Could Russia win a war against NATO?

Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: "Do not march on Moscow". Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule. I do not know whether your Lordships will know Rule 2 of war. It is: "Do not go fighting with your land armies in China". It is a vast country, with no clearly defined objectives.

 

I don't know that anyone would need to invade if a war broke out, since on the West's part it would a defensive war, but if that were needed I don't know that the same rules would apply now as they did in Napoleon's era and Hitler's era. Hitler could have succeeded, at least done a lot better than he did, he just wasn't sane or smart enough to pull it off and beat himself.

 

"Funny, I don't remember any such thing".

Funny, according to the US history channel's show "Dogfights", and presumabily pilots, such a thing was said and communicated by commanders to pilots.

"They fought and won part of the largest war in human history, with help".

The vast majority of casualites both civilan and military came from the Russians. Around 60-80% of all casulaties of the Germans were caused by the Russians. The Battle of Stalingrad saw more dead then the entrie American casulites x5 in WWII. Yes though, they probabily wouldn't of won without us.

"Patriots are not IR guided, so what are flares supposed to do"?

Good information knowledge. Their nuclear missles, as well as some tactical, once they sense a missle coming, it deploys flares which works for some systems, but more importantly depending on the missle in question, it sends multiple missles out simulatenously to multiple targets, or decoy missles. However, the final and most important stage is heat seaking, for the kill, the inital phase of a patriot is guided

http://science.howstuffworks.com/patriot-missile.htm

"Source"?
They do, and the Chinese etheir copied the Russians or got help from them in designing. North Korea bought some from Russia.
http://www.viewzone.com/emp.html
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/170563-north-korea-emp

"Russian and Chinese military scientists in open source writings describe the basic principles of nuclear weapons designed specifically to generate an enhanced-EMP effect, that they term "Super-EMP" weapons. "Super-EMP" weapons, according to these foreign open source writings, can destroy even the best protected U.S. military and civilian electronic systems....The United States EMP Commission determined that long-known protections are almost completely absent in the civilian infrastructure of the United States and that large parts of US military services were less-protected against EMP than during the Cold War. In public statements, the EMP experts on the EMP Commission recommended making electronic equipment and electrical components resistant to EMP — and maintaining spare parts inventories that would enable prompt repairs".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...se#Vacuum_tube_versus_solid_state_electronics

The weapons they have, the EMPs, are designed to defeat US anti-ballistic countermeasures and ride on the platform missles of traditional ICBM missles.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_country#R

Yes, you are right, most of these tanks the Russians field are old. The T-90 is not as good as the Abrahms, Leopard, or Challenger. The T-90 has some cool features, such as the ability to be waterproof, and decent armour, but it would not match up well against the Abrahms. A T-90 tank round would knock out an abrahms, but a M1 Abrahms round would also knock out a T-90. It would take two hits to destroy an Abrahms. The T-90 took 7 rounds from a RPG in Checnya the Russias brag about. Still, The Abrahms is a solid A, the T-90 a B.

Most are kept in storage. The T-55/60 is totally obsolute. Russia would scamble to man and operationalize all of the T-72s and 80s, but only like a fraction of our are tanks are in Europe. All of theres is close to home.

 

I have it on DVD, what episode? At any rate, at the time I was an Air Weapons Controller (AFSC 13B3 IIRC) assigned to the 964 AWACS deployed to Incirlik AB, Turkey supporting Joint Task Force Proven Force. I flew 18 missions during the war and attended the mission briefs for all of them. At no time was any such directive mentioned nor was it published in any Air Tasking Order.

From your link:

'The PAC-3 is a solid-propellant rocket-powered missile controlled by both aerodynamic fins and small forebody-mounted ACM (Attitude Control Motor) rockets for increased terminal agility. For mid-course guidance it uses essentially the same TVM (Track Via Missile) guidance as the MIM-104 Patriot, but for more accurate terminal homing, it is equipped with a Ka-Band active radar seeker.'

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/pac-3.html

I believe you are confusing the Patriot with the Navy's Aegis RIM-161 missile which does use IR terminal guidance. At any rate, the Patriot is itself a SAM/ABM system. Why develop a defense against what is itself a defensive system?

Note the bold font. I would not consider either of these sites authoritative and they make only vague, speculative references to a NORK non-nuclear EMP device which even they describe as having limited area of effect.

 

"I have it on DVD, what episode? At any rate, at the time I was an Air Weapons Controller (AFSC 13B3 IIRC) assigned to the 964 AWACS deployed to Incirlik AB, Turkey supporting Joint Task Force Proven Force. I flew 18 missions during the war and attended the mission briefs for all of them. At no time was any such directive mentioned nor was it published in any Air Tasking Order".

I do not remeber which episode, except for the fact that I clearly remembered hearing it own the show. "Desert Storm"? Something to that effect I'd guess. It may not of been given out to everyone, every pilot, the order, and the squad leader may of just advised his force to avoid it. Anyway, even though they were told to avoid engaging the MiG-29, the inexpierenced Iraqis who piloted were shot down. In that fight, the F-15 won. With more expierenced, determined pilots, it may of been different. Remember North Vietnemease Migs regualry shot down our F-14s and others, and the kill ratio despite mediocre pilot trainning was about equal for several years.
From your link:

'The PAC-3 is a solid-propellant rocket-powered missile controlled by both aerodynamic fins and small forebody-mounted ACM (Attitude Control Motor) rockets for increased terminal agility. For mid-course guidance it uses essentially the same TVM (Track Via Missile) guidance as the MIM-104 Patriot, but for more accurate terminal homing, it is equipped with a Ka-Band active radar seeker.'

You were right and I was wrong. However, the Patriot still has to choose between one of several etheir decoy or real missles. The Patriot missle system is still innacurate sometimes anyway, and with the countermeasures, even more so.... I'm sure it's better now though. In the gulf war there was a friendly fire incident with it too. Also, it's not as accurate as the US army claims.....

"On 7 April 1992 Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Reuven Pedatzur of Tel Aviv University testified before a House Committee stating that, according to their independent analysis of video tapes, the Patriot system had a success rate of below 10%, and perhaps even a zero success rate".
http://fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992_h/h920407p.htm

"Note the bold font. I would not consider either of these sites authoritative and they make only vague, speculative references to a NORK non-nuclear EMP device which even they describe as having limited area of effect".

You were right and I was wrong. I guess I misread what I read, the "Super-EMP" weapons are the EMP weapons I read about, but they're not non-nuclear.

This link shows the Russians have suitcase EMPs that can fit into suitcases, and convential bombs equipped for EMP attacks though. It's realible too.

http://www.tfd.chalmers.se/~valeri/EMP.html

Good knowledge though, I'm going to rep you!

 

Yes. There are aerial photographs of some massive tank parks I've seen recently; while they have what seems a huge number of them, the majority are essentially junk and will never be able to be used for anything but parts and scrap. Some might be sold to other countries, but I don't know who would want them or be able to use them.

 

The T-72 went up against the M1A1's in Desert Storm, and many M1A1s were only damaged when they were shot by the T-72 or knocked out, meaning the treads could no longer move but the gun was movable or it was immobilized but the crew members unharmed. Statistics published by the US army show that many tanks were hit and had only slight damage.

The T-90 is a heavily upgraded T-72. However, the T-72s required manual cranking to move the turret, the T-90 doesen't. The T-90 has better rounds. It could probabily knock out an M1A1, but the crew may still walk around afterwards. An M1A2 as well, but I'm thinking more it'll be disabled or damaged. It may be destroyed. Depends on where it's hit, whether it's using the newest round or not.

 

Multi-role aircraft such as the F-16 and F-18 might avoid air-to-air engagements if they were configured for strike missions because it could mean jettisoning their air-to-ground ordinance and not hitting their targets. No way would an F-15 pilot avoid engaging a Fulcrum, quite the contrary. We saw how that ended in Bosnia.

The F-14 didn't enter fleet service until the year after we pulled out of Viet Nam. If you are referring to the F-4, far more were lost to AAA/SAMs than MiGs. The kill ratio was influenced by a number of domestic factors such as political restrictions on the Rules of Engagement, lack of a gun on the F-4, and the general poor performance of the AIM-7 missile.

I remember the hearing. This comes down to how you define success. The Patriot is a tactical missile system with a limited ABM capability and was intended to defend small military units in the field, not large, densely populated cities. In the case of the former, you don't have to destroy the missile to succeed, just knocking it off course by a degree or two will cause it to miss its target which is just as good. In the case of the latter though, the incoming missile must be completely destroyed. Just knocking it off course only means that instead of blowing up one part of the city, it blows up another part of the city. The Patriot system was never intended to fulfill this roll, but that was the criteria the 'analysis' used to evaluate it. So, of course, it failed.

 

I live by the airport, I see F-15s and 16s fly around and galaxies too often. The airport is the emergency airport actually for the US president in case of emergency. Lobsters good yeah. Bangor's a good community

 

Not sure why anyone would disrespect the F-15 claiming it would run from a fight with a MiG 29

Balderdash.

It has never been defeated in an air-to-air conflict.

102 kills
....0 losses

F-15A/C/I/S Eagle 102-0-0

Gulf War (USA) 32-0-0
Gulf War (Saudi Arabia) 2-0-0
Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Desert Fox (USA) 2-0-0
Bosnia (USA) 0-0-0
Kosovo (USA) 4-0-0
Afghanistan (USA) 0-0-0
Iraq (USA) 0-0-0
Syrian border clashes 1979-1981 (Israel) 19-0-0
Operation Opera (Israel) 0-0-0
Lebanon War (1982) (Israel) 38-0-0
Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Israel) 4-0-0
Lebanon War (2006) (Israel) 0-0-0
Iran Gulf Clash 1984 (Saudi Arabia) 1-0-0

 

Consider the peoples.

Russians would fare better doing without than Americans.
So when shortages hit, which population is going to get upset first ?
I say Americans. I so my comforts, reliable electricity, water, variety of foods, etc.


Moi

r > g

No ​

 

The Soviet RPG 7 (which $100 cost) can destroy and the praised tank Abram (which $6000000 cost)
In practice war in Iraq showed it. Only tactics, the general interaction of armies helped Americans to conduct operations successfully. The elderly man says that all these tanks were developed in 80 x and since then there is simply a tank modernization...
Start watching this video from 10th minute...

[video=youtube_share;vTQi49lNNAc]http://youtu.be/vTQi49lNNAc[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTQi49lNNAc&list=WL&index=47
and on the 12th minute the most interesting -
It Soviet period of RPG 7 shot simple cumulative Shell ...(HEAT), and this shell was destroyed Abram from side... now the jet multi-purpose grenade with intelligence, to analogs of this device isn't present in the World. On the jet grenade there is a clever detonator which itself defines on how many it is necessary to detain explosion time depending on armor thickness... at the multi-purpose grenade 2 charges. Cumulative and Thermobaric . The head part punches dynamic part of the tank, the second part flies inside and blows up. new weapon of the purpose it is possible to destroy at distance from 30 to 600 meters . How to resist to this weapon, founders Abrams won't think up for a long time. (after all they didn't have 50 years to secure the tank Abram against old RPG 7)

 

Even the Russian Air Force views the problematic MiG-29 as being obsolete.

The MiG design bureau may be defunct.

 

Sorry to disagree, but really, that video was full of either falsehoods or just a complete lack of knowledge. Mate, all you have to do is search youtube for Tally videos of russian rpg's bouncing off M1's to know that your post just doesn't pass the smell test.

 

The Polish Air Force experiences difficulties with servicing of the fighters F-16C/D bought in the USA. It compelled the Ministry of Defence of Poland to sign with Russia the contract on extension of service life and modernization of fighters adopted Poland MiG-29. According to messages of the Polish sources, educational duels between F-16 and MiG-29 ended in a draw, besides, that F-16 belong to the latest modifications, and MiG represents the earliest batches.
http://vitrenko.at.ua/load/8-1-0-100 (RUS)

 

I don't speak Russian and I'm not a tank authority, but it appeared to me that this was about how this new RPG round would defeat reactive armor. All well and good except only the side skirts of the M1 carry reactive armor. The hull and turret are made of Chobham armor which, as far as I know, is just about proof against any shaped-charge warhead.

 

Excuse but I didn't understand, what in video it isn't correct?(not to sure what you mean)

 

watch video with 9.02 - 9.11 there some Abrams destroy from RPG7 (it seems so)

 

It would end up as a nuclear exchange, so no bugger would win.

 

It is problematic because most of aircrafts have reached the end of their lifespan, not because they are "obsolete". The airframe itself is definitely not worse than those of F-16, Eurofighter, Mirage and Rafale.

 

Maveric vs Abrams turret front=penetration

Unknown RPG vs Abrams=penetration

One more:

Another one:


Some fresh ones from Iraq 2014:




I've seen Challenger 2 penetrated by Kornet in turret's front once, but I can't find it now=(


Passive armor can't be "immune" to HEAT grenades, it might be just too thick to be penetrted by some types.