Russia can now shoot down all but 200 US warplanes

Absolutely, once we introduce nuclear warheads in the scenario the whole matter changes, totally. So let's keep them aside.

In the field of "conventional" warheads there are the thermobaric ones which promise something [but in this, officially, Russians are more advanced than us].

 

The United States has absolutely no intentions of Militarily attacking Russia.

What we are doing now is teaching Putin a lesson in how without ever firing a shot....the United States has the capability to completely collapse the Russian Economy.

Doing this is not something we want to do as it has been the U.S. spending over $350 Billion to stabalize a Russian Democracy by various means.....the most expensive been paying for and destroying old Soviet Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons in both former Soviet States such as Georgia and the Ukraine as well as in Russia as we have U.S. Military Biological Weapons Destruction and Disposal Teams working in Russia....RIGHT NOW!!!

The U.S. does not need to use Military Force to enact change and effect nations.

But if we did....and I do not currently see any reason why we would attack Russia as there is no reason to do so....but if we had to....we would win.

AboveAlpha

 

Your right.

Another area that the Russian Military lacks is TANKS.

The T-72 is the mainstay of the current Russian Army and although the Russian Military Reports that 2000 T-72 of various models are Battle Ready....the actual number cabable of immediately starting and running are about 1500.

There only exists a handful of more modern Russian Tanks where as over 6000 U.S. Military Abram's Tanks are currently battle ready and it is thought that 6000 is a drastically under reported number.

The thing is that it has been shown that the T-72 is VASTLY INFERIOR to the U.S. Abram's as M1A2 Abram's Tank's even when vastly outnumbered were able to cut through entire DIVISIONS of Iraqi T-72's like a hot knife through warm butter.

Now there is no doubt that a Russian T-72 Tank Crew is going to be more capable than an Iraqi Crew but added to the Abram's vast superiority to the T-72 is the U.S. Military's use of Apache Longbow Choppers, A-10's, F-15E Mudhen Strike Eagles...etc.

Perhaps one of the greatest advantages the U.S. Military has is it's ability to use various forms of ELECTRONIC WARFARE as well as U.S. Military's Cyber Command.

But....anyway one looks at it....I would HATE to be some poor Russian KIDS sitting inside a T-72 while U.S. Aircraft and Choppers targetted me and U.S. Abram's Tanks closed in on me in a direct line at me at a closing speed faster than I could lower my main gun to target them.

AboveAlpha

 

If the Russian's believe they have little chance to avoid a war with the US they will be reporting less numbers of tanks than what they have ready & not more.

That was almost a quarter of a century ago. The advantage of the Abrams tank is that the armor was so good that some crews reported the sound of multiple Iraqi shells bouncing off. It is unreasonable to believe after all this time & knowing the problem the Russians would not have developed a shell to deal with it.

They were using DU rounds in a desert environment with air superiority facing older generation RPGs & shoulder fired missiles.

The modern Russian tanks have an auto loader & can fire & hit it's target three time faster than an Abrams manual load.
The only way you are going to know if a US war against Russia is going to work out in the real world like it does on paper is to actually fight it & you aught to be worried about all the poor American kids that will be coming home in body bags even if you do win it because it ain't going to be pretty.

 

Of course fighting a war with Russia would not be pretty.

But unless Nuclear Weapons were used....there really is no doubt of the outcome.

AboveAlpha

 

Putin is using the current US bashing of Russia's economy to push though reforms to make life easier on small businesses in Russia. Russia will adapt in other ways as well & be growing again in a couple of years.

 

Unless the war could be somehow contained to one small theater of operations, say within 50 km of Ukraine's boarders not including Crimea, it would go nuclear right from the start.

During the cold war NATO had a policy of using tactical nukes to stop the soviet hoards, now Russia will have to use them to stop the US - NATO hoards.

Freddy.

 

You know....I really hope Russia can retain a viable economy....but let's face it.....the Russian Economy has already collapsed.

It didn't have to happen and Putin is attempting to make a DEAL with the U.S. through the French as Putin want's those ships France built for Russia....but with Oil Prices so low I don't see how a Russian Economy that is 80% dependent upon Energy Exports can survive.

AboveAlpha

 

The U.S. never has had any intentions of attacking Russia or the former Soviet Union unless either attacked the U.S or NATO.

All this war talk is idiotic as the very LAST thing on Putin's mind even if he talks about it to keep the focus of his supporters on the U.S. rather than his own failed economic policies....the LAST thing Putin want's is any shooting war with the United States.

But just for Ha, Ha's let's pretend Russia invaded the Baltics....and if Russia did this NATO would have to respond.

In the first 24 Hours every Russian Aircraft and Air Base would be destroyed.

In the next 72 hours over 90% of all Russian Ground Forces would be destroyed.

The problem Russia has is that it is not even close to being ready to fight any large scale war or battle against highly capable and lethal U.S. and NATO weapon systems.

Russia also has a real issue as far as being able to SUPPORT any invasion force as that part of the Russian Military barely exists.

As far as the impossible scenario that the U.S. and NATO were to for no reason simply invade Russia....well Russia would put up one hell of a fight....it would begin to lose the conventional war...and yes...it would have to resort to using Nukes.

At the first use of Nukes...the U.S. would pull out all the stops and it would become a slaughter.

AboveAlpha

 

The F-15 is the Chuck Norris of fighter jets.

/thread

 

I will tell you what....a brace...ie...two...F-22 Raptors took on 12 F-15C's with new improved advanced avionics and Air to Air Missile Tracking Radar and all 12 were shot down in a Red Flag Mock Battle.

When the Eurofighter came to Alaska and went up against F-22's the same thing happened.

In fact the F-22 was so overwealming that the Europeans...German's....almost went home until someone got the idea to open a radio frequency upon the F-22's to allow German Typhoons to track the usually impossible to find Raptors.

One F-22 was shot down and the German and British Press went NUTS!!

Headlines ran....Eurofighter shoots down $220 Million USAF JET!

But what the papers did not talk about was how the F-22's were not allowed to fly in STEALTH MODE.

When F-22's operate in Stealth Mode they are impossible to beat.

AboveAlpha

 

Actually, that is backwards. Under-reporting your defenses if your opponent is belligerent and threatening to attack will make them more likely to attack, because they will think you are weak and easy to take out. Over-reporting numbers and statistics makes you look stronger then you actually are, and is a deterrent all by itself, even if it only a paper tiger.

But it is not all about the tanks and shells. Yes, the Russians (and Soviets before them) had shells to penetrate our tanks, and we have the same thing to penetrate theirs. But then it comes down to other things, not just the tank itself.

The Abrams have what is considered to be the finest optics and electronics suite in the world. There are many reasons it is considered one of the top 3 if not the top tank in the world. It really was the first tank capable of hitting other tanks while both were moving. And the Abrams could hit targets while it was moving 50 MPH. Most people do not realize that traditionally before the Abrams, tanks had to stop in order to shoot. The fantasy of tanks screaming across the landscape shooting at each other at the same time was all a romantic fantasy.

The reality, the doctrine was "move, shot, move". The Abrams changed all that, with "move and shoot". And while a great many tanks have been upgraded with similar capabilities in the last decades, they are still not as good as the Abrams. After all, they have been used in 3 wars and improved each time.

I still put the M1 series up against any other armored force on the planet. And not only because of the tank, but the crews. These are 60+ year old units, who have been involved in conflicts for the past 25 years. Well trained, battle tested, and combined to a fine machine. That is something pretty much every other nation lacks.

Everybody uses DU rounds, so not sure what that has to do with anything. The tank armor also uses DU, so what?

Desert environment has it's own set of challenges. Yes, it gives longer clear sight, but it also makes it impossible for the tank itself to use much natural features to hide itself, or mask it's approach. This is a 2 edged sword, a rabbit hole dug on the slope of a 15 meter rise can give a TK team a perfect location to fire from ambush at the rear after the tanks pass.

As for RPGs, you have to realize, they are not designed to kill tanks!

This is one of the worst things that Hollywood has taught people over the decades. That RPGs destroy tanks. No, they do not destroy tanks, as the name itself says it is a Rocket Propelled Grenade. Yes, RPGs did a decent job on WWII era tanks, which were only really armored against small arms fire. RPGs also work somewhat decently on APCs and other light armored vehicles, which are also designed to protect the occupants from small arms fire only.

The RPG is not an anti-tank weapon. It is to take out APCs, bunkers, buildings and walls with enemy forces on the other side, things like that. The same targets that the LAW was designed to be used against. The M-72 is indeed known as the "Light Anti-tank Weapon", but it was designed in the 1950's to work against tanks of that era. And while it would indeed penetrate the side of a T-54 tank, it was pretty useless against any later generations. In fact, when being trained in their use in 1983 we were specifically taught to not shoot at the tank itself, but wait for it to pass and shoot at the tracks. Knock off a track and the tank is effectively immobilized (but still able to shoot). Shoot off the track and get the hell out of there, call in artillery or air strike on it, or call for a sniper to take out the crew as they try to repair the track.

The majority of M1 tank losses on the battlefield have actually been because of IEDs. And there is really nothing to be done about that other then try to detect and eliminate them before the tank gets within range.

But there have been missiles that could penetrate the M1 before it was even made. A lot of this goes back to training. In 1990 Saddam on paper had among the top 5 militaries in the world, believe it or not. He was "First String" as a military nation, having a huge army, and some of the best equipment sold on the open market. But what most did not comprehend was the low morale and willingness to fight of his military. Entire Battalions surrendered without firing a shot. And the poor training showed when units would fire off a few ineffective rounds then get annihilated by the coalition return.

The 1990 Gulf War sent shockwaves through the military community in a way similar to the Malvinas war a decade later. In 1982, Argentina showed that a relatively insignificant Third World nation could take on a First World nation and even in loosing give them a sound thrashing. It showed that even relatively cheap "off the shelf" missiles and aircraft could destroy some of the latest ships built by a nation like England.

And many in 1990 expect the same thing, but they were lacking some key pieces of information. The dispute of the Falklands really was an old one, dating back well over a century. And the people of Argentina honestly believe it is their land. In Iraq, none of the people asked to go fight really believed that Kuwait was their land. Also you have the fact that a large number of Iraqi's fighting in 1991 were conscripts, many with very little training. Where as in Argentina the rate of conscription was relatively low (the military was in control of the country at that time, so was popular among those who saw it as a way to rise in the system).

Fight for a dictator who had essentially lost a decade long war where soldiers were never more then cannon fodder, or fight for a government ruled by the military, and rising among their ranks can bring money, position, authority, and power. During the junta, even the lowest officers lived like Colonels in most other nations, with nice cars, large homes, and lots of perks.

Actually, I would love to see where you think the autoloader is faster. Autoloaders only allow firing at the rate of 10-12 rounds per minute.

In British and American tanks with manual loading, a well trained crew can fire 15-17 rounds per minute. And almost never would a tank crew ever need to fire that fast in the first place. Most engagements tend to be over in 1-3 rounds, more time spent acquiring and shifting to a new target then in actually loading the gun.

And as for "American kids in body bags", that is likely because the poor kids in the T-72 will be sent home in body baggies. You see, the biggest advantage of manual load is that actually you have less chance of a catastrophic explosion. One of the reasons they work as fast as they do is that they always have at least 1-2 rounds inside the turret ready to be loaded next. The M1 however has no rounds in the turret, they are all kept behind an armored hatch. And it is only opened at the command of the loader, giving him the exact round he needs which goes immediately into the breech of the cannon. That is why catastrophic explosions of the M1 tank is so rare, as compared to the T-72 which always has rounds inside the turret unprotected.

Look at the photos of destroyed M1s on the battlefield. I have yet to see any that were destroyed by an internal explosion. Generally a penetration hit that kills-injures the crew and then fire to destroy the hull. But if you look, even the most catastrophic still has the turret in place where it belongs.

Compare that to a great many T-72 kills, which all to often in battlefield conditions have the turret blown off. This is because the penetrating shot that killed it also damaged the live round(s) sitting inside the turret, causing a massive internal explosion.

But please, an M1 Abrams crew can fire at least 15 rounds per minute with it's main gun, I would absolutely love to know what Russian tank has a main gun that can fire 45 rounds per minute.

 

The biggest problem is that Russia is still trying to play by the "old rules", and barely seems to recognize that the world has changed.

During the Cold War, the alliance was the Warsaw Pact. And in this doctrine, Russia (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) was primarily going to use the rest of the USSR and "Allied States" more or less as cannon fodder. I have talked to a few people who served in the East German Army and Polish Army during that era. They all felt that if war with NATO was to start, they would have been thrown forward to the slaughter, with the hopes of weakening the NATO forces enough that the Red Army could then simply have to conduct a mop-up operation. And that is why Russia is likely trying to regain as many of their former allies and territory as they can now. They want cannon fodder and distance buffer.

The US and NATO has no desire to take Russian territory, they have no desire to overthrow their government. They simply want to stop the annexation of any more land from other nations by Russia. So if a war were to break out, for NATO to win all they have to do is beat the front-line forces into submission. However, for Russia to win they will have to do some really deep strikes because NATO would have relatively few bases near the front lines. Plus the odds are that in doing these strikes, Russia will widen the war even further.

And logistically, the Russian military suffers from some of the same problems the Soviet military had, logistics. There are reasons why the Warsaw pact was designed the way it was, and operates the way it did. And a lot of that had to do with the incredibly long logistics trains that they had to run back to the heartland. And in every WWIII scenario gamed by think tanks in the 1970's and 1980's, hitting those logistics trains was the most effective way to bring it to a crashing halt.

 

There are so many problems the Russian Military would face fighting any war against the U.S. and NATO it would take several days of typing just to list them all.

As you brought up the Russian Military Doctrine is so far out of date it is silly.

The Russian Military still war plans very much like it did in 1945 with the concept of sweeping waves of Russian Ground Forces attacking an enemy along with a great deal of Artillary and Rocket Bombardment.

Thing is the U.S. Aor Force...shortly after achieving Air Supremacy....would quickly destroy such artillary, rocket launchers and mechanised forces well before they ever came even close to our forces.

Any Russian Tanks that survived would be wied out by Apache Longbows, A-10's, F-15E's...etc.

And even if any Russian Tanks survived all that they would then be cut to ribbons by U.S. Abram's Tanks.

AboveAlpha

 

Actually, in a realistic WWIII scenario, I doubt either side would gain clear air superiority. Both sides would be putting so much effort into keeping their air forces intact and flying that they would not be paying much attention to the forces on the ground.

And the main threat to the Russian tanks would actually not be the M1. I think it would come from weapons like this:



Uparmored HMMWV with a TOW launcher.

Every Infantry Battalion has these, and they pack quite a punch. Small, easy to hide, easy to move around a battlefield undetected, and the weapon can even be dismounted and fired from behind trees and walls. A guided missile, with sights including IR and night vision. This is what I predict the "Real tank killer of WWIII" would be. Because you had better believe that the Russians have studied all 3 wars that Iraq has been in with their tanks, and are not real pleased with the results.

And because of this, they will try hard to keep their tanks away from the US tanks, and use them where there are few to no M1s present. So the importance of our other anti-armor systems will become critical, even the M2 Bradley which also has the TOW missile, and used them to great effect in both Gulf Wars. Plus the Battalions also have the Javelin missile, a "fire and forget" guided missile system.

 

The latest U.S. Military addition is Solid State Lasers and the FEL or Free Electron Laser....as well as Rail Guns.

We also have already deployed MEB's...Microwave Emission Beam...and I hear the MEB is a real terror.

AboveAlpha

 

We are talking about real weapons, not science fiction.

And yes, we have deployed MEB, but it is not really a "weapon". The Active Denial System (ADS) fires microwaves in the millimeter band, and is not fatal, it will not even harm somebody unless they were knocked out in it's area of effect and laid there for a long period of time.



Basically, to a human who is in it's cone of effect they will feel a warming sensation, then burning and itching. This would be worse then useless as a weapon in such a war, it is designed to cause large crowds to disperse (say a riot or storming a gate) who are unarmed or at most lightly armed and non-violent at the moment. In a battlefield situation, the enemy troops would just ignore the sensations and storm the vehicle, killing it's occupants and destroying the "weapon".

So yes, the MEB is a "real terror", if you are say part of a 200 person crowd outside of a base screaming and chanting that you want the people inside the base to leave. If you are an armed and attacking militant it is a momentary annoyance which can be ignored until it is destroyed by an RPG.

 

I am aware of the Active Denial System and that is not what I am talking about as the ADS has even been shown on TV as a way to Control Mobs.

The MEB can be used for everything from causing ordinance to explode to killing troops and it is being deployed mounted on Modified Stryker Vehicles.

The FEL is being installed on the new CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford....NOW.

Solid State Lasers already exist mounted on Humvees.

AboveAlpha

 

Your right.

As any Russian/American War would not involve an attempt to take and keep ground on the U.S. side....we can operate with impunity.

AboveAlpha

 

Speaking about ICBM, they can't.

Both SM-3II and THAAD, while teoretically being able to reach ICBM on it's flight trajectory, have significant limitations on their target speed, IIRC, 4.5 km/s for SM-3II and 3 km/s for THAAD. Meanwhile ICBM travel at up to 8 km/s speed. Moreover, there is no limitation by international threaties on the number of false targets deployed on ICBMs. So nope, they can't shoot them down.

In case of war, considering our superiority in number of tactical nukes (from 4 to 20 times, considering different estimates) and considerably weaker AD network USA has, tactical nuclear strikes with cruise missiles seem to be the best option, that will allow do destroy a huge chunk of their offensive potential without it even entering the combat+they don't have conscription system, so their reserves are small and irreplaceble. They will run low on troops and equipment in a few weeks and won't be much of a threat after that.

 

Same reasoning the Japanese and German used... Look how it turn out for them.

 

Interesting confidence considering that when the Soviet Union was at its most powerful they didn't think they could defeat NATO unless the war was two weeks or less.

 

In which place exactly do you see "same reasoning"?
Besides, it turn out for them the way it did percisely because of us.

1) Who even told you that?
2) Anyway, completely irrelevant. Different times, different situations. We are not Soviet Union, nor NATO 2014 is NATO 1989.

 

I largely find KGB laughable to be honest.

Here we are talking about a war, and he jumps in about their winning a nuclear war.

Well, there is a big difference between war and nuclear war. And in a nuclear war, nobody wins, everybody looses.

As for the first part, I have no idea what he is trying to say. THAAD is designed for Long and Intermediate range missiles, not ICBMs. And as for speed, irrelevant. Such missiles intercept other missiles, they do not pursue them. So speeds are irrelevant. And once again with the "false targets". Once again meaningless, since decoy warheads are simply a meaningless concept that nobody has ever really seen reason to attempt.

A MIRV missile can only carry a select number of warheads, and a decoy would take the same amount of capacity as a real one. So why on earth would anybody launch one with dummy warheads when they could launch one with real ones? It makes about as much sense as launching dummy ICBMs so that they can be shot down instead of the ones with real nukes, or sending soldiers into battle with blanks in his rifle, in the hopes he will soak up real bullets that could take out a soldier with a loaded rifle.

Once again KGB leaves the realm of reality and goes into a fantasy realm with no basis on reality at all.