War in Russia

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

So, short version is US likes Georgia (probably because they oppose Russia) but they haven't been 'behaving' as nicely as we think they should. On the whole, I say this conflict has very little to do with the west. As long as they fight by the 'rules', I say stay out it.

And war between Russia and the US isn't going to happen. Nobody has anything to gain from it, and Russia has an awful lot to lose. Their navy is rusting in port and their airforce is just as bad. The last 20 years have been really tough on them. The US hasn't had it easy, but your Airforce is just about as potent now as it was then and you still have more carrier deck space than the rest of the world combined. Land conflict is basically out of the question.

The only reason I didn't rule out direct confrontation is that Russia had no hesitation to invade Georgia. There were no sanctions or UNSC meetings. It was just all-out war. I'm concerned that Russia is too bold and wouldn't be afraid to flex its muscle. From a political science standpoint, Russia is expected to have drastic policy changes due to leadership change. Putin may still be in the executive, but he is only the Premier. The Russian President has all of the necessary power to go to war. With new leadership comes executive leadership problems. There is no way to prepare to be the president, so new leaders tend to make questionable policy decisions. This may reflect that the new leadership is inexperienced in foreign affairs and perhaps very stubborn, thus creating obstacles to future relations.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Muscle Master

If we was invading we would be owned by their tanks, that's another thing they out number us with

And why would the US choose to start a land war where they are hopelessly out matched? They would leave their tanks at home and send in F117's, B2's and cruise missiles to destroy command and control first, airfields second, supply depots third (the full strike force of the USAF and USN is now available). The Navy can sink their fleet then blockade the ports. The Red Army on the ground is now helpless. The Sovi . . . Russians would have no way to respond either. Play your strengths against your enemy's weakness. Never let him fight the battle his way. Make him fight your way. That is how you win a war, that is why Iraq and Afghanistan aren't going so well. That is why Vietnam was lost.

Anyhoo, this is about very real conflict in Georgia. Not a hypothetical one between the US and Russia

[Muscle Master]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

And why would the US choose to start a land war where they are hopelessly out matched? They would leave their tanks at home and send in F117's, B2's and cruise missiles to destroy command and control first, airfields second, supply depots third (the full strike force of the USAF and USN is now available). The Navy can sink their fleet then blockade the ports. The Red Army on the ground is now helpless. The Sovi . . . Russians would have no way to respond either. Play your strengths against your enemy's weakness. Never let him fight the battle his way. Make him fight your way. That is how you win a war, that is why Iraq and Afghanistan aren't going so well. That is why Vietnam was lost.

Anyhoo, this is about very real conflict in Georgia. Not a hypothetical one between the US and Russia

Your right, bad habit of mine, but do you really think the Russians don't know the weaknesses of our armed forces and vice versa, are air forces may be hot shit till they get knocked out of the sky by S.A.M.'s, and as for the navy, thought that the Russians may lack in ship power ( 1 aircraft carrier rusting at port) but they also outnumber us with Subs

The way I see it, the only way to invaded Russia is to send end the 82nd and 101 first airborne to weakend their defense line of there coastal waters and take advantage of are navy and storm the beaches of Russia on the west coast, if the navy don't get torpedoed, I could continue but I wait for your response

[The_Beast_]

Or Russia could just nuke the US?

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Muscle Master

Your right, bad habit of mine, but do you really think the Russians don't know the weaknesses of our armed forces and vice versa, are air forces may be hot shit till they get knocked out of the sky by S.A.M.'s, and as for the navy, thought that the Russians may lack in ship power ( 1 aircraft carrier rusting at port) but they also outnumber us with Subs

The way I see it, the only way to invaded Russia is to send end the 82nd and 101 first airborne to weakend their defense line of there coastal waters and take advantage of are navy and storm the beaches of Russia on the west coast, if the navy don't get torpedoed, I could continue but I wait for your response

The Soviet Navy had a huge number of subs. The Russians sold off a bunch of their diesels and have left many of their nuclear boats to rot in port. its quite sad really. And SAMs don't mean squat against cruise missiles and stealth aircraft. They haven't had the money to do much development on counter systems over the last 20 years

Originally Posted by The_Beast_

Or Russia could just nuke the US?

And the US turns Russia into a parking lot half an hour later. Mutually Assured Destruction still applies, just as it has for the last 50 years or so.

[aston70]

Originally Posted by Muscle Master

If we was invading we would be owned by their tanks, that's another thing they out number us with

That's what A-10 Warthogs are for.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

And the US turns Russia into a parking lot half an hour later. Mutually Assured Destruction still applies, just as it has for the last 50 years or so.

[Jak]

I don't believe for a minute that Russia's in as bad a shape as they let on.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

And war between Russia and the US isn't going to happen. Nobody has anything to gain from it, and Russia has an awful lot to lose. Their navy is rusting in port and their airforce is just as bad. The last 20 years have been really tough on them. The US hasn't had it easy, but your Airforce is just about as potent now as it was then and you still have more carrier deck space than the rest of the world combined. Land conflict is basically out of the question.

[Beelzebubba]

Originally Posted by Muscle Master

If we was invading we would be owned by their tanks, that's another thing they out number us with

I'm confident we can go 10+kills:1. I would prefer 10+:0

I can tell you from personal experience as a 19K in the Army, a T-80 < M1

Someone's going to say, "In such and such RPG on PS3 the T-80 rules the M1..."

I'm going to tell you that's bullshit and the guys that coded that game were probably Pakistanis who don't like the US military anyway.

Armor, gunnery, rounds per minute, and of course tank crew themselves, all advantage M1

M1s have taken hits from T-72s at POINT BLANK RANGE and still been able to fight. The commander and loader were injured but the tank was operational and the gunner and driver were uninjured.

If you hit a T-72 with a FSDS (depleted uranium sabot) from 3000+ meters, all the hatches blow open and fire shoots straight up from them about 20 meters high. All 3 crewmembers? Dead. Ability to continue to fight? Zero.

T-62s are even more impressive. They explode sending the turret and the gun in separate directions from the hull.


And that's only if there's anything left for US Armor to kill. The Apaches, Warthogs, and Marine Cobras might just kill everything before the Abrams gets to it.

Besides, this is a Camaro forum....you have to love the American vehicle with 1500 hp

[The_Beast_]

OK if Russia was first to drop a nuke I think that the IS would have the ablility to hit back. because its gone.

[Beelzebubba]

I remember reading a book called Investment Biker that as he rolled through the Eastern part of the Former Soviet Union, he saw countless disabled ICBM sites. I'm not entirely certain Russia has an effective ICBM capacity. They might have to drop their nukes from turbo-prop driven Tu-95 Bear aircraft.

F-22 Raptor vs Bear? That's going to be Raptor every time

[Wm Holden]

Originally Posted by Beelzebubba

I remember reading a book called Investment Biker that as he rolled through the Eastern part of the Former Soviet Union, he saw countless disabled ICBM sites. I'm not entirely certain Russia has an effective ICBM capacity. They might have to drop their nukes from turbo-prop driven Tu-95 Bear aircraft.

F-22 Raptor vs Bear? That's going to be Raptor every time

We'd like to think they're archaic.....but I'm sure there is a "Modern" element to their missle systems....
there must be for them to be this cocky with a country trying to join the UN.

[Muscle Master]

Originally Posted by Wm Holden

We'd like to think they're archaic.....but I'm sure there is a "Modern" element to their missle systems....
there must be for them to be this cocky with a country trying to join the UN.

I'm curious of this AK 105 that they won't release to the public, that rifle got to be awesome

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Wm Holden

We'd like to think they're archaic.....but I'm sure there is a "Modern" element to their missle systems....
there must be for them to be this cocky with a country trying to join the UN.

They're trying to join NATO. Georgia has been a member of the UN since 1992. Before that, it was part of Russia for about 2 centuries. Before that, it was either part of Turkey or any of the dominant empires at the time.

Either way, Russia definitely has a great deal of confidence even though the US outspends the rest of the world combined in with the US military budget and supplemental grants passed by Congress for current overseas obligations.

[boxmonkeyracing]

wow everyone is forgetting about the TU-160 black jack. . .(think B-1B on steroids). . .bigger, faster. . .better? first two are correct. . .better who knows they have stated they've broken our air space with out our knowledge with it but who knows if they really have and if we didn't really know about it.