soviet border in Poland, largely undetected. The Soviets knew they were sending up forces, which they stated were to put down Polish resistance. But the Soviets were stunned when the actual attack came by how many forces had been moved up.

You are putting far to much faith into intelligence. And the Russians have been masters of maskerovka for centuries.

Jesus Christ, you realize that the reason the Soviets were so unprepared was because Stalin forbade the flying of recon flights over the German buildup, and the NKVD refused to transfer information about the German buildup to field commanders?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Holy crap, if your ground army masses a potential 2.5 million in reserve, you do not have to be all that competent. The army they marched from Moscow to Berlin was barely competent. But as a famous Georgian philosopher once said, "Quantity has a quality all it's own." With an army that large (on top of the 1.2 million active, and 6 million in inactive reserve), they do not have to be very good.

Seriously, you can't win wars on mass alone anymore. Did you just forget about the Gulf War?

 

[Jredbaron96]

They would not have to call them up until after the conflict started.

Remember, those men are already trained, assigned to units, and have equipment. Most reserve units can be mobilized in 2-10 days.

And Russia is still essentially a centrally controlled nation and economy. They did it before, and they can easily do it again. You seem to be under the impression that they require their industry, and their washing machines and color TVs. You seem to have absolutely no idea how fast a nation can convert itself from a largely peacetime economy and industry to an entirely military one.

You seem to be under the impression that the end of WWII didn't revolutionize warfare as we know it with the implementation of nuclear weapons, or that advances in precision fire munitions have not drastically changed the way modern warfare works.

Like so many others you seem to think that any future global war will play out just like WWII, where vast armies of conscripts clash in grand sweeping offensives over the course of weeks and months. This has been proven false in virtually every major conventional conflict since; the Six Day War, Yom Kippur, the Gulf War and Iraq 2003. Modern warfare between conventional opponents happens far too quickly for that. It's why the Soviets calculated the longevity of their front line regiments in days, and NATO estimated they'd run out of ammunition in a week, and certain high value items like PGMs in 3-5 days.

 

[beerftw]

Would they?

Remember, in 1941 the Germans moved almost 4 million soldiers and their equipment to the German-Soviet border in Poland, largely undetected. The Soviets knew they were sending up forces, which they stated were to put down Polish resistance. But the Soviets were stunned when the actual attack came by how many forces had been moved up.

You are putting far to much faith into intelligence. And the Russians have been masters of maskerovka for centuries.



And why would they do that? It is not like a major war would already be underway. And at the start of WWII, the militaries involved were actually rather small.

When Germany invaded France, they did so with an army that only mustered 3.5 million men. And France had almost 5 million men. But they were still able to win.

But by 1944, Germany had over 12 million men in the army.

At the start of any similar war, the militaries are generally small on all sides. It is only after the war starts that major conscription starts. And a nation on the defensive in their own territory (or in a retreat) has an almost impossible chore when it comes to assembling and training an army. In most conventional "WWIII scenarios", Germany becomes the main battleground in short order, primarily doing a fighting withdrawal. So do not expect any kind of big "German Conscription" to happen. They are going to have to fight it out with what they start with. Their Army, the Reserves, and any who have mustered out or retired that they can call up. And with conscription ending in Germany 2011, the pool of military aged men who are already trained is shrinking every year.

There are simply going to be no facilities, equipment, or time to train up new forces there.

France and the other far-Western nations are the only ones that will have the luxury to take such actions.

And it must be remembered, that Russia still has a universal conscription. That means they have a huge pool who can be recalled to service and quickly formed into new units. Turkey is the only member of NATO that still uses a universal conscription.

The biggest advantage of conscription is not in the size of the army itself, but in the pool of trained soldiers who can be quickly recalled to service once a conflict starts. And with universal conscription for decades, that means most of Russia can be mobilized quickly. That is not the case in the rest of Europe.



I ignore his posts for a reason. But in reading your quote of it, I was struck by the idiotic statement that follows from his "reference":



Holy crap, if your ground army masses a potential 2.5 million in reserve, you do not have to be all that competent. The army they marched from Moscow to Berlin was barely competent. But as a famous Georgian philosopher once said, "Quantity has a quality all it's own." With an army that large (on top of the 1.2 million active, and 6 million in inactive reserve), they do not have to be very good.

I agree most likely a war would start smaller not with max numbers, but the latter is not impossible or improbable. On poland that was germany being deceptive, germany let soviet forces sieze baltic states and were promising to let them have part of poland, hitler however backstabbed them which the soviet generals knew was coming but stalin had many of them killed which multiplied his losses.

maskerovka is a term I rarely here from western and nato forces, but is very well a part of soviet doctrine, it is not just a well round defense and offense, but use of deception to confuse enemies and win the minds of the people they invade. There is probably a massive definition of the strategy, this is just the most basic lamens.

 

[Jredbaron96]

And Russia is still essentially a centrally controlled nation and economy. They did it before, and they can easily do it again. You seem to be under the impression that they require their industry, and their washing machines and color TVs. You seem to have absolutely no idea how fast a nation can convert itself from a largely peacetime economy and industry to an entirely military one.

Okay, this is just so ****ing stupid I had to come back to it.

Over half of the Russian budget comes from it's energy sector. Who do they export the most to? Europe. Now you may think "All Russia has to do is threaten to cut off Europe's gas supply and they win", but that's bull****. Europe buys Russian gas because it's cheap and the logistical requirements are minimal for transportation since Russia is right next door. But Europe, unlike Russia, is incredibly wealthy. They can afford to buy natural gas from other sources. It is true that Russian gas exports to the EU have increased, albeit not dramatically, in the past couple of years. However, at the same time, and more importantly, the EU has today a much larger and largely under-utilized capacity for import of liquefied natural gas, which could be activated in the case of a disruption of gas supplies from Russia.

Add to this that significant quantities of natural gas, presently being used for electricity generation, could be freed up for more essential uses (domestic heating and industry) and the conclusion is that Russia, with no alternative outlets for the gas presently being piped into the EU, would be the big loser in a disruption scenario. Big loser, because half their government's budget is gone. You say that Russia doesn't need it's luxuries, but that's missing the point entirely. The Russians need cash to finance their war machine, and losing half their budget would cripple them.

Of course, you can say, they'll just print more money. Which in turn leads to inflation, which makes it harder for Russia (which despite the memes does not have every natural resources available domestically) to import stuff like machinery and equipment, vehicles, consumer goods, foodstuffs, chemical products, industrial consumer goods.

 

[braindrain]

The mig29 the us had was nothing more than the export model, which was far inferior to the russian one, but was identical to the one iraq had. Even the stripped down export model though came with helmet mounted offbore sighting, meaning up to 45 degrees they could launch missiles without the jet facing the target.

You also mention beyond visible range and removing guns in the 60's. but ignore that the us has been wrong on that mentality and lost many jets with the mentality dogfights are dead. The aim9x which is the current sidewinder only has around 30% chance of success, even the most antique russian jets from the 50's are capable of dodging them, the aim120 is not much better, this is where guns came into play and dogfighting, as often beyond visual range weapons fail especially when flares are deployed or evasive maneuvers are used. It is a shame some of the f35 configurations only carry 2 missilles given the poor success rate of both american and soviet air to air missiles.

Case and point the mig29 was a better dogfighter than american fighter jets, and the mig29 was utter crap compared to the su27 in a dogfight. America seems to be the only major power calling dogfights dead, they however engaged in quite a few in the first gulf war despite what they thought would happen. Since the gulf war the us has not engaged any competant military force, it is right now looking like they geared their military to only fight third world nations, while russia and other nations geared up to handle first world nations.


Oh heck here is a documentary on the dogfights of the iraq war, the information is literally there.

You are jumping all over the place and making claims that are in direct contradiction of some of your other claims. You say that the US didn't switch to a strategy of BVR until they tested the mig29 and their fear of that plane is what caused the switch which enables the US to defeat easily the Iraqi AF. After the foolishness of that claim is pointed out you talk about how the US strategy of bvr was a failure. The fact that you don't see the contradiction in your claims is surprising. But then you also tried to claim that Russian pilots were intended to work independently from ground or aerial based radar and that is why the Russians put such crappy radars in their planes. The exact opposite of reality. So maybe it's not that surprising.

The mig29 was a better dogfight when low and slow. That and a very good missile system is about it. It also had crappy radar and very poor hardware. A forth Gen fighter with third generation guts.

At the end the thing that most definitely destroys your claims is this.

The Mig29 has 11 or 12 total aerial kills including a couple friendly fire incidents the and the shooting down of a couple Cessna aircraft. The US F15 shot down over 35 other aircraft in the gulf war alone and more then 60 more in total while never being shot down by another airplane. And not just in the gulf war but never. Not a US F15 or any other countries F15. It has also shot down 11 Mig29s yes that's right 11. Almost exactly the same number of total kills the Mig29 has. Says quite a bit about which plane is superior.

When your conclusions are the exact opposite of proven history the smart individual reexamines his conclusions.

 

[beerftw]

You are jumping all over the place and making claims that are in direct contradiction of some of your other claims. You say that the US didn't switch to a strategy of BVR until they tested the mig29 and their fear of that plane is what caused the switch which enables the US to defeat easily the Iraqi AF. After the foolishness of that claim is pointed out you talk about how the US strategy of bvr was a failure. The fact that you don't see the contradiction in your claims is surprising. But then you also tried to claim that Russian pilots were intended to work independently from ground or aerial based radar and that is why the Russians put such crappy radars in their planes. The exact opposite of reality. So maybe it's not that surprising.

The mig29 was a better dogfight when low and slow. That and a very good missile system is about it. It also had crappy radar and very poor hardware. A forth Gen fighter with third generation guts.

At the end the thing that most definitely destroys your claims is this.

The Mig29 has 11 or 12 total aerial kills including a couple friendly fire incidents the and the shooting down of a couple Cessna aircraft. The US F15 shot down over 35 other aircraft in the gulf war alone and more then 60 more in total while never being shot down by another airplane. And not just in the gulf war but never. Not a US F15 or any other countries F15. It has also shot down 11 Mig29s yes that's right 11. Almost exactly the same number of total kills the Mig29 has. Says quite a bit about which plane is superior.

When your conclusions are the exact opposite of proven history the smart individual reexamines his conclusions.

Well you missunderstand quite clearly what I am saying, the bvr was pushed against the mig 29, it was a strategy used since the late 50's/early 60's but was stressed even more with the mig 29 when it was realized a close range dogfight with a mig 29 was a losing situation, one they did not want their pilots in, they wanted to keep the mig 29 advantage from ever being at play, and for the most part they only had 1 close range encounter.

The bvr stategy is a decent strategy, however the bvr only strategy is a faulire, the us military considered dogfighting dead before vietnam and during the war us aircraft did take heavy casualties especially from mig 17s doing the wagon wheel, it was not until later with the top gun program in the late 60's that dogfighting was put back into training, and the f-4 which was an awefull dogfighter stopped trying to fight them on a horizontal plane where the mig 17 and 21 had every advantage, and instead trained their pilots to fight them on the vertical plain where the f-4 outperformed them.

The total mig29 deathcount was mostly from serbia, who operated unmaintained mig29's, many with no functioning radar, radio or targeting systems. The iraqi migs I am unsure on how well they were maintained or functions, but I would assume they would have had full functionality given how new they were. That is another point of interest, the iraqi mig29 was new to their air force, so that means traiing on them was likely low, while some of their aces flew mig 25's, worst dogfighter ever but did manage to take out an f-18, two non fighter aircraft, and even avoid getting shot down itself, which shown he had mastered his equipment.


Long story short, superiority of any aircraft means little in close range combat compared to fighting style and doctrine, f-15 has never been lost in combat because the pilots and their training involve them avoiding situations where the enemy gains the advantage and they lose theirs. But on the whole bvr and removing guns thing, it failed badly in vietnam, infact between ground fire anti artillery sams and enemy aircraft the us govt lost more aircraft in that war then the us currently has across all branches currently, I only pray those who served then keep slapping some sense into military brass who want to repeat the same failures they already lived through and learned to avoid.

 

[braindrain]

Well you missunderstand quite clearly what I am saying, the bvr was pushed against the mig 29, it was a strategy used since the late 50's/early 60's but was stressed even more with the mig 29 when it was realized a close range dogfight with a mig 29 was a losing situation, one they did not want their pilots in, they wanted to keep the mig 29 advantage from ever being at play, and for the most part they only had 1 close range encounter.

The bvr stategy is a decent strategy, however the bvr only strategy is a faulire, the us military considered dogfighting dead before vietnam and during the war us aircraft did take heavy casualties especially from mig 17s doing the wagon wheel, it was not until later with the top gun program in the late 60's that dogfighting was put back into training, and the f-4 which was an awefull dogfighter stopped trying to fight them on a horizontal plane where the mig 17 and 21 had every advantage, and instead trained their pilots to fight them on the vertical plain where the f-4 outperformed them.

The total mig29 deathcount was mostly from serbia, who operated unmaintained mig29's, many with no functioning radar, radio or targeting systems. The iraqi migs I am unsure on how well they were maintained or functions, but I would assume they would have had full functionality given how new they were. That is another point of interest, the iraqi mig29 was new to their air force, so that means traiing on them was likely low, while some of their aces flew mig 25's, worst dogfighter ever but did manage to take out an f-18, two non fighter aircraft, and even avoid getting shot down itself, which shown he had mastered his equipment.


Long story short, superiority of any aircraft means little in close range combat compared to fighting style and doctrine, f-15 has never been lost in combat because the pilots and their training involve them avoiding situations where the enemy gains the advantage and they lose theirs. But on the whole bvr and removing guns thing, it failed badly in vietnam, infact between ground fire anti artillery sams and enemy aircraft the us govt lost more aircraft in that war then the us currently has across all branches currently, I only pray those who served then keep slapping some sense into military brass who want to repeat the same failures they already lived through and learned to avoid.

The US military tries to avoid close range dogfighting against all enemy aircraft. That is nothing special in regards to the Mig29 and the US AF strategy for fighting. And if it did happen it was not necessarily a losing situation as proved by the time it did happen.
And I agree that BVR only is a bad idea. But pretending as you did that the US switched it's strategy to BVR due to the Mig29 like you claimed is simply not true. And you even acknowledge it by talking about how that was the US strategy long before the Mig29 took to the air.

Just a few pages back you were talking about how feared the US AF was of the Iraqi AF and now you are claiming that they had little training with their planes. You seem to be making a habit of changing your claims due to what ever point your trying to argue.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Seriously, you can't win wars on mass alone anymore. Did you just forget about the Gulf War?

Sure you can. All that matters is how much you want to dedicate to the conflict.

Take Gulf War I and II. The US could have won both of those on their own. But those would have turned them from 3 day and 3 month wars, into 6 month and 3 year wars respectively. Iraq would not have had a chance in either case, but the wars would have been longer and bloodier. Wars of attrition as opposed to wars of quick victories.

You seem to be under the impression that the end of WWII didn't revolutionize warfare as we know it with the implementation of nuclear weapons, or that advances in precision fire munitions have not drastically changed the way modern warfare works.

Nuclear weapons did not revolutionize warfare. If they had, then somebody would have used them. In fact, the simple fact that they have not been used in over 72 years proves that they revolutionized nothing.

And no, we have had "weapons of mass destruction" for decades prior to that war. In fact, the bloodiest bombings of that war were conducted purely conventionally. And a similar effect could have been done as atomic weapons, if either side had simply decided to use chemical or biological weapons (weapons that all participants in the war possessed).

Yet another that fails to realize that nukes are not military weapons. They are political weapons. Militarily, they mean little to nothing.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Like so many others you seem to think that any future global war will play out just like WWII, where vast armies of conscripts clash in grand sweeping offensives over the course of weeks and months. This has been proven false in virtually every major conventional conflict since; the Six Day War, Yom Kippur, the Gulf War and Iraq 2003. Modern warfare between conventional opponents happens far too quickly for that. It's why the Soviets calculated the longevity of their front line regiments in days, and NATO estimated they'd run out of ammunition in a week, and certain high value items like PGMs in 3-5 days.

I have in no way said or implied that WWIII would play out like WWII. However, a great deal will follow the same way, simply because of geography.

For example, an attack into Germany. This is obvious, because of topography and the political requirements. But primarily because of topology.

For any attack from Russia into Europe, unless they intend to basically retake no further than the old East German border, they have to go through Germany. You have mountain ranges like the Alps that prevent them from going South. So unless they are for some reason going to try and invade amphibiously through say Denmark, that simply demands going via land. And this also mandates that they invade Germany, then proceed to the Fulda Gap.

That is the route Napoleon used. That is the route the US Army took when they moved into Eastern Germany during WWII. And it was the known route that the Warsaw Pact forces would have used. Because there is really no other route to use!

Funny, you talk about how this has been "proven false in virtually every major conventional conflict since". Sorry, that is very-very wrong. You only list 4 conflicts as validation. 2 of which were extremely lopsided.

Now let me give you a list of wars that played out much more like WWII.

The Korean War, the French-Indochina War, the Vietnam War, the Greek Civil War, the 70 year long civil war in Burma, the Malayan Conflict, the Chinese Civil War, the Cuban Revolution, the Congo Revolution, the Iraqi-Kurdish Wars, the Lebanese Civil Wars, the Iran-Iraq War, the various wars in former Yugoslavia, the Angolan War, the Yemeni Wars, the Rhodesian Civil War, Nicaragua, Chad's civil war, the Cambodian civil war, the UK-IRA conflict, the Italian Communist insurgency, the almost 50 year old Philippine Insurgencies, the string of conflicts in Ethiopia for the last 45+ years, the Angolan civil wars, the Soviet-Afghan War, etc, etc, etc.

Oh, I can go on and on and on, but hopefully you will get the point by now. You point out the few conflicts that were different, and try to claim they are the norm. No, those are the exceptions, and for a reason. In all of them the "wars" were so severely lopsided, that the loosing side was defeated without contest, and ceased to exist as a nation-government. Imagine how long Gulf War II might have gone on, had the Hussein Government been able to flee to a friendly country and been able to operate in inspiring an insurgency.

Or how much longer the various Arab-Israeli wars might have gone on, if the Arab armies had not been so intent on "overwhelming and quickly destroying Israel", as opposed to taking a longer and more gradual approach, using their superior numbers to fight a war of attrition as opposed to attempting to go in with everything they possessed at the start, and holding almost nothing back for later battles.

And high-tech weapons do not guarantee a victory. The Soviets were fighting with some of the most sophisticated weapons in the world, the Afghans were largely fighting with literally WWII era surplus equipment. Yet, the Afghans still won.

 

[Oozlefinch]

maskerovka is a term I rarely here from western and nato forces, but is very well a part of soviet doctrine, it is not just a well round defense and offense, but use of deception to confuse enemies and win the minds of the people they invade. There is probably a massive definition of the strategy, this is just the most basic lamens.

Maskirovka has been a key Russian-Soviet-Russian tactic for centuries. And it is really impossible for anybody to try and discuss them on a strategic level without taking it into consideration. Probably the first major use was in the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380, when they defeated the Mongol Horde by flanking them with units they had hidden in a forest.

During the Cold War, they frequently paraded their "Global Rocket 1", known to NATO as the SS-X-10 SCRAG. A long-range sub-orbital 2 megaton nuclear missile that frankly scared a lot of NATO and the US. They paraded them regularly in Red Square, and had units of them posted in key areas of the Soviet Union. These weapons were claimed to have been fielded in 1964. ANd they were a key part of the 1979 SALT II talks.

However, the missile did not exist! It was indeed designed and tested in the early 1960's, but it was a failure. But they still had "ghost units" armed with it that were posted in various parts of the Soviet Union, and routinely paraded them around. Ultimately one of the most successful maskirovka's of the Cold War.

And for them, it works both ways. They will use it to misdirect an enemy as to when and where an attack may come. It may even be used to show a weapons or piece of equipment that does not even exist (GR-1), but show-claim that it does to make the possible enemy reluctant to attack. They have even landed entire Airborne Divisions, entering unopposed by claiming the troop transports were civilian cargo aircraft (Kabul 1979).

Nobody who studies how the Russian-Soviet military operates without discussing this key part of their operations is fooling themselves, or trying to fool others. The "oh we/they will see it long in advance" is a complete idiot. Since WWII there have been many conflicts fought that started with little to no warning prior to the attack itself.

There was practically no warning in August 1990 when Iraq drove into Kuwait with over 4 divisions of tanks and infantry. There was no warning when the Soviet Union dropped 2 Airborne Divisions into Kabul in 1979. How much warning did Grenada have before the US threw 2 Divisions at them in October 1983?

 

[Oozlefinch]

Okay, this is just so ****ing stupid I had to come back to it.

Over half of the Russian budget comes from it's energy sector. Who do they export the most to? Europe. Now you may think "All Russia has to do is threaten to cut off Europe's gas supply and they win", but that's bull****.

*sighs*

OK, now this may be hard for you, but try to flush your mind. Eliminate all preconceived notions and politics you may have, and look at it from the position an enemy might potentially take?

What does Russia really need to sell it's resources for?

Remember, this is no longer the Soviet Union, which was so inefficient that it was dependent on imports for critical things like electronics and food. Today they are not only self-sufficient in food, they now have something they did not have and could not dream of during the Cold War.

A potential ally that is not aligned with NATO in any way, shape or form. And ally that has a huge electronics industry, and routinely now make components and chips for NATO countries.

I of course mean China. An option for imports that did not exist in 1992.

When a country goes to a wartime economy ("total war"), it's imports and exports are really only done when absolutely needed. All industry is converted to wartime requirements, nothing is wasted on "luxuries". And ultimately, that is what the majority of their International trade is for, luxuries. Things that if they went to war they would not need.

In a wartime footing, trade largely does not matter, unless it is to get something you can not provide yourself.

Do not believe me, just look at the US in WWII. We were the largest export nation in the world in almost everything at that time. Cars, ships, trains, oil, food, clothing, we exported everything everywhere.

But in just over a year, that shrunk to almost nothing. The entire country only made the bare minimums for our own needs, the rest of the nation devoted itself to war production. Coffin companies made airplanes. Typewriter and bicycle companies made guns. Small car companies stopped making cars and instead made trailers.

Want a better idea? In 1940, the US auto industry built almost 4.7 million cars.

In 1943, they built 139. That's it, one hundred and thirty nine. Period.

You fail to grasp that if Russia went to war, they would not need or care about their commerce and trade. No more than the US did during WWII. They would not give a damn about any debt they might have, nor any loans they might have come due. Why would they? It is not like the First Bank of Europe is going to send bill collectors to their door. They would not care less if the Commerce Bank of Myopia dings their credit rating. Their economy would return to what it was prior to 1992. It would be like that of the US in 1942.

We ended almost all imports in 1941, and only exported required materials to our allies. Get this, for free! The UK and USSR were not sending checks to pay for the huge amounts of ships, tanks, aircraft, and other things we were sending them. Yet, our industry continued at an ever increasing pace.

You seem to have absolutely no grasp to what a country deciding to put itself into a wartime economy actually means. You seem to have some false belief that in the event of war their economy would simply collapse.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Take Gulf War I and II. The US could have won both of those on their own. But those would have turned them from 3 day and 3 month wars, into 6 month and 3 year wars respectively. Iraq would not have had a chance in either case, but the wars would have been longer and bloodier. Wars of attrition as opposed to wars of quick victories.

US Forces collapsed the equivalent of 20 Iraqi divisions alone in less than 100 hours. The Iraqis were so grossly incompetent there was no comparison.

Nuclear weapons did not revolutionize warfare. If they had, then somebody would have used them. In fact, the simple fact that they have not been used in over 72 years proves that they revolutionized nothing.


Yet another that fails to realize that nukes are not military weapons. They are political weapons. Militarily, they mean little to nothing.

God that is a stupid thing to say. The most powerful and defining weapon of the great powers which hang over any realistic discussion of a great power conflict and render all other concerns a distant second? Really want to say they don't matter?

 

[Jredbaron96]

OK, now this may be hard for you, but try to flush your mind.

No, it's actually incredibly ****ing easy for me, it's just you insist on framing everything in the mindset of WWII rather than accepting that industry, modern weaponry, and geopolitics have changed drastically since the Second World War. A conventional conflict on the scale of WWII will never be raged by the great powers again. It's blatantly simple why, because each side has powerful weapons of mass destruction to utilize. That's why concepts like total war and such for modern nations states like Russia, the United States, and Europe are stupid. Your refusal to admit that or accept it doesn't change that.

 

[Jredbaron96]

And this also mandates that they invade Germany, then proceed to the Fulda Gap.

That is the route Napoleon used. That is the route the US Army took when they moved into Eastern Germany during WWII. And it was the known route that the Warsaw Pact forces would have used. Because there is really no other route to use!

Uh, no? It's called the northern European plain. It runs through northern Germany, rights towards the Low Countries and Antwerp.

It's an American fantasy that the Soviets would've stupidly plunged right through the Fulda Gap, right into the heart of Germany's southern mountains in terrain that virtually defends itself, because it fits the American perception that all the Soviets could do was zerg rush enemy forces with waves of tanks, motor rifle troops, and artillery, and it would be the US that would smash Soviet division after division while long range bombers knocked out Soviet bridges and infrastructure inside East Germany.

No, the Soviets would've taken the far smarter option of pushing through the Northern European plain, smashing into NORTHAG on the corps boundary between the Dutch and Germans, where terrain would've allowed them to attack the German corps on two axis of advance. There would in fact be an attack through the Fulda Gap, but it's only purpose would be pin down American and West German forces so they couldn't move to relieve NORTHAG. The idea that the Soviets would attack CENTAG because it represnted such a strong concentration of forces flies in the face of Soviet doctrine and strategic thinking.

The Korean War, the French-Indochina War, the Vietnam War, the Greek Civil War, the 70 year long civil war in Burma, the Malayan Conflict, the Chinese Civil War, the Cuban Revolution, the Congo Revolution, the Iraqi-Kurdish Wars, the Lebanese Civil Wars, the Iran-Iraq War, the various wars in former Yugoslavia, the Angolan War, the Yemeni Wars, the Rhodesian Civil War, Nicaragua, Chad's civil war, the Cambodian civil war, the UK-IRA conflict, the Italian Communist insurgency, the almost 50 year old Philippine Insurgencies, the string of conflicts in Ethiopia for the last 45+ years, the Angolan civil wars, the Soviet-Afghan War, etc, etc, etc

So one conventional conflict that happened 5 years after WWII and a dozen+ asymmetrical wars. You realize there was a reason I said conventional conflicts right?

 

[Oozlefinch]

So one conventional conflict that happened 5 years after WWII and a dozen+ asymmetrical wars. You realize there was a reason I said conventional conflicts right?

And this is a perfect example why I am taking this less and less seriously.

"So one conventional conflict that happened 5 years after WWII and a dozen+ asymmetrical wars" indeed.

Tell you what, try to actually research the conflicts I mentioned. You seem to have a serious delusion or lack of any kind of actual information on most of those, or you would not have made that statement.

The Chinese Civil War was not any kind of "insurgency" at all. It was a conventional war, fought conventionally, with armies massing up to 4 million soldiers on each side.

One single campaign, the Pingin Campaign involved over 2 million Nationalist and 1 million Communist soldiers. Not insurgents, not guerrillas, soldiers. Using tanks and artillery from various WWII combatants, including Japanese, Soviet, French, and American.

The Iran-Iraq War was an 8 year long war, involving over 2 million combatants, primarily fought along WWI era tactics.

The Greek Civil War, a 3 year long conflict involving over 300,000 soldiers. I am always amazed at how few seem to realize this conflict even happened, or that there were thousands of "US Advisors" supporting the Greek Government.

And I can only assume you were in a coma during the 1990s, or you would not dismiss the Yugoslav Wars. Hell, just one of the many wars in that long running conflict involved over 100,000 fighters. And both sides had tanks, aircraft, and one side had submarines and warships. Yes, the world often looked more at the ethnic cleansing that was going on by some of the combatants, but the war was a very conventional one.

No, I can only assume you really have very little (if any) understanding of the conflicts I mentioned. Are you even aware that the Vietnam War was primarily conventional? That the insurgency actually did very little of importance? That in reality, the impact of the VC was about equal to that of the French Resistance. In other words, little to no impact at all. Almost universally the VC (like the French Resistance) was wiped out every time they even tried to take actual military actions against their opponents. Oh no-no-no, the "insurgency" in Vietnam was only a sideline. The actual war was entirely conventional. Tank battles, fighter duels in the skies, artillery bombardments and sieges, and strategic bombing.

Yea, your tossing off only one of the many conflicts I listed as being "conventional" pretty much shows that you do not know what you are talking about. Come back when you can actually present some kind of data to back up your claims, and not simply dismiss me out of turn because you do not like what I present.

 

[dave8383]

Trump's got it covered. He's training Space Cadets as we speak.

 

[dave8383]

Oh no-no-no, the "insurgency" in Vietnam was only a sideline. The actual war was entirely conventional. Tank battles, fighter duels in the skies, artillery bombardments and sieges, and strategic bombing.

Not until the 70s when the NVA had taken control of large parts of South Vietnam. Yes, the NVA often operated in conventional size forces, but they had little conventional support unit 72 or so besides some artillery in their northern locations near the DMZ.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Not until the 70s when the NVA had taken control of large parts of South Vietnam. Yes, the NVA often operated in conventional size forces, but they had little conventional support unit 72 or so besides some artillery in their northern locations near the DMZ.

What?

I guess you never heard of an obscure little movie a few years ago, called "We Were Soldiers" and set in 1965 I guess. Or a little siege of an obscure outpost called Khe Sanh, which only involved 4 NVA divisions in 1968.

Yea, I guess the 4 artillery regiments and tank company at Khe Sanh were no big deal. It was only around 150 artillery pieces after all, in addition to the 120mm rocket batteries.

"Some artillery".

And as an FYI, the NVA never had "control of large parts" (or even small parts) of Vietnam until after 1975. When they overwhelmed it in a massive Spring Offensive from December 1974-April 1975. All during the war they only managed to hold small pockets, and rarely for very long. They would infiltrate, pull off raids or attempt to take over a base, then get crushed and retreat back North.

 

[dave8383]

What?

I guess you never heard of an obscure little movie a few years ago, called "We Were Soldiers" and set in 1965 I guess. Or a little siege of an obscure outpost called Khe Sanh, which only involved 4 NVA divisions in 1968.

Yea, I guess the 4 artillery regiments and tank company at Khe Sanh were no big deal. It was only around 150 artillery pieces after all, in addition to the 120mm rocket batteries.

"Some artillery".

And as an FYI, the NVA never had "control of large parts" (or even small parts) of Vietnam until after 1975. When they overwhelmed it in a massive Spring Offensive from December 1974-April 1975. All during the war they only managed to hold small pockets, and rarely for very long. They would infiltrate, pull off raids or attempt to take over a base, then get crushed and retreat back North.

The PAVN at Battle of Ia Drang fought without any conventional support. The TET offensive was largely a VC effort, and unconventional. The artillery at Khe Sanh I mentioned when I said they had some in the nortern sector of South Vietnam. Vietnam was decidedly not a conventional war until the end when the NVA controlled large sections of South Vietnam.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Yea, your tossing off only one of the many conflicts I listed as being "conventional" pretty much shows that you do not know what you are talking about. Come back when you can actually present some kind of data to back up your claims, and not simply dismiss me out of turn because you do not like what I present.

Both the Chinese Civil War and the Greek Civil War were fought right after WWII. Again, not a modern conflict waged with modern technology.

Vietnam was not between peer opponents. Neither was the Iran-Iraq war, Iran because they were embargoed by the whole damn world and couldn't maintain a modern army, and the Iraqis because of their gross incompetence. The Yugoslav wars were fought by a professional military against a variety of ethnic militia, not between peer opponents. The fact that the militia had operational tanks and aircraft doesn't make them peer opponents.

You realize the whole premise of this thread right, and why I have repeatedly stressed the idea of a conventional conflict between great powers? Because all these conflicts you listed don't meet that definition. From the get go this discussion has been about a potential conflict between Russia and NATO, and it was from that auspice that this entire conversation has spawned. You're listing off random conflicts as if each one had some kind of bearing on the actual discussion, which they don't.

You can bring up every bit of historical trivia you can muster and it doesn't matter for ****, because that's not the topic at hand. What both NATO and the Warsaw Pact realized that you're either too stubborn or ignorant to admit was that conventional modern warfare between peer opponents happens so quickly that it's downward spiral into nuclearization of the battlefield becomes inevitable. You can insist all you want that nuclear weapons haven't changed anything since WWII, and you'd be lying through your teeth. What hung over both sides of the Iron Curtain throughout the Cold War? The threat of thermonuclear annihilation.

In the Cold War, a Soviet tank regiment of 3,000 men had just 90 to handle the logistics of the entire regiment. The very simple reason for this was the Soviets recognized that in a war with NATO, their front line forces would either suffer such a high attrition rate after just a few days that further logistical support would be rendered unnecessary by the losses sustained, or that the entire regiment would be destroyed in a nuclear strike.

The Russians today are even more liberal in their willingness to use nuclear weapons, more so than the Soviets, since the USSR at least had hordes of conscripts to rely on.. They've demonstrated this in Zapad 2009, and their reaction to the situation in Ukraine. To insist that Russia would abandon their number one strategic deterrent simply because you think they'd be more willing to shell out billions and put millions of people in uniform instead of just threatening to push a button doesn't change that.

 

[beerftw]

Maskirovka has been a key Russian-Soviet-Russian tactic for centuries. And it is really impossible for anybody to try and discuss them on a strategic level without taking it into consideration. Probably the first major use was in the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380, when they defeated the Mongol Horde by flanking them with units they had hidden in a forest.

During the Cold War, they frequently paraded their "Global Rocket 1", known to NATO as the SS-X-10 SCRAG. A long-range sub-orbital 2 megaton nuclear missile that frankly scared a lot of NATO and the US. They paraded them regularly in Red Square, and had units of them posted in key areas of the Soviet Union. These weapons were claimed to have been fielded in 1964. ANd they were a key part of the 1979 SALT II talks.

However, the missile did not exist! It was indeed designed and tested in the early 1960's, but it was a failure. But they still had "ghost units" armed with it that were posted in various parts of the Soviet Union, and routinely paraded them around. Ultimately one of the most successful maskirovka's of the Cold War.

And for them, it works both ways. They will use it to misdirect an enemy as to when and where an attack may come. It may even be used to show a weapons or piece of equipment that does not even exist (GR-1), but show-claim that it does to make the possible enemy reluctant to attack. They have even landed entire Airborne Divisions, entering unopposed by claiming the troop transports were civilian cargo aircraft (Kabul 1979).

Nobody who studies how the Russian-Soviet military operates without discussing this key part of their operations is fooling themselves, or trying to fool others. The "oh we/they will see it long in advance" is a complete idiot. Since WWII there have been many conflicts fought that started with little to no warning prior to the attack itself.

There was practically no warning in August 1990 when Iraq drove into Kuwait with over 4 divisions of tanks and infantry. There was no warning when the Soviet Union dropped 2 Airborne Divisions into Kabul in 1979. How much warning did Grenada have before the US threw 2 Divisions at them in October 1983?

Their deception strategy has been used, often, however things like their fake missile are not the most worrysome, russia has in the past proven to push something and understate it's capabilities, however the understated piece of military equipment is just what is in their left hand to keep you from paying attention to what is in their right hand. They love hiding assets from the world while promoting others, at the end of the cold war this was known, like the mig 29 actually exceeded what the russians claimed or the t-80 tank using turbine engines before even the abrahms did, or their off bore sight never much if it all mentioned, They want to scare the enemy but never let them in what what they truly have hiding up their sleeve, and entire game of deception.

 

[beerftw]

The US military tries to avoid close range dogfighting against all enemy aircraft. That is nothing special in regards to the Mig29 and the US AF strategy for fighting. And if it did happen it was not necessarily a losing situation as proved by the time it did happen.
And I agree that BVR only is a bad idea. But pretending as you did that the US switched it's strategy to BVR due to the Mig29 like you claimed is simply not true. And you even acknowledge it by talking about how that was the US strategy long before the Mig29 took to the air.

Just a few pages back you were talking about how feared the US AF was of the Iraqi AF and now you are claiming that they had little training with their planes. You seem to be making a habit of changing your claims due to what ever point your trying to argue.

Yes the us tries to avoid close range, but that is not always easy, a su22 was shot down in syria by an f-22 and they had to resort to radar guided missiles because the heat seeking missiles were dodged too easily by an antique bomber with no real combat ability. Imagine if they had went up against a competant state actor, and every f-22 missile was dodged, it would come down to a retreat or a dogfight, hence where antique ideas like cannons come into play.


But as far as the mig 29 yes it was stressed, the us had thought the mig 29 was overstated by the soviet union only to see after germany united that the soviet union actually understated it, american pilots got to fly them first hand and see what the soviet equipment could do. keep in mind the air superiority role of the mig 29 was home front air superiority not forward projected air superiority, as it's fuel tanks and range were too small, it was a shrunk down su27. The su-27 fyi is on par in nearly every aspect of the f15 and even exceeds it in some areas, and also holds the same record the f15 holds of never being downed by enemy aircraft, ethiopia used them to slaughter mig29s in actual fights. Despite all this the mig 29 holds the same maneuverability as the su 27, with a smaller payload far less range and weaker avionics.


The us did switch strategy during desert storm, they went in full force and pressed them to avoid close range with the mig29, they were the fifth largest airforce in the world at the time, the sheer numbers we used do not scream that we had an advantage, but rather that brass was scared of their experience and aircraft, and decided to use a number superiority t defeat any experience advantage they had. Their airforce was opposite of their armor which was a joke(many were russian training tanks to bypass sanctions and french tanks) their ground forces were cowards but their airforce was one not to be taken lightly, and they did not, however of people like you had called the shots and not given massive air forces to counter, the us air superiority might have gotten a major slap to the face.


The little training is reffering to mig 29's as they were fairly new to their air force, while most of their aces flew mig 21/23/25 jets, not mig 29 jets.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The TET offensive was largely a VC effort, and unconventional.

Yea, there were about 30,000 VC involved in that offensive.

And over 300,000 NVA soldiers.

But yea, continue to tell yourself it was a VC action. Whatever.