U.S. Army And Its Armored Vehicles (Military Analysis)

Donate

Loading the player...

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: southfront@list.ru or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Written and produced by SF Team: Brian Kalman, Daniel Deiss, Edwin Watson

The U.S. Army has been plagued with costly acquisition failures in recent decades, chief amongst them the Future Combat System (FCS) program. This $200 billion program initiated in 2000, the largest U.S. military acquisition program ever attempted, failed to produce results on a multitude of levels and was abandoned by 2009. The Armored Ground Vehicle (AGV) and Armored Gun System (AGS) programs also wasted tens of billions of dollars before being cancelled without achieving their intended goals. These programs were chiefly defeated by an overly bureaucratic Army acquisition system, and the fact that the Army had asked for far too much from the defense industry, demanding many new and unproven technological advancements.

The FCS was the most expensive, most ambitious, and most transformative modernization program ever undertaken by the U.S. Army. It is often hypothesized that the U.S. experience in the first Gulf War of 1991 and in the NATO Kosovo intervention of 1999, led to the desire for a more rapidly deployable U.S. Army expeditionary force. FCS envisioned a highly mobile new Army, light enough to be air-deployable, yet lethal enough to survive on the modern battlefield. This survivability would be provided through the leveraging of new technologies, as well as superior command and control capabilities that would tie together all the various armed forces in a seamless information sharing and communications network.

The Army set very high deployment goals as part of FCS, which would prove to be unattainable. The U.S. Army would strive to attain the ability to deploy a combat brigade anywhere in the world within 96 hours, a full division within 120 hours, and no less than five divisions in 30 days. Often referred to as “18+1+1”, FCS envisioned 20 different components integrated together to form the new warfighting system. Eighteen new manned and unmanned vehicles were planned, one computer network integrating all components, communications, information and services, and most importantly, the fighting soldier.

Currently, the U.S. Army relies overwhelmingly on armored vehicle systems that were developed in the 1970s. These systems proved their worth over the last two decades. These “legacy” systems have been repeatedly improved since their introduction. These improvements have consisted of more powerful and efficient engines and drivetrain, modernized communications equipment, targeting and sensory upgrades, improved armor and improved weapons systems

The U.S. Army currently fields the M1A2 SEP (System Enhancement Package) MBTs which are a significant improvement over older models. The latest improvement on the design is the SEPv.3 (version 3). The SEPv.3 achieves notable improvements in its fire control system, ballistics computer and thermal imaging sights. The SEPv.3 has been strengthened against IED attacks, and has additional layers of graphite coated depleted uranium added to its composite armor. It is considered one of the best protected MBTs in the world, despite the fact that it currently lacks an Active Protection System (APS).  It has been proposed that the M1A2 SEPv.3 can be retrofitted with the Israeli Trophy APS, or the Quick Kill APS system being developed by Raytheon.

The M2A2 Bradley has proven quite reliable and agile on the modern battlefield. One weakness that was exhibited in its early combat history, was its low level of armor protection. The M2A3 incorporates a number of upgrades which will theoretically extend its life span out to 2030.

An improved fire control system and thermal sights adds to the vehicle’s lethality. The greatest weakness of the vehicle design was remedied by including roof fragmentation protection and mounts for additional armor for use against shaped charge anti-armor munitions. The Bradley Urban Survivability Kit (BUSK) was also developed by the manufacturer BAE Systems, so that the vehicle can be tailored to combat in urban environments.

First adopted in 1960 and first used in combat during the Vietnam War, the M113 APC is the most numerous and widely used armored vehicle in the U.S. military. Over 15 different variants have been produced, some of which still form the backbone of the mechanized formations of the U.S. Army. Although replaced by the M2A3 Bradley and Stryker in most frontline combat roles, the M113 is still used in a support role.

The most widely used self-propelled artillery vehicle in the U.S. Army inventory is the M109 Paladin 155mm howitzer. It is a fully tracked vehicle with a fully traversable turret. The most modern version of the M109 is the M109A6 variant. The M109A6 is equipped with an automatic fire control system, ballistic computer, and inertial positioning system which allows for great accuracy out to a range of 40km when Excalibur guided munitions are employed.

Further development of the M109A7 Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) by BAE Systems was approved by the Defense Acquisition Board in 2013. This program envisions the reworking of the vehicle chassis to incorporate as many components of the M2A3 Bradley as possible. This will lower logistics, inventory and maintenance costs considerably.

The M270A1 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) is a 12 rocket, surface-to-surface rocket artillery system. The M270 tracked chassis is based on an elongated M2 Bradley vehicle. The M270A1 can launch the entire family of Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles, some out to a range of 165km. Lockheed Martin developed the Guided MLRS in 2002 and it is now a standard armament for the system. The GLMRS utilizes a GPS and inertial guidance system fitted in the nose of the XM30 rocket, which turns the rocket into a guided projectile with a range of 70km.

The main U.S. Army mobile air defense artillery systems are the short range FIM-92 Stinger and the long range MIM-104 Patriot. Both systems are highly mobile, and are flexible enough to be fielded in a number of different configurations. Although not normally mounted on armored vehicles, both systems are capable of being mounted to existing armored platforms. The Stinger has been mounted on the M2 Bradley IFV; however, the most common vehicle mounted manifestation of the Stinger is the Avenger, which is equipped with 8 missiles in two quad launchers in a turreted housing mounted of the HMMWV.

Originally adopted as an interim substitute while the armored vehicles envisioned by the FCS were developed, the Stryker has served the U.S. Army as a front line combat vehicle for approximately 16 years, and has been modified and improved periodically over that time span. General Dynamics of Canada developed the vehicle based on their existing LAV III vehicle. There are eleven different variants of the Stryker, with a variant to cover all eight of the manned vehicle systems envisioned by FCS. The M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS) mounts a 105mm cannon, which is a light weight version of the original gun utilized in the M1A1 Abrams and M60 MBTs.

The Stryker is a light armored vehicle. Although providing all around protection from small arms fire, the Stryker can be fitted with both slat armor and explosive reactive tiles for added protection. Although there are anti-tank Strykers in each Brigade Combat Team with an added anti-armor capability, the main variant is lightly armed with a crew-serviced machine gun, or a Mk19 40mm grenade launcher. The U.S. Army is currently planning to equip a small number of Strykers with a 30mm autocannon, which will provide greater offensive capability against light armored vehicles, structures and infantry.

Although its legacy systems are quite capable today, the U.S. Army has recognized the need to dispense with its overly bureaucratic weapons acquisition process of past decades in an attempt to stay one step ahead of its closest peers, Russia and China. Both Russia and China have made great strides in recent years to gain parity with the United States on the modern battlefield.

Donate

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Brad Isherwood

    Russian military will roll over the US mechanized deployed in Europe,
    As The Sycophant Poles or any other have no real experience with modern combat.
    Kiev does…..and their Mechanized gets decimated by Donbass Miners and Tractor drivers : )

    US gives weapons to monkeys in camouflage outfits….

    https://cdn2.img.sputniknews.com/images/102935/19/1029351948.jpg

    • Robert Ferrin

      Lol like it…

    • jeffrey exposito

      Russia couldnt even defeat and were humuliated by pajama wearing primitive tribesmen armed with WW1 rifles in Afghanistan. Just give the Ukranians modern weapons like Javelins and they will send the Russians fleeing back home in disgrace. Putin doesnt have the cajones to invade any NATO country as he knows Russias military would be decimated by a technologically and numerically superior force.

      • Jesus

        Ukraine is not part of NATO, and as far as the rest of your statements they represent moronic narrative of the fake news.

        And NATO did what in Afghanistan?
        The pajama wearing tribesmen were equipped with Stingers and many other modern weapons by US when fighting against the Russians.

        • jeffrey exposito

          Nonsense. Like John Mccain said Russia is just a giant gas station that doesnt offer much else to the world. I think all of us can agree.

          • Jesus

            Who cares what John McCain says, his statements depict his ignorance and bias.
            The gas station is selling high tech rocket engines to US defense department.
            I take it that McCain and others like him are no rocket scientists.

          • jeffrey exposito

            Russia is a dying poor Third World country with a decaying economy and demographics. You will agree with this. Ok? Greetings from Ukraine wishing my American brothers and comrades the best.

          • Jesus

            Do you have any statistics proving your statements?

          • logicbomb007

            this from the guys getting all his sources off wikpidia.

          • Jesus

            Listen up my friend, my analysis are determined on the basis of what I learned, before Wikipedia existed.
            Your fake data number of of 200 T90 inventory in the Russian services surpasses common sense and intelligence, knowing that Russia sold more than 600 T90 to India since 2001.

            Where did you get your numbers from? Polish intelligence of wishful thinking?

          • logicbomb007

            Dude that 500 number comes off this Kremlin propaganda southern front without sources, its fake news. Even if its wasn’t that’s not half the number of modern US m1a2s before you even get to all the reserve m1a1s and the rest of NATO’s supper modern MBTs. Most of Russia’s tanks are just old t72Bs. As for anything you learned before Wikipedia existed its decades out of date and thus not relevant. Russia Is collapsing demographically this is a long established fact about Russia and the USSR before it especially the male ethnic Russian population.

          • Jesus

            Dude, you are full of it, battles are fought in one or two locations, I really do not care how many tanks NATO has all over the world…..blah, blah, blah.
            How old are these M1 and Leopard tanks? Do they have reactive at our or active protection systems? They don’t.
            Yes, T72 are old, however they are being modernized and equipped with the Arena active protection system along with explosive armor. Their 125 mm guns can serve as a ATGM launcher and engage M1 and Leopards at ranges greater than their effective engagement range.
            Grow up, and study some strategy and weapons systems that maximize one’s strategy in battles.

          • logicbomb007

            Ok dude you have fun playing ostrige burrying ur head in the sand of this kremlin propaganda and fake news. Seening as u have done nothing but make shit up or copy past off Wikipedia i think its quite clear its indeed u who is full of it. All this BS about 4+ fighters and no US tech advancments. As for M1s and leos 2 being old there not as old as most russian t72 tanks and have alreasy recived supperior optics updates as well as armor inserts. These old t72 are not reciving areana all of these tanks the leo2 M1 m60 and t72 varients all have reactive armor if fitted, once again ur pulling bull shit out of ur ass. As for effective engament range it is NATO that holds the record and that was in the open desert plains of the middle east. Supper long range atgms aren’t gonna help in the close in tanks duels from hull down and tree lines positions. Your never gonna have the freedom of line of sight and nato tanks with professional trained crews unlike the russian aren’t likely to make such a stupid mistake as cross into such a position. At any rate that kinda range is usless if u dont have the optics to use it effectivly in all conditions which most russian tanks don’t then the real effective range of these guys in combat is really limited down to the optics capability which gives NATO the longer range. This assuming the conscript with 6 monthes of training can mannage to lay and hold on a target at that range. Also an arm chair warrior telling ne to grow up makes about as much sense as a loon in the mad house telling me to be reasonable. Bro open a real book get off online fake news and get a clue. I have a bachlors in this shit where did u study again the kremlin academy of Bull shiting and fake news. If u did read something actually academically sighted and not of just some Rosoboronexport hype commercial u would know russia has repeatedly scaled back there 10 year modernization plans cause of cost but mainly due to development failures and are struggling to staff and train there army even at its peace time readness level. None of there high readness units are actually fully manned and ready as well there recruitment drive for contractya totally failed all they could attract where a few poor illiterate central asains. This is why they are now giving up on there high readness brigade system of proffessional solders that putin was all about at the start and going back system of demobilized under manned divisions. Time to face reality kid russia is a paper tiger on its last legs they know it and they are lashing out as strong as they can while they still can but its a death throw. Hell the people will dye out before the oil runs dry even that is who bad off they are demographically ecnomically.

          • Jesus

            You have a bachelor in what shit? Oh, Leopards and M1 CAN be fitted with reactive armor, tell me a few occasions where they were fitted with reactive armor…..maybe for a brief period in Iraq) Turkish Leopards and Saudis M1 are suffering heavy casualties in Syria and Yemen without reactive armor.
            Currently, how many Leopards and M1’s are equipped with reactive armour?
            How about active protection system? Nada. It is because there has been no armored threat or a peer enemy to test their equipment.

            FYO, the 3 divisions being readied and fully manned in western Russia are equipped with modernized T72 with reactive armor and Arena. You do not believe that…..that is your problem.

            In a battle, auto loaders provide a higher rate of fire, and Russian munitions are not inferior to German or US counterparts. You harp on the conscripts not having enough experience, the contract soldiers can man these tanks with conscripts, you can have a mixed crew, or you can have a crew that is made up of contract soldiers and are very proficient with their equipment.

            And of course the supporting fire from field artilery, SPG’s and MRLS would teach the Leopards and M1’s a few lessons they have not experienced.

            According to your bachelor in this shit, how many active tanks are available in Poland and Germany? You can also include artilery, air defenses, air assets… and whatever else you want for comparison.

            As far as your bachelor in this shit teaching you that Russia is a paper tiger, it is a useless bachelor.

          • logicbomb007

            In Arms Proliferation and Security studies you silly little troll. What primary school are you trying to finish at? Turkish Leo2a4s and Saudi M1 are both early 1980s variants when especially the Germans disregarded armor for speed though never to the degree we see with t72s and t80 variants like the t90. They lack key DU and other modern armor upgraded that NATO fielded to counter the introduction of the kinda ATGMA threat we are seeing in syira. Don’t forget these are both poorly trained Armies by NATO standards and Turkey is a conscript military much like Russia. All modern Bradly and M1s have reactive armor fitted in Europe and you can put it on any tank ifv or apc as the treat requires. Smart people usually leave them off cause strapping HE all over your vehicles is stupid dangerous when there is not a massive ATGM Threat. Russian Units usually just have empty blocks installed as a kinda space armor.

          • logicbomb007

            Dude There is no Arena on there t72b3s your making it up and those division won’t be fully manned they have and they have no intention too by there own admission your dreaming this fantasy.

          • Arthur Smith
          • augustine

            Yes yankee doodle fears Russia

        • TheLastBattalion

          The war in Afghanistan is more than enough to show that the mechanized infantry and the soldiers of the 40th Army were not accustomed to fighting guerrilla fighters and still aren’t.
          Each country has their drawbacks and overall, the United States is still in the lead by far.

          • Jesus

            Please compare apples to apples, not some events that happened 3-4 decades ago. Living in the past and not seeing present day reality is a mistake. US fas not fought a war against a peer since WW2.

          • Paulo Romero

            Incorrect…the Taliban veterans of the Soviet War in Afghanistan regard the Russians as far better soldiers than the Americans.Look at my reply to Jeffrey Exposito. The Taliban are still there , still fighting and winning now. What has the US military learned after 15 years of war in Afghanistan?? Looks like absolutely nothing to me. Russians make better natural soldiers. Their infantry weapons and artillery are better than the US equivalents , so are their air defence and anti tank capabilities. In a ground war , barring the tremendous US naval advantage , the Russians would prevail.

      • slorter

        Obviously you read comics sit on the lounge’ eat chips and write inane comments!

      • John

        People can say whatever they want, so i shall say my piece. Russia in a local fight is going to win, win bigtime……… NATO figured this out in 2014 and even the people tasked with doing the math said so. That´s old news. We can´t get enough gear over there fast enough, to replace what they would be blowing up. They are also not going to let us sneak in the gear and peeps beforehand either.

        I agree with Brad.

        • logicbomb007

          Dude we cant get in fast enough to stop them from rolling most of the baltics but nothing is gonna be able to keep us from deploying enough gear and men to take it back and moscow too if we wanted to risk Armageddon. Russia does not have the navy the soviets did to try and wage a second battle of the atlantic but u better believe the us navy even in its tired state could easily threaten russia’s flanks especially the eastern one where all there wealth is located. That is probably where most of the US forces are gonna go rather then risk thr meat grinder in eastern europe. It would be easier to counter invade and horse trade back to starting lines when the sue for peice as we start rolling up the trans siberian towards there money maker. Russia has plenty of old gear in inventory and the infustructer to make some fairly modern new shit but they lack two very key compontents the us and nato have in spades men and treasure.

          • John

            Hello Logic. I disagree. Treasure we don´t have, we are the largest debtor on the palnet by far. It is also not a question of bodies coming home by the tens of thousands, in the course of even a few days, or less for that matter. It is more of a question of tens of thousands of US service personel disappearing in a few days. To start hitting them in Europe means continental US targets get wiped too. That is how the real game is played.

            Noone has the stomach for that. Look at the screaming over relatively light casualities accrued in Afghanistan and Iraq. Imagine US cities on fire or blown to powder. This is what the STATUS 6 system is about and the message it carries for the US. Fighting Russia head on is another world and would remind everybody why Napoleon and Hitler lost. I wish you well and a good upcoming weekend.

          • logicbomb007

            All that debt is irrelevant when your the default currency for the world and despite how they try China and Russia haven’t managed to come close to changing that. People including the Chinese are still falling over them selves to buy our debit cause its a safer investment then gold. Hell all the rich Chinese don’t invest there own money into china they put it into the US cause they, not us, thing we are the safer stronger economy. As for tens of thousands coming home in body bags maybe in Russia throwing minimally trained conscripts in by enlarge antiquated soviet armor against almost exclusively professional NATO troops. This to say nothing of the fact there attacking into heavily forested and lake covered terrain which last time they tried in WW2 and Finland they got a lot of there guys killed by much smaller ill equipped force. Its Russia with its collapsing demographics especially with regards to the male population that cant stand to lose its young men by the tens of thousands like they did in WW2 that is part of the reason there in this situation.

            Though considering the US’s maneuver warfare
            doctrine of finding and striking the weak spots which is there far east. Rather then commit our strategic reserves against the best Russian units right by there bases we will land
            where units are even more under manned and antiquatedly equipped then
            the rest of the Russian army and threaten there sparsely populated resource rich east. Assuming we can’t talk china into doing it for us. Wouldn’t be the first time they sold out Russia to the states and i seem to recall them being real interested in securing petroleum assets of there own and not caring for what Russia is trying to charge them. At any rate its sure to pull a large part of Russia’s best units off the western front onto trains going east where they will be concentrated and easily targeted by US or chines stand off missiles where air defenses are light.

            Now I’m talking about a realistic conventional war of NATO defending against a Russian incursion into NATO territory with either an offensive to evict them or a counter incursion. . The moment you start talking about Nukes all bets are off and that is Armageddon for us all. Also Nuclear torps are nothing new and the idea of radioactive tsunamis only makes sense if all of Russia is already a radioactive waste cause its gonna be. As you say no one including the Russian’s has the stomach for that even if we are counter invading Siberia.

          • John

            I understand where you are coming from. I don’t see it, I don’t agree. You have a great weekend.

      • augustine

        Neither did dumbas USA with NATO ever defeat rag tag Taliban for 13 wasted years in Afghanistan. Russia fought alone as USSR. American cowards had EU/NATO help and still failed woefully.

        • jeffrey exposito

          The US army still is in Afganistan and pretty much controls the government idiot. They werent defeated.The Russians were sent fleeing out of there like the cowards that they are. Learn to read the facts and not fabricate fantasies

          • augustine

            Bulk of US troops withdrew from Afghanistan. Taliban controls over 50% of the nation. USMC and USAF are cowards even with NATO help….yankee troops cant fight without air support, how many fighter jets do Talibans have?

            Imbecile !

          • jeffrey exposito

            The US would beat the crap out of the Russian clowns. The Russian airforce would be destroyed within a couple of weeks by superior American aircraft and better trained pilots. And I am not American. Im Ukranian. Russia is all talk and no action when ot comes to the US and NATO. Russia only likes to confront much smaller and weaker countries like Georgia because Russians are cowards.

          • augustine

            USA only fights rag tag civilians like Taliban or third world countries like Iraq that fought Gulf war with a few MiG-29s, a lot of MiG-23, no AWACS, no EW, no long range SAM, no CIWS, and lots of obsolete T-72 MBT.

            Plus the US never fights without NATO military help.

            Russian S-400 and TOR SAMs will down any USAF aircraft, Su-35 beats even the F-35 and will match F-22. Stealth is beaten by IRST and OLS.

            If the over-rated Americans have any courage, why dont they kick Russia out of Crimea and save the cowardly chicken called Ukraine?

          • jeffrey exposito

            Haha. Russian airforce is outdated junk. The F22 and F35 are 5th generation far superior to any Russian fighter. American tanks and soldiers are now in the Balkans ie Estonia just a few miles away from Russian border and Putin is too much of a coward to do anything about it. Haha. Russians are just clowns and cowards. Lets see what happens if Russia steps into Ukraine. All we need are Javelins and other modern weapons to send back the Russians like scared dogs with their tails berween their legs.

          • augustine

            Talk is cheap. Empty barrels make the loudest noise.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            you are also cowards. weekly lot of your soldiers are deserteurs.
            ukrainina sildier is thy symbol of worst soldier in the world. i know some people from your country, who deserted and gat asyl at us. he told, the soldiers always drink, they are drunken and shoot comerades. after that they say, russian snipers did. and this is in officials protocols, animal!
            the greatest “ukrainiana was chrustchew. he was clown and reason of fall of soviet union. loser to one hundred.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            Plus the US never fights without NATO military help.

            this is not true

            and be sure, su-35 is much worse than f-35 or f-22

            the russian generals know this. that is the reason, why took back putin in syria after americans sent f-22s.

          • augustine

            America fought world war II with help of allies, Korean war with help of UN and South Korea, Vietnam with help of South Vietnam, Iraq with help of UN and NATO, Afghanistan with help of Afghan Army and NATO…..

            Where does USA fight war without big helpers? Never!

            Syria, US F-22 saw no action except on YouTube. Russian Su-30SM alone terrified the whole of NATO and USAF, they could not enforce no fly zone on RuAF, they called Putins men for meeting on time table to share the airspace in Syria….fear of Russian Sukhoi Flanker jets.

            Cowardly yankees, they only fight 3rd world countries like Iraq and Libya.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            You idiot, viatnam war was alone. also iraq 2nd war, panama, grenada and so on.

            they defeated 2 times iraq, won the cold war. usa is 10x stronger than russia.

          • augustine

            Illiterate potato farmer brains. LOL. Vietnam war was USA + South Vietnam VS North Vietnam, and the Americans lost the war, ran away like olympic sprinters.

            First Iraq war was USA + Dozens of UN countries + NATO VS Iraq. Second was USA + NATO VS Iraq.

            You are one of the dumbest creatures I ever argued with in my life !!!!!

          • Solomon Krupacek

            2nd war, guy! in the first there were dzens,m and also yiur country apllaused!!!
            but the second was only america. plus some british planes. no nato. the european part of nato was strictly against this war.

          • augustine

            2nd war, USA + Britain, two biggest NATO powers VS weakened degraded Iraq !!

          • Solomon Krupacek

            augustine, 98%usa, 2% GB
            GB was only for politics.

            also you can not believe, that the usa could not be do everything with iraq wht they want.

            it is your problem, that russia would not have any friendly country if would attack other country.

          • Jacek Wolski

            Whomever invades Vietnam runs away with the tail between their legs. Even the Chinese army in 1979 😂

          • Jacek Wolski

            Why all the hate?

            Joseph Stalin, during the Tehran Conference in 1943, acknowledged publicly the importance of American efforts during a dinner at the conference: “Without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war.”[21][22]

            The most impactful help the Allies offered in WWII to the USSR from 1941 consisted of economic and military aid (such as US Lend-Lease that started in October 1941), followed by the ability to tie down some number of German and Italian divisions and weapons in Western Europe and North Africa. Half of Soviet agriculture was gone before harvest time in 1941. With much of Soviet industry destroyed by November 1941, or being shipped East in containers on slow trains, the Soviet economy would have likely collapsed without urgent help. While this was acknowledged by Stalin, this was not disclosed in Soviet media at the time, and not emphasized in Soviet history books. However, the total amount (about $100B in todays dollars, from the US alone) is significant. Soviet literature and movies from the time often mention American trucks, ham, and other aid

            Even Putin acknowledged American help during WW2.

          • augustine

            No hate, just retaliating when the guy insulted Russia to make the USA look like the bravest warriors on the planet.

            WW II, British weapons tech including radar, Canadian forces, were sent to help USA defense industry and Normandy landing. Russia got lend and lease, paid back the USA for loaned equipment.

            Russia decimated Germany and pushed back the biggest world power into hammer and anvil position from the east to allow allies beat Germany from the west.

            Russian men crippled Germany’s war machinery and dug Hitlers grave. Yankees should stop hating Russians.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            you are not ukrainian, you are idiot.

            i wish, russia take whole ukraine. ukrinian nation does not ecxists. kiyewskaja rus, there were always only russian, your name was little russians. your language is only one dialecto of russian.

            otherwise, if taliban would get anti aircraft missiles like mijahedeens, the americans would give up also years ago afghanistan.

          • logicbomb007

            Judging by ur writing you look a lot more like an idiot.

      • Paulo Romero

        Bullshit…the Mujahideen were losing by 1985. Soviet tactics were refined between 1979 and 1984. By 1985 Spetsnaz and VDV had moved away from roadbound fighting to largely dismounted infantry warfare in the mountains. Spetsnaz were regularly hitting rebel staging areas and supply routes via direct ambush or guided air or helicopter strikes. Furthermore the Soviet forces had embarked on a largescale hearts and minds program through infrastructure , school and hospital building. Many hospitals in use in Kabul today originate from that time. It was only the introduction of the Stinger missiles that slowed down Soviet momentum , because it hindered air assaults and attack helicopters. Up to today the Taliban veterans of the Soviet war regard the Russians as far better soldiers than the Americans.

    • logicbomb007

      Ok sure the poles are just sycophants. As i recall the corrupt unfunded uaf where crushing the donbass till little green men with grads and 72b3 and 72bus saved there bacon by flanking the uaf from russia.

      • Brad Isherwood

        Colonel Cassad had several months of incredible mechanized carnage photos
        Of Ukronazi mechanized getting the living shit kicked out of them.
        For a standing army….it was Epic fail.

        http://park72.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/WPTlAy9i7R8.jpg

        They also lost numerous Hind attack Helicopters to Donbass militias MANPADS
        And other mobile units with SAMs

        • logicbomb007

          Well when russia sucker punches u shit can go array. Still even with all that russian mech and arty support they still barly clawed back less then half of the donbass from the uaf and from the graves popping up all over russia there giving as good as they got. And u think this is gonna go half as well agaisnt a professional polish army backed up by us supper power assets.hahahahaha keep dreaming kaliningrad doesnt have an ocean mout to protect it like Crimean.

          • Brad Isherwood

            OK….so we All know which side your cheering for. ..

            Enjoy your defeat…….enjoy being US/NATO Be’atch

          • logicbomb007

            I will enjoy your defeat. Keep drinking the SFs coolaid. Russian shit is all “perfect and best in world” us is all corrupt defense industry crap but then why do we only see bmp3s and armata in parades. What happened to the btr90, the black Eagle or the bmpt? But when it comes to Georgia or Rostove/donbass out in the field its bmp/bmd-2s and even 1s. In syria i think i spoted some NavInfentry with a btr80a but mostly those Gaz and kamaz MRAPs, i mean an up gunned soviet apc and MRAPs that is it? Sounds like the US defense industry but 10 time if not 100 worse.

          • Rodger

            I didn’t see Russian politicians screaming for the revolt on Maidan. The sucker punch came from the NATO side, my side.

          • logicbomb007

            Well u didnt see nato politicians screaming either so god knows what ur on about. As i recall those where all ukrainians screaming and going ape shit for revolt. What could cause them to react so negatively to pulling away from openess back to the kremlin sphere. Why is every one else from formerly kremlin dominated soviet bloc states so undestanding and equally defensive toward russia. It cant be historical experience it must be cia meddeling now fix ur tin foil hat.

          • Rodger
          • logicbomb007

            We he is actually an EU politition so again talking out ur ass and he is not calling for so much as showing solidarity with a revolution against post soviet legacy of corrupt governance like putin.

          • Rodger

            Can you imagine what the reactions in the EU/US would be if Putin suddenly popped up in Romania to address the protesters against corruption?

          • logicbomb007

            Probably one of astonishment as if he had shown up to express support for maidan protests.

    • Nic_223

      Lets be real if Russia goes to war against NATO its the end. I dont think Russia would even contemplate conventional war. Just nuke first and see what is left then send in forces. Was a big myth of cold war that first you would have large tank clash then nuclear.No , plans showed first strike policy.

      • Brad Isherwood

        “Missile defense is for defense,” said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, when Romania’s Aegis Ashore system was certified for operations a few weeks ago. “It does not undermine or weaken Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent.”

        This was evidently not good enough for Putin. “If yesterday in those areas of Romania people simply didn’t know what it means to be in the cross hairs, then today we will be forced to carry out certain measures to ensure our security,” he said from Athens on Friday, as reported by CNN.

        He did not stop with Romania, however. “It will be the same case with Poland. We will wait until Poland takes certain action. We won’t take any action until we see rockets in areas that neighbor us,” Putin added.

        http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/06/01/putin-vows-retaliation-u-s-missiles-eastern-europe/

        Russia has been drilling it’s new Mig 29 and other aircraft to strike the Land Aegis
        System
        Have been trying to find that article on Google.

        Russia would have no interest in a mechanized campaign in eastern Europe,
        Unless they did strike certain locations connected to and with the Land Aegis
        And wanted a buffer zone established near its border.

      • Ronald

        Who had plans for nuclear first strike policy , only Hillary Clinton , that’s why she lost .

      • jeffrey exposito

        If Russia uses nukes are you really that stupid to believe that the US and NATO would not respond and launch nukes at Russia? Boy you Russian trolls are even dumber than I thought.

        • Nic_223

          What did you think I meant with the end ? I am not Russian you people see Russians everywhere you are delusional.

    • Dr. Ronald Cutburth

      Great factual illustration of the US/NATO anti Russian propaganda. This is not an over exageration at all, but precise.

    • logicbomb007

      Yeah that is the kinda racist shit Nazis said about the US and Russia too, look how that turned out for them. Ukraine is more a reflection of the Russian military and how they would fair against the Baltic states with the US popping in to flank and decimate Russian mechanized brigades while there distracted struggling to root out local militias and secops. Winter war all over again But the US will make it a two front war in the east.

  • Jesus

    How long does it take the Russians to deploy an airborne brigade or an airborne division, ready for combat? Relatively speaking a brigade can be used to secure a large airfield and solidify the perimeter, followed by a airborne division to enlarge the perimeter.
    Airborne troops equipment does provide light armor deployed directly from the aircraft, the BMD4 equipped with Arena APS , 30MM and 100MM guns, hypothetically able to engage enemy mechanized units, the hypothetical factor becoming reality if the airborne forces received BMD4 equipped with Kryzantenum long range ATG missiles.
    Once the perimeter is secured, mobile air short/medium/long range defenses can be landed followed by heavy equipment. T-14, 15 are not very heavy and the reminder of the Armata platform is around 20-25 tons.

    • logicbomb007

      Probably months they dont have the money for the levels of readiness to do this shit. Also where are these paratroopers gonna land the baltic is so small nato mech will be on them so fast murdering them as the assemble it will be a suicide drop. Sounds like a sure way to wipe out the only trained semi proffessional troops.

      • Jesus

        It kind of amazes me when people keep saying the Russians do not have the money to involve themselves in an air lift operation. Since 2014 when the West declared economic war on Russia through sanctions and manipulation of oil prices, their foreign reserves remained the same, while engaged on a large scale rearmament propgram.
        FYO the operations in Syria did not cost anymore than the cost of keeping snap exercises in various parts of Russia.
        Airborne forces will not be involved in the Baltic states, an armored group will go through the Baltic states like a hot knife going through butter.

        The point being made, is deploying a battle ready brigade anywhere in the world within 90 hours time frame. US could not do it, I asked how Russia would respond to such a challenge.

        • logicbomb007

          Cause they couldnt afford to when oil was 100+ a barrel and they sure as hell cant now that its not. Its not even a matter of the gear or the fuel its a manning and training issue. The russian army has way to many carrer officer no where near enough contract troops so most of the rank and file are all mostly 1 year conscripts who will be done and out before they ever reach the training and readness of the opposing nato troops. Even with pulling in as many able bodied young men as they can most of there units are still undermanned and they would need to hord conscripts and actually retrain any reserves cause unlike proffessional nato reservist they dont really train normally.

        • logicbomb007

          Now ur right a general zerg spam of soviet mech probably the way to go and if u can catch nato with its pants down (a big if) and could get pretty deep into the baltic states. But they did the same in Finland in much the same marshy forest terrain then militia moblized and light infentry cut there supply lines through the forrests and it was a huge cluster fuck. This time all of nato air power is gonna pounding any culdrons while nato light infentey air lifted in pick them off at all the countless choke points in all that forrest and lakes.

          • Jesus

            Deal in present day realities, not what happened before 2nd WW, what NATO forces are stationed in the Baltics? All of NATO power is going to pound what?
            Do you know the Kallingrad air defenses S-400 and S-300 will curtail any air activity over Poland and Baltic states? Do you also know that polish air bases and German air bases will be attacked by Iskander short range ballistic missiles and an assortment of cruise missiles?
            You also need to consider ethnic Russian population in the Baltic states that will help Russia.

  • Bob

    Would the depleted uranium with graphite coating used in protective amour blocks on side of an upgraded Abrams V3 tank have health implications for mechanics and maintenance crews – with repeated exposure?

    • Stuck In A Deep Blue State

      If the graphite coating comes off yes. The control rods in a nuclear reactor are made of graphite to reduce neutron collisions. Younger guys would be in real trouble – but us old farts ate so much graphite in elementary school when licking the end of our pencils while learning to write – we’re covered from the inside : >)

      • Bob

        Thanks – wondered as know scientist who works in radiation facility, they have to wear monitors and impact on their fertility is kind of an issue.

  • logicbomb007

    Wait most of the russian army are still using t72s and bmp2s and this guy is talking about the us vehicles being dated. Wanna talk about acquisition failures what happened with the btr90 or the black eagle?

    • Arthur Smith

      Neither side is going to utilize majority of it’s troops in a potential big conflict. Once rocket launchers, aviation and air defense close to front take out each other there won’t be enough infrastructure to support full assault and whichever side starts it will get serious civil unrest and desertion. It’s all stupid and pointless.

      • logicbomb007

        “Serious civil unrest” maybe but certianly not from the threatened baltic states where there is wide support. As for “desertions” maybe from Russia’s conscript army but proffesional nato troops not likely.

    • Jesus

      The Russian T72B3 along with T90, and BMP3 Kryzantema are more than a match for for M1 and M2. That said and done, T14 and T15 are far superior to anything NATO has…..and NATO does not have anything in design and development to counter these weapons.

      • Solomon Krupacek

        t14??? how many thousends serve already? russia will never have 1000. when will have 400 armatas, usa will have 1000 new generation of tanks.

        and armata system has also weaknesses.

        otherwise, 150 mm cannon never will have.

        • Jesus

          They are planning to acquire about 2200 units, they already have 100 in service undergoing testing. US does not have anything new in development let alone production. It will take them 10-15 years to develop something similar to Armata.
          The 155MM cannon would blow away all NATO tanks from 7-8000 meters.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            yiu, russian made always big mistake. you think, the others will copy you and will do something similar. that was never. against t-72 were resent much more better ks in west, migs were stupid machines.

            armata is not almaighty. the turret is very weak. and this ill couse, that will be unusuable.

            americans will have qte anither concept of tanks., sure not worse than armata.

          • Jesus

            T-14 is the best tank in the world today, and T -15 is the best IFV in the world today.
            They are going to retain those ranks for the foreseeable future.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            young and naive jesus, the t-14 was never in combat. after thyt you can say something

          • Jesus

            So what if T14 was not in combat? Comparing a T14 to an M1 or Leopard is like comparing a Tiger against a Sherman or a T34,
            Read the specs my friend and do not be naive of foolish national pride.
            If you want to check this tidbit, the present 125mm gun is effective to 8km, while the M1 is effective at 4km; t-14 auto load 10-12 rounds per minute, M1 …manual loading.
            To make things even more interesting a 152mm gun on the T14 would destroy all armour at distances of 8km using ATGM, or a variety of high velocity weapons.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            bullshit :))))

          • Jesus

            Right, you are a brain washed patriot, who would not face facts.
            The American armored brigade in Poland would disappear within an hour if they faced 100 T14 and 100 t15 and artilery and MLR support in an open field battle.
            As far as the Polish Leopards and T72, they would run away when facing a few Russian divisions equipped with T-14 and T15.
            That will be the battle where the Armata platform will show its capabilities.

          • Jesus

            Did M1 and Leopard have proved their capability against a peer tank?
            Not picking up on old junk manned by poorly trained crews.
            T14 equipped with the 152 MM gun would blow Leopards and M1’s, the way the Tiger with the 88 MM gun blew away T-34 and Shermans.
            Return to reality my friend, you are subject to fake news propaganda.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            Yes, american tanks were used in afghanistan, twice in iraq. leopards, too.

            T14 equipped with the 152 MM gun

            THIS IS ONLY plan. we will see, weather will by realized.
            you are a big liar, who tales show as fact.

          • Jesus

            Did M1 or Leopards engage T90 manned by Russian crews anywhere?
            FYO, the Turkish Leopards are getting massacred in Syria by Isis, both tanks are heavy, without reactive armor(M1 for sure) and APS.
            You call me a big liar, please identify my lies……or you are a liar.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            T90 is overestimated. Far worse then modern abrams and leopards. be sure, modern leoprds with germen crew beat t90. modern abrams with americans, too. t90 was never the best tank.

            otherwise, within 2 years come leopard3 and toally new american tank. in 10 years there will be 5:1 the ratio between new amrican tanks and armata tanks.

            you are liar, becouse you write as fact thing, which does not exist. lik 150 mm canon in t14. i tell you probably will not be. maybe produce 10 pieces. you know nothing, what would mean 150 mm cannon for the rest of tank…

            and you regularly write your dreams as fact.

            remember ww2- the germen tanks tiger2 were much better then t34. they were t34-killers. but germany was not able produce thousands. soi, some hundreds armatas are not helpful.

            you are not able to mass produce normal cars, notebooks, phone. what do you want? without gas and oil you do not have enough money for salaries of state employees. until you will not build up the light industry, you remain dwarf. until you will not have capacity build thousands of really godd (but nit best!) planes, you are little players. that is the reality.

          • Jesus

            I asked if a Leopard or M1 engaged a T-90 manned by Russian crews, that is what I mean by peer tank.
            Turkish Leopards are doing terrible in Syria……as far as me being a liar, tell me of what I said being a lie.

          • PZIVJ1943

            Is long range ATGM sub munition really that effective. This is the question. NATO tanks still rely on direct fire kinetic kills at range and mobility.
            Europe is not like open desert.

          • Jesus

            Currently T-90 can shoot and ATGM that has an effective range of 6 km. Kinetic fire effective range is significantly less than that. The German and American tanks rely on the gun as a high velocity weapon, while the Russians use their gun for ATGM and and high velocity. Europe is a built up area, still, being able to engage the enemy effectively before they can, is a tangible advantage. Russians are developing robots that would be useful in city warfare, equipped with 30MM guns and ATGM.

      • logicbomb007

        Ah the Armata is just a prototype they hope india will buy and not in mass production or been accepted into sercive with combat units. As for bmp3 and t90 they only have a hand full of each especially the bmp3. Look at them in Rostov/donbass or Georgia all bmp/bmd-2s and even 1s and never a t90 or bmp3 in sight. Now the t90 might be a match for early m1a1s but not DUarmor m1a2s and the 72b3 certianly isnt. Thing is the USMC alone has more m1a2s then russia has t90s and when it comes to modernized IFVs it gets even worse. This to say nothing of the rest of nato poland alone has just as many upgraded twardys as russia 72b3s and leo2s too boot.

        • Jesus

          T14 is designed for the Russian forces, I am sure an export version will be available later.
          The reason you do not see BMP3 and T90 in Donbas is because Russia is not at war with Ukraine, if there was war, Kiev would be under Russian control.
          Russian armor fights in context of combined arms, heavy artilery and MLRS would chew M1 and M2 before they get close to Russian tanks.
          Russian tanks have active protection systems, while American tanks don’t, Russian tanks are medium weight capable of maneuvering in difficult terrain, while 70 ton M1 cannot do that.

          Do you know what happened to first batch of Tiger 1 tanks when they deployed in Russia? They got stuck in the mud, and became stuck targets.

          Poland does not have a credible armored force, its artilery is minimal and its air cover is minimal as well. Most targets in Poland are within the range of Iskander missiles.

          • logicbomb007

            T14 is for testing and was desined to copy all the innovations the us has made in tank designe like 10 years ago https://goo.gl/images/K34g8O its not an actual weapon avalible to the russian army to use and it wont unless the indians buys a bunch of them too to make it ecnomical.

          • logicbomb007

            Donbass is totally russia invading ukraine and look what a cluster fuck that turned out for all those paratroopers dead in russia. But even in rostov during the large manuvers to cover there ukraine invasion or of the georgian invasion to where they also only barly mannaged to take on one of there lesser soviet sussesor states while getting there ass chewed up. But there too not a t90 or bmp3 to be seen just anciet 72s and bmp2 and even 1s. Why cause the russian arms industry is even more fucked and corrupt then the us they are constandly making failed shit like the bmpt btr 90 and even when they do make a half desent vehical they cant produce it in any real numbers like t90 or bmp3.

          • logicbomb007

            There mlrs is good but the west’s is more accurate and has more counter batter radars. What is more important russian formations lack the amount of recon and c4isr nato troops and especially american mech have so they got all there rockets but where do they shoot them at. This in a baltic invasion senario where there are gonna be all these nato milita units being gurrillas in the baltic forsest spotting all the russian positions. US mlrs is gonna snipe all there heavy shit and then come in with the rest of nato covered by a uav swarm hunting down russia’s t90s and air defence so m1a2s can roll in and “73 easting”the hords of t72s and bmp2s.

          • Jesus

            The Russians have improved their c4isr, also their EW capabilities will give NATO c4isr fits. Look at what happened in Syria, their EW sidelined the US Air Force along with their SAM missiles.
            There are only a few NATO battalions in the Baltic states, their weaponry is minimal, US MLRS are not going to be in position to snipe anybody, their location will be pinpointed and they will be attacked by Tochka or Iskander missiles. NATO will not be able to overrun Kaliningrad, the forces deployed in Kaliningrad supported by their air force and Baltic fleet would rain hell on the poles and us troops
            As far as the T90, with the Relikt/Kontakt reactive armor and Shtora, the casualties they had was because they were not properly handled by the Syrians. As far as the Leopards Poland has in its inventory, you should be worried because Turkish Leopards are being embarrassed by ISIS ATGM.

          • logicbomb007

            Ah the classic racist excuse for russian armor constantly dismal preformance, its oporator error cause arabs cant drive tanks even after 4 years of battle field experience. For some reason that excuse doesn’t extend to leo2s and saudi m1s which seem to be fairing as well as the t90
            https://goo.gl/images/5GjpNQ Seems rebles captured them selves some to https://mobile.twitter.com/SCW_Nuggie/status/828301640029569024/photo/1

          • Jesus

            Russian armor performance is great when Russians are manning their tanks, they fought 2nd WW, they defeated German armor, even though Russian tanks were inferior to the German tanks.
            The two cases where T-90 were defeated were, in one case the Shtora was not turned on because the crew thought there were no ATGM In the area, second case, because the turret hatch was left open, and subsequently the Shtora was not active.
            2 hits on T-90, on one of the tanks the crew was not hurt and the tank was repairable.
            Repeated hits on Turkish Leopards, over 10 tanks destroyed, repeated hits on Saudi M-1 with over 10 tanks destroyed.

          • logicbomb007

            Well russian tanks where ok in ww2 and just as well if not better protected as the jerrys but they also had a lot more almost throught the whole war. Yet the germans still killed the russians like 7 to 1 so lets not assume the russians preformed all that great attritionally even if they did so heroicly. But back to these cop out russian excuses blaming everyone but them selves, shit is always convinently turned off eh? As for these number the saubis have hundreds of abrams and turkey had hundreds of leo2s syria only has about 12 t90s so proportionally the t90 is fairing much worse especially when we include the third they lost to alnusra captured.

          • Jesus

            You got your facts mixed up, al nursa did not capture any T90 tanks, you do not know for sure how many T90’s the Russians deployed. The Saudis might have hundreds of M1 and Turkey might have hundreds of Leopards, however, the number of their tanks deployed in Yemen and Syria is unknown.
            Turkey lost most of its tanks in a single battle around Al Barb, so hypothetically if they attacked with 40 tanks (which I think is unlikely) their casualty rate would be 25%. Since German and American tanks do not have reactive armor or APS, they are going to receive heavier losses from ATGM attacks. The sides of both tanks are not thickly armored, not having reactive armor on the sides can be a fatal mistake.

          • logicbomb007

            Russian armor preformance is shit. The soviets only beat the germans through massive overwhelming numbers cause it took 10 russian tanks to kill a german. Hell they left the highway to georgia littered with over half there tank force cause it broke down on the way shit its so crappy and poorly maintained. 3 out of the dozen t90s in syria have been nocked out or captured a quarter of the force compared to less then a 10th of m1s or leo2s that have been lost. Also just one wonded guy bailing out the turret is not a surviving crew. I mean the idea ur still trying to deflect soviet russian tanks shitty preformance on operator error is so desprate and racist. They always convinently seem to have shit turned off but that might have flownin after the 91 gulf war but now its clear its not the arabs its the tanks that suck.

          • Jesus

            Blinding yourself to the reality and capability of the T90 and T14 tanks in relation to Leopard and Abrams, when there is ample documentation is indicative you want to see things from your perspective, without factual consideration.

          • logicbomb007

            Blinding my self to what capabilities?!?!? The t90s active protection system clearly is a total joke vs coat herders with tows. They have lost a quarter of the dozen or so the saa got. After that itd just a faster t72 with decent optics The armata actually

          • Jesus

            How do you know only a dozen T90 were deployed in Syria
            And for a fact, two ranks that were hit by ATGN had the Shtora turned off. IT is not racist to point that Arab crews without proper training, do not handle the weapon properly.

          • logicbomb007

            http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-lethal-t-90-tank-vs-isis-captured-m1-abrams-who-wins-13849
            Half a dozen t90s which is not a supprise considering the russians have less they 200 themselves. I mean this bullshit about shtora always being turned off at the critical moment everytime is so convent i call bullshit. At anyrate the only people claiming it was turned off are us and SF with no corroprating tesstemony just ur assertion. That is not fact that is conjexture on ur part and that of this kremlin fake news. These Syrian crews are the last hold outs of the once massive SAA with tanks and training before the war then with like 3 years of combat experiance fighting atgms the moment these old vets get an atgm beating tank they give the russian instructor the bird and take off without running the new supper defence? That is extremly rasicts to assume these surviors of years of war will still be alive and so stupid. At any rate if these tea totteling Arabs are having trouble then this is never gonna work for a bunch of inbreas vodka swilling russian conscripts with even less training in the 1 year conscription. So even by ur narrative shtora will be usless in a war agaisnt NATO cause Russia’s incompitant conscript army wont have the training to be able to oporate it.

          • Jesus

            Russians have 350 active and 200 reserve T-90 tanks.
            Syrians never handled a tank with a Shtora before, all your ranting and raving about how good Syrian crews are, maybe for the older equipment; when the TOWS were introduced Syrian armour suffered heavy casualties before the Russians came to Syria. Many good tank crews got killed during the civil war, it is idiotic on your part to,say that crew and equipment compatibility is a racist consideration.

            As far as your harping on the conscript army, numbers indicate that over 30% of Russian ground troops are contract soldiers, the exact number is not clear.
            Also Russian weapons are relatively simple to train on, and very deadly, the conscripts can get enough proficiency on a weapon system within one year.
            And for your information, ground troops have a reserve of 1 million that can be mobilized very quickly.

          • logicbomb007

            Russian weapons are easy to train on yets arabs suck with them cause they are never properly trained. Dude if 6 year battle hardened vets of syria’s massive mechenized army cant pick up this one new piece of new gear on there t72s that is supposed to be automated then the illiterate central asian contractya and untrained conscripts haven’t got a chance in hell. Even with ur inflated wikipidia number of t90s that isnt even half the number of m1a2s the disparity gets even worse when it comes to numbers of trained crews and the amount of training such crews recieve. 1 year is just what the reserves will have had before a few years to forget it all most of the active troops will have only a few monthes of training. There are actually only 750,000 reserves for the ground forces who are untrained unlike western reserve formations like the US National guard that does regular refresher training which the russian’s get none of. Russia could mobilize these guys as fast as they want but they would just be untrained cannonfoder like most of the russian military already is without months of training and manuvers to get them drilled up to anything that could stand agaisnt NATO. Meanwhile countries like the US France Germany and the UK could easily recall all there demobilized vet ontop of there well drilled part time reserves to stock up there forces even larger. Dude russia is out manned out trained and out eqquiped on almost every level.

          • logicbomb007

            Pretty sure that will be very much the other way around as far as EW. Russia is just begining to move into the 21st century as far as c4isr and there ew is nothing compared with ours after there 2 decades of atrophy. NATO and especially the US’s EW has been one of the few capabilities we continued to develop and procure and unlike Russia most of NATO has plenty of real war EW experiance defeating Soviet systems. Russia on the other hand has almost none and got its ass handed to it when it did against georgia and there soviet systems. Only after putins massive investment and modernisation are they just able to outmatch the UAF who has late soviet capabilities. I mean what is this bullshit about sidelining the USAF? They came in and area bombed the population centers to drive the refugee crisis and did one jam attack to stick it in the obamas eye. The US never stoped doing strikes always did as few as we do cause unlike the russians and dispite what there propaganda tells u we do persision strikes while russia area bombs from stratigic bombers.

          • Jesus

            You are listening to fake news and fake propaganda, Russian EW capabilities exceed the US capabilities by a great margin. Russia with a few planes and its EW capability established a no fly zone pushing US air force out of the are around Aleppo and surrounding areas.
            US was crying for a no fly zone over Syria, and Russia went there and established it, idiot politicians were still calling for a no fly zone, the military did not listen to them. Yes, US did not feel confident taking on the Russian Air Force and the air defenses…..in spite of their presumed superiority.

            One thing you can chew on, the F35 supposedly has great EW capabilities able to jam radar and communications, the problem is, the Air Force is buying many EW planes to complement the F35 capability.

            For the last 20 years, US felt confident and chose to fight with goat herders and bedouins, while Russia having learned from the lessons of the gulf war, developed weapons and EW countermeasures that supersede US capabilities by a wide margin.

            While US wastes trillions of dollars on exotic meaningless weapons, Russia spends a fraction of that money to render those exotic weapons useless through EW.

          • logicbomb007

            According too who south front, RT or Sputnik? Push the us out of alleppo what fantacy bullshit while at the same time blaming us strikes for every hospital and civilian strike in alleppo. Great thing about kremlin fake news it ecen contradicts ots own delusional reality. Air force isnt buying shit to compliment f35s ew but uavs u got ur head up ur ass. The us is way ahead of russia developing and fielding new EW assets and platforms while russia is flying ancient su24s long after the younger us equivlant was retired and lobbying fake new with fantacies about magic hack jamming while the US has jammed suppresed and dismantled muntiple soviet/russian equiped air defenses throught resent history. Ur clearly delusional is u think the short rank arking missile like iskandar is not gonna take attrition and a lot of it. Nato crusie missilew wont be spotted till there right on target and by then it will be too late to get all or even most of them. A lot of those billions was on EW capabilities so we could intervine in against nations with the proliferating russian air defence systems and u think russia after almost two decades of decline with its best and brightest flocked to work in the west they just turned around and caught up and passed us in 5 years with a fraction of the resources, ur high on crack.

          • Jesus

            You are just spouting off your patriotic opinions, when you can show me actual facts that US EW is better than the Russian……then your statements could make sense.
            Example Donal Cook Ageis destroyer, whose Aegis system was turned off by a SU 24 carrying a EW basket.
            US Air Force and its coalition was pushed out of Syria, when the US Air Force killed Russian servicemen at Deir Ezzor, and Russia Brought s300 missiles in Syria, US blinked; the neocon’s demand to establish a no fly zone over Syria bringing US against Russia in an armed conflict, never materialized. US Military did not feel confident. The EW countermeasures were a big factor in their decision.

          • logicbomb007

            Say the guys spouting this SF sputnik propaganda where is your proof. An ancient cold war strike bomber flying dangerously low doesnt prove fuck all regarding russian EW capabilities or that they have made any advancments in 30 years looks like all the same gear to me. Meanwhile the us is putting out new EW jets like the EA18G and the f35 regularly but look out russia has an old ass su24 must be there EW supper weapom my ass.

          • Jesus

            Listen up, instead of having your head buried in the sand, realize that the US for the last two decades fought insurgency wars with goat herders, they did not have any need for EW or other capabilities they had in peak shape 20-30 years ago. Those capabilities remained the same, while Russian effort to thwart 5th generation data linkages have developed a very effective EW capability, on the basis of what US capabilities were 2-3 decades ago and beyond.
            EW is an effective way of fighting an enemy that relies on a complex data linkage system to function effectively.
            What happened with Donald Cook is a warning to US, that simple EW warfare systems can confound extensive complex Aegis system.

          • logicbomb007

            Hahahah ok buddy get a clue, you can believe what ever fantacy you want. Cause that is just what this Donald Cook bullshit is, fantacy never happened just fake news u despratly latch on to in russia’s all too aperent weakness. All the russia military has done the last 3 decades if not the last 6 is fight insurgencies them selves and domestic ones at that to say nothing of the massive funding gap in the 90s and early 2000s. They have had no money for EW development up till 5 years ago and by ur logic have had no time to develope EW. Hell they have relyed on the USA to do shit as simple as hack terrorist cellphone signels for them in chechneya and syria. Meanwhile the US has fielded new EW Jets with new EW jammer pods all to maintain our forced entry capability agaisnt all these prolifrating russian missiles in rogue states. All russia has is a low level pass with a 30 year old jet and a canadian blog. Unless u want to coun denying isis air supriority with there c400s cause it aint stopping the USAF ot the IAF or the Turks. Russia can try and pry on US data links that is what US EW is counting on to find and locate russian assets so then can be striked and over welmed by superior NATOpersion fire power. Russia is just getting to where the US and nato was in 1991 when we impressed the world with our late cold war tech. We have spent the last 2 decades over spending to keep high tech capabilities developing and refining our ew capabilities to fight a russian armed Iran or DPRK. Its why France and the UK had to call on the USA to beat libya’s Belarusian updated air defence.

          • Jesus

            Actions speak louder than 10 tons of BS. US did not challenge the Russian no fly zone in Syria, in view of their great superiority…..according to reality seen through your lenses.

          • logicbomb007

            What is BS is the russian no fly zone IT never happened ur making this up where is this declration of a no fly zone by the russians?!?!?!?!

          • Jesus

            Yes, there is a fly zone enforced by s400 and s300 missiles. If an America plane flies over questionable area, the missiles will lock on it and if if attacks, the missiles will shoot it down. The neocons wanted a no fly zone to faciliatate American air superiority to be imposed over Syria, grounding the Russian effort in Syria to a standstill, giving ISIS impunity to wage war against SAA

          • logicbomb007

            No ur just talking out ur ass there is not russian no fly zone. C300 and its upgraded verion the c400 are usless against US navy EW capabilities. USA and its allys fly where they want russian air defence be jammed. http://m.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Initial-report-Israel-Air-Forces-strikes-Damascus-overnight-482263#article=6024NDYxMzNGMjQ1MzZFRjFEM0Q4QzcwMzcyOTUzOUJGMDY=
            Sure as fuck not stoping Israelis and there us jet and EW from boming shit they shouldnt in syria. Keep ranting ur Bullshit about neocons it only proves to everyone what a delided fool u are. Some where at the cia they are reading this back and forth and luaghing at what a deluded idiot u are i should know. Probably doing the same in the kremlin minus the luaghing cause they know how fucked tgey are in a show down with nato.

          • Jesus

            Yea, you spent two decades overspending and getting nothing, making the defense complex richer.
            The Russian weapons are simpler and far more effective, all the BS regarding the US capabilities, they did not challenge the Russian no fly zone in Syria when the neocons were clamoring for war against Russian forces in Syria.

          • logicbomb007

            See u like to assume we go nothing cause it the only way u can pretend russia has a chance against NATO without having to burn the world and that is just not the case russia is 10 behind the us and for every dollar we waste in defence Russia wastes thousands of rubles which doesnt even get wasted on pork barrel projects it just goes right into there pockets. Russian weapons are cheaper far less realiable but are minimally effective if employed on mass. They challange russia’s none existent no fly zone bombing syria every day. See ur just making up fantacies a russian no fly zone hahahahah ok buddy and the toothfair has joined the fight agaisnt isis. Neocons love russia you ignorant boob its traditional moderate that are so petty to buy russia fake news and go all trible. Russia is trying to provoke the west into a conflict footing so they can distract there peoplw with a cold war while there economy crumbles with the population.

          • Jesus

            You are rather naive, US spent hundreds of billions on projects that never materialized, the F-35 program is a joke, the air, army and strategic forces are old and not very effective.
            Modern day equipment procured by the Russians exceeds the capabilities of what US is bringing.
            Neocons love Russia? Do you know who the neocons are? Do you know what their goal is?

          • logicbomb007

            Projects like the rail gun thats shooting hypersonic projectiles as we speak or our laser weapons we have deployed in the persion gulf. Or our new c400 beating f35 and ea18gs are already operating off china so seems a lot of US shit is materializing. Meanwhile the Russia is over 10 years behind the US with there first stealth fighter as the US and the rest of NATO lap them with a second. PAKFa isnt even as stealthy as the f35 much less the f22, cant super cruise and has an internal bay capasity smaller then the f35.

          • Jesus

            Rail guns and lasers are not in testing or production stage, so they are not a factor;
            Russia has generation +4 aircraft while US is stuck with generation 4 aircraft that are 20-30 years old. The stealth aircraft are rather useless in ground attack mode, and Russian air defenses have warned Americans not to trust their supposed invincibility of their stealth, to try to do something foolish in Syria.
            Russia is ahead in strategic weapons and all type of missilery, they have a new tank and a new IFV that US does not have, and will not have in the near future, Sukhoi 30,34and 35 are better planes than F-16, F18 and F15, and whatever presumed advantage US has with the navy, it will be offset by hypersonic missiles the Russian are testing currently.

            As far as the T90 being a piece of crap, given its performance in Syria, Russia will be selling an undisclosed number of tanks to an undisclosed customer in the Middle East.
            My guess is UAE.

          • logicbomb007

            Lasers and rail guns not in testing or production you really dont have a clue do you? Pull ur had out of ur ass and read this https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com/document/100000000000001000205711/amp
            Even found it on Russian propaganda today just for u and that was 3 years ago. https://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Fact-Sheets/Electromagnetic-Railgun.aspx
            Navy Railgun is still just in testing but so is armata and some how u think that should count. At any rate the laser is operational so lets deal with the rest of this bullshit u made up or got off fake news like this 4+++ genration malarky, HA. Forgetting that russian 4+ just means there avionics have been updated to the original nato 4th gen level which have all been updated beyond that still not seeing targeting pods in syria or anything othere then dumb bombs cause there still fighting with first gulf war tech while the us it in the 21st century. Now assuming u dont wanna call all these updated f16s and f15s and early fa18s 4+++ despite there supiror modern avionics just cause the airframes are old US still has more 4++ gen jets then russia hell even more 5th gen. The new super hornets E F and G models where all produced in the last 15 or less and still making them over 500 and rising bigger then the whole active russian airforce. Russian only under a hundred 4+ gen jets with is less then 250 so f22s. As for this sraw manning stealth it doesnt seem to be discouraging the japs, pla or the russian’s them selves from trying to get there own stealth muat not be as usless as they have there propaganda tell us. Russia might have better tatctical nukes but that is just cause there so weak otherwise nato used to be the same way when the soviets had the edge it a clear tell who thinks they are weaker and it so evident how weak russia is without the threat of armagedon to protect them. Now hypersonic missiles which us lasers that are already on ships are gonna easly zapp when and if they ever get fielded. As u said they “are not in testing or production stage, so they are not a factor”. They are in testing for years though in the US so sounds like it russian SAMs which will be made obsolete. Also once again there are less su30s 35s and 34s all put together then there are f22s so blow this 4++ fantacy out ur ass.

            UAE just bought leclers wtf do they want t90s for they had to replace the optics on there bmp3s for french ones so i think not.

          • Jesus

            One of the critical disadvantages worth pointing out is a very low laser efficiency factor under the conditions of Earth’s atmosphere. For instance, one of the most powerful Soviet laser prototypes, installed aboard the ship Foros, had an efficiency factor of only 5 percent at a distance of no more than four kilometers. In the context of space, the loss of energy and scattering are much lower, though at long distances the issue is still pressing (for such objectives as the destruction of enemy missiles and warheads at a distance of one thousand kilometers).

          • logicbomb007

            Yeah that was some great plagrism of National interest. At any rate that sounds like a disadvantage of Soviet lasers to me, the US actually managed to develop something that works as we can see in the Persian gulf. You clearly don’t have a clue as you where just trying to peddle this BS about no US technological development in the last 20 years.

          • Jesus

            I did not plagiarize anything, I gave you a statement made by Russian scientists regarding their laser research.
            Instead of being in BS mode, why don’t you talk about facts of the rail gun and the laser system.
            How about some intelligent answers?

            1. Where is the rail gun going to be used? If it has a range of around 100 nautical miles, how is it superior to existing oniks supersonic cruise missiles that have much greater range? How is the rail gun going to compete with Zircon hypersonic missile that develops similar velocities, at greater ranges, and instead of a piece of metal, hits you with 300 kg of high explosives?

            The BS dissipates when making a close analysis of these weapons and their intended use.

            2. Regarding the laser on the US ship that had a 30kwt power, the issues I raised after viewing the video of the laser kills, (some speed boats and a slow flying drone) was, its effective range and the foot print of the beam.
            From noticing the laser hits, they seemed like shot gun blasts, obviously the foot print being rather minimal and insignificant to cause major damage as a missile would.

            How about some answers? You can try finding them on Wikipedia, if not, you need to do some analytical thinking and come up with some intelligent answers.

          • logicbomb007

            Its ok bro i won’t tell them u plagiarized it its just you gotta start with Russian scientists said “……” that is a little pro trick to avoid this mistake next time. Dont just copy past >(. Its copyed word for word right out of the text.

          • logicbomb007

            As for inteligent answers ive dont nothing but rock ur world with reality from the tiny numbed of 4+ jet in russia to the us vast technlogical superioity in steath, energy weapons and hypersonic missiles. With our Lasers which have be proven in operational conditions not to be as ineffectual as sovier lasers we will just shoot them down. Im sure the new sm6 will do its share and then they will just run down the russians with our faster ships and shell him on the cheap and over whelm any point defense he might have with a massive barrage of hypersonic projectiles all a lot cheaper they oniks and certainly then any hypersonic missile russia doesnt yet have and probably wont till after US and China beat them too it. No half built soviet designs for them this time.
            Dude im sorry kinetic energy is beyond your comprehension. At any rate real analysis invloves actually knowing what ur talking about not fantasizing about dream weapons that are already obsolet agaisnt US Navy laser point defense systems. Also Navy SM3s and sm6s are hitting satlites and icbms so hypersonic crusie missile no problem. You also have to understand the logistics and targeting capabilities of these forces.
            The Russia navy has the range to hit targets way out but not the capability to actually see and target shit out there. The USN on the other hand with its massive carrier air wing of jet including EW and search platforms excels at aqusition and targeting at range to say nothing of its own larger naval patrol bomber and satellite fleet. As it is the Russians are totally relient on exposed and very limited search platroms like satlites and land based patrol bombers all easly taken out by navy sea based air and air defence. Even if they can get a salvo off at max range it would easly be spoted at launch by the extened eyes of the fleet in the air wing with plenty of time to intercept and counter strike with air. There is a whole lot more to modern war then just some flashy wonder weapons they need the supporting infustructer and training too. Its the ability to actually coordinate all these capabilities and the nessesary logistics that determins real capability. It only when u consider this full picture can you actually understand the disperity in the US favor over russia in almost all regards but not least of which EW and naval warfare.

          • Jesus

            You can dream on, until an actual war happens and we will see the results, all the BS surrounding stealth and all rail gun, lasers….etc. is propaganda and wishful thinking.
            I addressed that a 30 kWt laser’ s beam destructive force resembled the destructive force of a shot gun or a 20mm shell, shooting at power boats and drones.
            That is not going to work in a real war, so you think any naval vessel with rail gun will come close to Russian shores for costal bombardment.
            US Navy cannot come close to Russian borders within 600 miles to employ any air wings, because of costal defenses, air umbrella and eventual hypersonic glide vehicles that would keep carriers on the edge, not mentioning the submarine interdiction.

            As far as US forces, their equipment is old, their equipment was used in insurgency wars, or third rate military powers; Russia and China observed the capabilities displayed and developed countermeasures for the last 20 years.

            As far as your claim about Russia being broke and not fulfilling its rearmament goals, that is wishful NATO thinking, take a look at their acquisitions in 2016, and compare it with what US and other NATO countries acquired.
            I can give you figures, you will claim it is propaganda, Russia has been preparing for war in serious mode for the last 5 years and they fully know NATO’s capabilities world wide.

            You can boast what NATO can do, it is best to look at the bottom line, considering US and EU debt and economic limitations in existing markets.

          • logicbomb007

            Yeah we will see whats BS, multiple war tested NATO doctrin and tech employed by well trained proffesional soldiers. Or, untrained levies with Russia’s late soviet capabilities pulled out of storage. Considering they have never faced a real war and there daliance with libertarianism in the 90s pretty sure we can assume its the Russian development and procurment that hasnt advanced much past 1990s soviet capabilities. Which they are just getting off the ground 30 years later with shit like there new 4+ jets and new subs.

            As for lasers rail guns and UAV swarms shit is already here its happening you cant change the channel now buddy. Your straw man u plagerized off the web about soviet 1980s lasers being shitty as if that is a supprise hardly addresses anything but to make ur delusional bias evident. How is the failure of soviet engeneering and persision production almost 40 years ago any way reflects on US tech development, no one will ever understand.

            Mean while U dream about these soviet ASMs whith there rosoboronexport commerial idealized states but thats not half the distance US carrier jets are flying to bomb Afghanistan, once again u prove u just dont have a clue. US land attack cruise missiles go even further and though there slower there smarter and stealther. There lower speed makes them much more manuvrable which allows them to fly lower better evade intercept and do complex loiter and search manuvers. Like i said before this range is just a paper tiger if u dont have the good c4isr needed to employ it which russia doesnt in the face of US Navy Air, EW and strike missiles from our super sonic stand off anti radiation to ground huging tomahawks. You just keep dreaming like the russian defence complex about how there gonna counter us forced entery cause thats all they got. They watched us take iraq out twice cause we showed them so they would see they conscript zerg hord army was usless against us.

            You keep harping about debt as if it means shit. The west has so much cause its cheap and it actually saves u money with inflation over the long run if ur credit is good enough. It is in the west best in the US and its so bad in russia its not affordable so they dont. It actually cost them money cause no 9ne trusts them with a good intrest rate cause they had to chapter 8 tanks and missiles to korea and finland in the 90s just to cover what they owed. Now if only russia had maintained its credit rating it could have leverage future up turns in the price of oil and financed there modernization and maintained there living standard.

            Still this modernization is more of a mass repair and over haul. They already had to cut back there modernization goals by 30% by the kremlin MoDs own admission. U keep calling the US and NATO older but most of NATO are Using late lepard 2s and cv90s from the 1990s. Mean while most of russia is using t72s as well as bmp and bmd 1s and 2s from the 60s and 70s with few updated past early 80s mods. Even the US has early 80s tanks and mid 80s apcs all of which are updated to 21st century variants with state of the art optics and hunter killer commander indpendents viewers on every tank and ifv. Even with there 72b3 up grade and there hand full of t90s and bmp3s they dont have half that many modern vehicles. Russia is the one with the mostly old gear even the modernization has shifted to replacing shit with updated old shit like the btr82a and the t90 which are already behind NATO Vehicles.

            Wanna talk about bottom line NATO is spending more and will go on spending a lot more then russia. All of NATO vastly out numbers the russian military and with professional troops mostly. Even with debt frances economy alone is stronger then russia before sactions and the delayed commodities contraction from the recession and saudi market share assertions contracted the russian economy. The only thing keeping russia from being knocked by a power like china or the US for its oil is its soviet nukes.

          • Jesus

            Regarding your fake info regarding the conscript army, let me correct you and state that 30-35% of the armed forces are made up of contract soldiers, so if you take 230,000 ground troops without the reserves, you would have over 70,000 contract soldiers.
            2000 tanks require 6000 crew members…..get the idea? Most of their heavy weaponry can be handled by these contract soldiers that are proficient and have been in the armed forces for a long time.
            Having older equipment is a benefit to some degree, since the reserves are proficient with it. The T72 B3 with all enhancements and equipped with Arena APS, are an adequate match to western tanks.
            The introduction of T-14,15 and Terminator 3 along with the rest of weapons based on the Armata platform will give the Russians a very clear advantage over the Germans and Americans; the only thing the Germans are up to par is with the Puma IFV, their goal is to get about 350, while the Russians plan on getting a few thousand T-15.
            As far as tactics, during the Cold War NATO was engrossed in stopping the Russians from breaking through the Fulda Gap, they do not have any offensive mindset or experience.
            Even during WW2 Americans and British forces advanced against the Germans because of their control of the skies and overwhelming numerical advantage.

          • logicbomb007

            Hahaha ok fool u keep bean counting tanks. You keep prating on about this 30 precent of contractya all of who are brand new and by most russian accounts unfit, uneducated central asains with no better prospects. They certainly havent translated that precentage into any kinda professional NCO corp either. Even if they are getting NATO levels training which isn’t likely, poland alone has near 80,000 professional troops on top of there hords of milita compared to the Russian army’s skelton crew of 70,000. None of these contractya guys has been in the Russian army a long time yet either, the contractya recruitment is only like 10 years old and has repeatedly had to be revised for failing to bring in the needed numbers or quality personel. Most of these contractya are new recuits usually from central asia and many are illiterate in russian which is why the Russians had to keep full conscription and go back to low readness divisions cause they couldn’t build high readness brigades of proffessionals like the USA and NATO.

            You talk about the reserves being profficent enough in 72b3s which again wont have areana fittied widley. But the Russian reserves aren’t profficent in anything you could hardly expect most conscripts to be profficent with there limited training. Russian Reserves unlike nato are not part time and dont get any training there just former conscripts called back to service after a few years or decades. After they have had all that time to forget there short one year of conscription you expect these guys to not only oporate this updated gear but do so as part of massive unit ready to cross the polish boarder tomorrow. With training which was probably done back in the 90s when they didnt have money to train with heavy equipment and mostly just farmed potatos.

            Russia dreams about having a few thousand t15s just like they dream about big deck carriers and being a super power. They seem more focused on btr80 and t72 varient procurment to me. Germany on the other hand has ordered and is building the first 350 of there new puma ifv which already out matches the t15 in all know stats, who is to say they wont go back and buy more after the run if russia doesnt collapse first. I mean u talk about 2000 tanks but russia doesnt have 2000 t90s and t72b3 all put together and armata wont be in combat units till 2030 if then. Ur just living a rosoboronexport marketing fantacy.

            As for WW2 and the cold war its russia’s paper tiger threats and its bullying of weak neighbors that make natos defensive stratagy in europe relivent once again. As for the offensive mind set of western power and especially US doctrin wtf are u talking about especially in ww2???? The whole USSR themselves were only able to start advance against germany cause US air power had decimated the Luftwaffa taking air superiority and they always out numbered the germans even when they where bing routed by them. I mean if we are judging on this context let us not forget russia could barly handle finland and only beat germany with massive US aid. This while the US fought a two front war against japan as well which Russia wouldn’t join till the closing weeks only after germany had surrendered. Thats cause the all the USSR couldnt fight a two front war, depopulated russia with is conscript army sure as hell can but the US can and has. Before u start trying to spout histroy at me why dont u try reading some of it first stupid fool.

          • Jesus

            Your bias is evident, followed by copious personal conjecture built on bias.
            You do not like the central asians, you think they are inferior to polish?
            Where is your proof that the contract soldiers are central asians? Your mouth running.

            As far as the 3 divisions established they will be manned at a high level, and their equipment will be upgraded until T14 and T15 will be introduced in greater numbers.
            Those divisions are part of a tank army being formed as a large formation reminiscent of WW2, NATO brigade units will be too small and scattered to provide a convincing defense.
            1400 T72 B3 and about 550 T 90 of various models.
            Their current equipment has to be compatible against established NATO threats, they will have the latest reactive armor and the Arena APS.

            Yes Russia will get the T14, they already have 100 that are being tested and another batch of 70 will be introduced this year. They plan on getting 2000 units, and a few thousand T15. Oil prices are going up, and the Russians will have the revenue to continue and expand their rearmament program.
            Russia is the only country that is producing tanks for export and their domestic use.
            When was the last time US, Germany or England produced a tank? Yes, they upgrade old vehicles, however, you can only upgrade so much.

          • logicbomb007

            Where is your proof for any of this fantastical russian force of reserves or modern tanks that don’t exist. Why is it all racial with u about central asains and pols, clearly struggling with ur own racism. At any rate pols litterate in polish in the polish speaking and writing polish army are much better soldiers then central asains also there are a lot of Caucasians in the russian army who maybe speak fairly ok russian but are not really litterate in there second language. Its not that there arent more litterate cental asains amd cuacasuans who are better educated and even scholars of all types but these are undeveloped areas comparitivly by both soviet and modern standards and has a lot of these poor less educated poeple. These are the same people who go to clean streets and dig ditches in russia and that is who the Russian military was competing with for recruits in the job market. Any one who has any basic education can get skilled work in russia’s oil, mineral or trucking industry and get paid ok rather then next tk nothing to go out and live in the middle of knowhere. That is why none of these contractya stick around after one term cause by then they have the skills to get a job that pays. This is all widly acknowledged by the Russians as there reason for abandoning there professionalisation of the army.

          • Jesus

            Here is a reputable source, unlike your fake polish propaganda you have been subeject to.

            For special access to experts and other members of the national security community, check out the new War on the Rocks membership.
            FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedIn
            When asked two weeks ago in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee whether the Army was “outranged” by any adversary, U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley said: “Yes … the ones in Europe, really Russia. We don’t like it, we don’t want it, but yes, technically [we are] outranged, outgunned on the ground.”

            Given Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, this is sobering testimony. But is it accurate? Unfortunately, yes: Nearly two years of extensive wargaming and analysis shows that if Russia were to conduct a short-warning attack against the Baltic States, Moscow’s forces could roll to the outskirts of the Estonian capital of Tallinn and the Latvian capital of Riga in 36 to 60 hours. In such a scenario, the United States and its allies would not only be outranged and outgunned, but also outnumbered.

            Outnumbered? While the Russian army is a fraction of the size of its Soviet predecessor and is maintained at a level of imperfect readiness, we found that it could — in 10 days or so — generate a force of as many as 27 fully ready battalions (30–50,000 soliders in their maneuver formations, depending on precisely how they were organized) for an attack on the Baltics while maintaining its ongoing coercive campaign against Ukraine.

            All these Russian units would be equipped with armored vehicles — tanks, infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), and so forth. NATO, meanwhile, would be able to respond largely with only light, unarmored, or lightly armored forces. These would consist of the forces of the Baltic republics themselves and those that the United States and its partners could rush to the scene in the few days of warning that would likely be available.

            Counting the “Very High Readiness Joint Task Force” (VJTF), NATO could optimistically deploy elements from three airborne infantry brigades, one Stryker brigade, and one U.S. armor brigade. Russia would achieve initial advantages in tanks (7:1), infantry fighting vehicles (5:1), attack helicopters (5:1), cannon artillery (4:1), long-range rocket artillery (16:1), short-range air defense (24:1), and long-range air defense (17:1).

            Outranged? But the problem is not just numbers. The Russians field cannon and rocket artillery with significantly longer ranges than their U.S. counterparts. Existing Army tube artillery can generally fire at targets 14 to 24 kilometers (9 to 15 miles) away. Unfortunately, the most common Russian self-propelled howitzer NATO forces would encounter in the Baltics has a range of 29 kilometers (or 19 miles). On the battlefield, these differences matter.

            Moreover, at the moment, the United States has no Multiple-Launch Rocket System units deployed in Europe, but even if it were, and the range of its primary rocket is only 40–70 kilometers (25–44 miles) depending on payload. Meanwhile, Russian forces are richly equipped with two rocket artillery systems with ranges up to 90 kilometers (56 miles).

            Outgunned? Here the evidence is somewhat less clear, but the situation is certainly far less favorable to the United States than it is accustomed to. While Russia’s tanks and IFVs in some cases share the same designations as those that U.S. forces encountered in Iraq in 1991 and 2003, those weapons have little in common besides the name. They have much more advanced armor, weapons, and sensors, and in some areas — such as active protection systems to defend against anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) — are superior to their Western counterparts.

            If a fight broke out today in the Baltics, Russian attack helicopters, IFVs, and even some tanks could employ ATGMs with an effective range that could penetrate the armor of most if not all NATO combat vehicles, including the U.S. M1 tank. The M1s might maintain a slight advantage in the close-in fight, if they survived to get there. But given the current U.S. posture, there would at best be only a few dozen on the field, compared to about 450 Russian. The Baltic states themselves have no heavy armor, and our analysis indicates that no other European heavy forces could make it to the frontlines in time to influence the outcome of a short-warning Russian assault.

            Beyond the disadvantages of being outnumbered, outranged, and outgunned, a slew of other issues compounds the problem. First, NATO allies and the U.S. military would be of limited immediate help offsetting these disadvantages. European allies followed the American lead by cutting armor and optimizing their remaining forces for “out-of-area” missions like Afghanistan. Thus, Great Britain is continuing with plans to withdraw its last troops from Germany, while Germany has reduced its army from a Cold War level of 10 heavy divisions to the equivalent of two.

            But it’s not just the numbers here that matter. The United States and its partners have also steadily reduced the infrastructure necessary to support any kind of substantial deterrent or defensive effort in Europe. Today, there are no U.S. division or corps headquarters forward-based on the continent, nor any Army aviation, engineer, and associated logistics brigades. Our analysis — which assumed brigades could be received, moved to the front, and then commanded, controlled, and supported once there — may have ignored significant shortfalls in all these dimensions. Deploying brigades is not enough. Without a plan, without adequate logistics, without robust command and control, a better-prepared adversary would still overwhelm NATO.

            Second, airpower has long been the U.S. trump card, and the Army relies on it to deliver fire support and protect its units from enemy air attack. This reliance has reduced the amount of artillery it deploys with its maneuver forces and, for all intents and purposes, has stripped them of organic air defenses.

            While these choices were entirely sound in facing the Taliban and Iraq’s air force and integrated air defenses, Russia is an entirely different story. Russia fields perhaps the most formidable array of surface-to-air missile (SAM) defenses in the world. Operating from locations within Russian territory, these SAMs far outrange existing defense-suppression weapons and present a credible threat to U.S. and allied airpower that would be costly and time-consuming to counter. Unlike recent American wars, getting air support will not be as easy as making a call and waiting. Especially in the crucial early days of any conflict, allied ground forces may find air support available only in narrow windows of time and space.

            And third, the Russians possess a credible air force of their own. Our analysis shows that Moscow could commit hundreds of fighter, attack, and bomber aircraft to an assault on the Baltic states. While such forces are ultimately qualitatively and quantitatively inferior to the alliance’s airpower, when teamed with Russia’s surface-to-air defenses, such forces could present a threat to U.S. and allied ground forces moving to reinforce or counterattack. Without ground-based air defenses of their own, and with limited overhead cover from NATO air forces, U.S. Army formations could suffer serious attrition from enemy air attack for the first time since World War II.

            On top of all these issues, geography is a harsh mistress in this scenario. It’s about 130 miles from the Russian border to Riga, a distance that modern armored forces can traverse in a matter of hours. Even against fierce opposition from airpower, our analysis shows that there is simply not enough time to inflict sufficient damage to halt a Russian attack, absent sufficient NATO ground forces to slow their movement and force invaders to operate in ways that make them more vulnerable to air attack. This is intrinsically a joint fight, not one that can be won on the ground or from the skies alone.

            Add in the fact that the Bush administration decided — and the Obama administration affirmed — that, beginning in 2019, U.S. forces will no longer use cluster weapons that leave more than one percent of their ordnance unexploded on the ground. While admirable on humanitarian grounds, this decision — for which there is no parallel on the Russian side — will significantly reduce the effectiveness of U.S. artillery and air fire against Russian artillery, air defense, and mechanized targets. Given the weakness of NATO’s overall posture, this is no trivial concession.

            Today NATO is indeed outnumbered, outranged, and outgunned by Russia in Europe and beset by a number of compounding factors that make the situation worse. Having said that, it is possible to begin restoring a more robust deterrent posture and to do so at a price tag that appears affordable in the context of an alliance with an aggregate GDP of $35 trillion. The enlarged European Reassurance Initiative announced by the administration is a step in the right direction, though not a complete solution. Also, NATO’s European members must begin making the necessary investments to fulfill their commitments to the alliance’s collective defense; this is not just America’s problem.

            It seems unlikely that Vladimir Putin intends to turn his guns on NATO any time soon. However, the consequences should he decide to do so are severe. Probably the best outcome — if the phrase has any meaning in this context — would be something like a new Cold War, with all the implications that bears. A war with Russia would be fraught with escalatory potential from the moment the first shot was fired; and generations born outside the shadow of nuclear Armageddon would suddenly be reintroduced to fears thought long dead and buried.

            A situation 20 years in the making will not be solved overnight, nor will solving it be politically simple or non-controversial for an alliance consisting of 29 members with different priorities and perceptions. Nonetheless, the potential consequences of failing to do so are so dire that prudent investments — in improved posture and thoughtful, targeted modernization of the joint force — to stave them off are warranted to assure allies living next to a belligerent Russia and to provide an insurance policy against the risks of a potential catastrophe.

            David A. Shlapak is a senior international research anialyst and Michael W. Johnson is a senior defense research analyst at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation.

          • logicbomb007

            Dear god sir rants a lot here still petteling his fake news. The rand study assumes like u that the russians arent a bunch of conscripted chuckel fucks who actually have there shit in one sock. They dont and this is clearly evident to any one who has taken the slightest close look at there military including the russian them selves which is why they are so desprate to blow smoke up our ass about how modernized and proffessional they have tried to become. Though once again after any real close analysis its clear they have failed in almost every regard of this reform from going to all contractya troops to the pak fa and there whole new ocean going surface fleet.
            U talk about NATO capacity reduction after the cold war but that is far more the case in russians forces who suffered even more drastic reduction that where no where nearly as well mannaged as those in the west. They had over a decade of lost institutional knowledge training and experiance that they are just starting to try and recover with all this reform and modernization they are attempting. Its not as if the soviet where that well trained or capable when they where a real rival to nato. I mean russia struggles to invade counties just a cross its boarder and even some inside it while nato and the US conduct multiple major combat operations each involving full scale conventional land army engaments at times something russia hasn’t had any real modern experance in sense WWII and if they fight like they did them its over we win.
            As for a SAMs and arty spam saving russia’s bacon that is ceartianly what they hope but it hasn’t worked yet. Iraq out ranged us and out gunned us did stop us then. What really matters in c4isr and that is where the technically in Milley’s statment comes in. Yeah they can turn dirt further away then any one else but that don’t mean shit especially against a smaller light mobile force if ur target aqusition is shit or any other aspect of c4isr is shabby. You can only shoot what u can find and that is where the balance really rest in US favor with our better drones and more of them. Its the same with there tanks yeah the atgm makes up for there shitty guns and out ranges nato some but they still dont have the optics needes to go with it which is why countries including russia swap out the shit soviet optics and sensores for french ones on there russian built vehicles.
            With the SAMs its also much the same issue except the nature of such a system makes c4 even harder which makes this point about Russian Air force coordination with air defence all the more ridicules. There is a reason the US land forces dont have something like the c300 patriot’s role is a point defence against primarily crusie and balistic missiles Triumph is an area defence SAM like primitive Ageis with much bigger but fewer missiles. The reason is the Air Force are really worried about getting shot down by there own aa over a fast pased confusing battle. As they should be as both the US Navy and Russian air defence forces have been know to shoot down civilian air liners in even less comfusing circumstances. At any rate considering russia has its frontal avation and its area defence SAM’s segregated into whole diffrent Service branches i really have a hard time beliving they are gonna deploy this with there air force as some kinda enabler. At any rate what experiance does russia have employing its air defence agianst a massive NATO standard equiped air force to prove it works? Cause NATO and the US especially has over 50 years of contuned experience engaging soviet equiped air defence with its SEAD many while at the peak of there modernity and still we rule the skies. Ths Russian air forceon the other hand got its ass handed to it by georgians using the same soviet SAMs they use. If you cant beat ur own old kit your shit.

            Finally back to the orignial topic before your term paper there but old vehicles. Russia is still using them most older then ours most bradlys in active service where built after the cold war and all have armor amd optic upgrades that is a fact. This fantacy about Russia BMPs and t72b3s having active defense is bullshit at least as far as what is actually fielded with real units. As for BMPs and there optics and armor that is also BS the vast majority of bmps ar of the 1986 standard with just a few modern bmp3s and even fewer with modern optics which still dont match most in the west.
            Now this 27 battalion tactical groups is everything they have across the whole country to defend the longest boarder in the world which would open up a hell of a lot of exposed flank. At anyrate 30,000 is a real reduced revision after you where claiming hundreds of thousands and even millions before. Im supprised u think u have any credibility left after some of the fanciful yarns you have tried to sell. Even for that modest number they needed over a week and even then they didnt commit a 3rd actually into fighting in ukraine suggesting the other 2/3s where probably not fit units and all had to be trained up as part of these exercies before they did if they did.

          • Jesus

            As far as lasers, they are not effective given the atmospheric diffusion and the lack of a proper power source, they are just gadgets that are intended to confound and second guess their adversaries, the way Reagan did with the SDI. Technological BS, bonanza for the reasearch companies and having your adversary go on a spending spree that will bankrupt them.
            The laser test you alluded to, was a joke, shooting laser beam against power boats and a slow moving drone damaging them to the extent a shot gun or a 20mm blast would damage.
            As far as rail guns, let see some in combat instead of grandstanding, the swarm drones, their effectiveness have to be proven in combat.

            As far as your disbelief that carriers are hindered by the limited range of their air wings, Chinese DF 21 and 26 can engage carriers long before the carrier strike group comes within the range of its air wing.
            The Russians can do the same thing, especially when their hypersonic glide vehicles deployed on Sarumat ICBM become operational. These hypersonic glide vehicles can glide for thousands of miles at hypersonic speeds after being released by the ICBM.

            As far as the Russian credit, if push comes to shove, the Russian central bank can be dissolved, breaking all the guidelines ties and requirements imposed by the central banks in Europe and the Fed, and they can print their own money….the way US and EU does, asking for payment for their exports in rubles.

            As far as NATO spending more, yes, they can spend more and get very little, I was looking at the US procurement for 2016, for bread and butter procurements they got a little over 50 F-35, a few hundred helicopters of various types, 60 Strikers….etc.

            The Russians for 2016 got over 900 armored vehicles, 170 aircraft and 200 helicopters….etc.

            NATO can spend into oblivion on meaningless technological pet project that enrich the defense compiles without providing a reliable weapon for a reasonable price.
            Russia on the other hand produces weapons that work reliably, are deadly and for a fraction of the cost. Simplicity and reliability coupled with very capable EW capabilities would render the 5th generation weapons systems communications and data links confused and inept.

          • logicbomb007

            20mm takes out a missile just fine the laser is just speed of light faster. You cant argue with results and its out there working and the next genration US laser is just around the corner. Russia doesnt have df21 and there more of a threat to russia then the carrier any way. Russia can print what ever the fuck they want doesnt make it worth shit if people dont wanna trade in it. There is a reason why gangsters to fortune 500s all prefer dollars and why the rubles with worth dog shit. Your just deluding ur self with the RT sputnik hyped fantacies about how russian gear “providing a reliable weapon for a reasonable price.” Clearly ur dad wasnt smart enough to warn u against used car salesmen. Any EW system that is simple is not gonna be effective and this is the case and point of how ur dont have a clue.

          • Jesus

            You are missing the point, if the laser does what a 20mm round would do, that laser is an overpriced useless toy used for propaganda.
            Russia does not have DF21, so what, that technology renders carriers very vulnerable, Russia will have something better than DF21, hypersonic glide vehicles delivered from Sarmat ICBM. DF 21 is a MRBM.
            Rt or any Russian propaganda does not affect my ideas, they release numbers, like anybody else, I take their numbers at face value if it makes sense to me.

            FYO the Russians provide simpler and more reliable weapons for less money than NATO arms manufacturers. In war, simple and reliable weapons do to tax the logistical system with all kinds of needs; look at F22, how many sorties can it fly during one week?
            What kind and how heavy of a payload can it deliver on enemy targets? What is its cost?
            How many man hours of maintenance is needed between sorties?
            Compare those characteristics to Sukhoi 30, or 35 and come with some sobering conclusions.

            Wonder why Middle Eastern countries chose T90 MS for tank choice? Same reasons, T-90 is a viable weapon that deliverers for the money you pay for.
            Overpriced Gucci tanks that are not compatible with middle eastern needs, do not cut the mustard.

          • logicbomb007

            Noticed u left out an exact US helo numbers cause we be beatingn i out russia to say nothing of our next generation tilt rotors and future vertical lift. And that is just the US where talking all of NATO here bro ur living an RT fantacy.

          • logicbomb007

            You keep talking about hypersonic weapons and glide vehicles all things the US is leading russia in testing. Yet you refuse to accept the fact of US weapons which are much more a reality then these fantasy missiles u keep referencing to. Ur living in a alternate reality of ur a cook a delusional nut bro. Time to get real take some meds and stop reading the kremlin propaganda on the internet.

          • logicbomb007

            Mobern day russian equipment is all half baked soviet developed tech from 20 years ago they are trying to polish off and promote for export cause that is the only production industey they have left and its dying. US gear has proven repeatedly effective against russian missiles and tanks in conflict throughout the last 50 years. Russian gear especially there latest high tech conventional capabilities have not seen succeful employment against a modern coventional vombined arms enemy where as the US has on multiple occasions. As for NeoCons or neo conservatives who believe in a modern libertarian flavor of conservativism they love oil sheikdom russia with its conservative anti gay anti progressives islamphobic white christians flavor these days. You clearly dont know fuck all about neocons or fuck all for that matter.

          • logicbomb007

            What EW basket this had clean rails no pods this is a urban legand started by kremlin paid blogers. Or this fake new about the USAF pulling out they been flying over syria uniterupted sense russia showed up and years before that russia had to treaten mid air collsions to get the USAF to give them any attention. This bullshit about no fly zones was from 2013 when the uk voted it down before russia even showed up more fake news.

          • Jesus

            Check out the events, after Russia introduced the S400 after a Turkish fighter shot down a Su24, American activity in central Syria ceased to exist. They carried out a sneak attack at Deir Ezzor, where some Russians were killed along with Syrians…..US claimed it was a case of mistaken identity; the Russians brought S300 and warned the US that if any Russian or Syrian installations were attacked, the attackers would be shot down.
            At the same time there was a clamoring of neocons in US to defy the Russians and establish a US mandated no fly zone, meaning US to destroy the SAM installations and have their planes fly at will across Syria, it never happened.

            Us flies aircraft over eastern Syria and in support of SDF from locations in Iraq, the bottom line is, Russians established a no fly zone over Syria, and US did not feel confident to challenge it.

          • logicbomb007

            Check out the facts bro that never happened there is no russian no fly zome keeping the US Air out. US air activity has been constant over syria and the only people claiming this nonsense to the contrary are tin foil hat wearing netizens like your self. I mean accorind to you they hit the russian troops and c300 didnt do shit to stop them the US or the turks. Russian has had Trimph air defence deployed sense they intervened in syria and the fact they upraded to there latest export version of the c300 and called it c400 hasent changed US activity in the slightest. The Deir Ezzor raid happened after the c400 was deployed and it sure isnt stopping IAF f15 from striking deep in syria agaisnt hezbolla.
            I mean you clearly havent got a clue what ur talking about the US is basing its strikes from Turky and Jordan not iraq as u say. As for this no fly zone it was the neocons who opposed another intervention its was the left that wanted to stop Assad murdering his people worse then ISIS. But that died back in 2013 years before russia got directly involved when the UK parlement voted down intervention. That is what killed any consensus for a no fly zone and had nothing to do with russian air defenses that wouldnt show up till year or two later.
            At any rate there is certainly isnt a russian no fly zone keeping ths US out clearly if they can mannage to bomb lost russian spetnaz units unopposed. As for the idea of coming in and enforcing a no fly zone against russia its not that Sead striking c300 sights, wiping out the tiny air wing in latakia or even having to sink an old russian tub or two the barriers are really just political no military considering the massive US force advantagw over syria in the air which the c300/400 has failed to push back.

          • logicbomb007

            Fake news says the guy talking about the US being pushed out of alleppo by EW. Where do u get this fake new bullshit funny think is when bombs get dropped on a hospital full of civilian suddenly the Russian’s are all like a10s over alleppo wherent jamming them out of the area then??? There EW sure didnt keep the turks from coming in and kicking there ass. Like ew jets for the USAF what fake news did u get that off of f35.

          • logicbomb007

            Any way t90s are far too few between and none of them are equiped with 25 mech, the vdv air assult div or the kaliningrad garrison(by they way what ever happened to naval infentry’s t90s and bmp3s russian back to procurment and all?) in any real numbers. At any rate russia probably only has 5 battalions and a vdv reg from each of the local brigades and vdv div that are ready and able to go over the boarder and fight nato tomorrow manned and trained to say nothing of supply and gear readiness. That is generous considering its still primarily a conscript army. This against 3 nato battalions supported by a fully mobilized US Brigade and all the support the us wants to air lift in. This to say nothing of all the air and naval launched cruise missiles NATO is gonna fly through the grass to do all the same shit as iskander but to russia’s dense troop and equipment park concentrations and already in the baltic area. Nato’s though futher away are more dispered and surviable.

          • Jesus

            You are kidding yourself, I said, the airborne units will not be used in the Baltic states, the 3 NATO battalions are a token force, their fighting capacity is minimal. They can be overwhelmed easily. Again, poles and US troops are not going to be able to overun Kaliningrad, air and naval cruise missiles flying at subsonic speeds will neutralized by the Kaliningrad air defenses. Why did not US launch cruise missiles in or air attacks in Syria? That should tell you that they fear s300 and s400 defenses along with Russian EW capabilities.

            Kaliningrad forces and A2/AD bubble are a lot stronger than what the Russians have in Syria.
            Anything US wants to airlift in the Baltic states in case of War will be shot down. In peacetime, if they airlift more troops in the Baltic states, Russia will have the pretext to organize another tank army close to the Polish border.

          • logicbomb007

            Bro your kidding your self with this south front, sputnik kremlin propaganda. These 3 mech battalions arent gonna win the war but there a ultra high readness force already out in the field maneuvering ready to go today. Like i said at best russia has twice that number anywhere near the nessesary readness to be able to rush them on short notice and that is just not enough to overwhelm these 3 battalions and the batic militarys before the polish and US Heavy brigades over run kaliningrad and the rest of nato can mobilize. Fist thing to mobilize will be nato’s massive air force and its swarms of drone which will just over whelm any local air defences. Then all those lower readness elements of the russian brigades will get pounded as they try and form at all the russian forward bases. C300 systems are no threat to low slow flying cruise missiles cause it cant see through the curvature of the earth. As for not using cruise missiles in syria we havent used them except in maybe the openings of the iraq wars and Libya cause we dont need to our jets and our drones work fine and are cheaper when there is no air defense left. The only reason russia did was to prove they had some that worked most of the time too. Though we havent seen russian missiles work against an actual air defense network like the US missiles have.This fear of the c300 is just a arms exporter marketing tag line carried on kremlin sponsored media to build hype to sell this shit abroad. The so called c400 the marketing ploy to make an upgraded c300 loom new doesnt even have this missile fielded that gives it that amazing advertised range just has the same old c300 missiles.

          • Jesus

            You are deluded with NATO’s capabilities, the extent of US capabilities were proven in Syria against the Russians, everybody who has some understanding of military matters understand that. US equipment is old, their stealth technology is unproven, since F22’s did not challenge Russian air defenses, neither was there a cruise missile attack.
            Fact, Russian air defenses can locate stealth planes and shoot them down, as far as a swarm of cruise missiles or fake drones, the Russians have the look down capability, with MIG 31, as well as EW that would jam cruise missiles or fake drones.
            Coming to Europe, currently there is one American heavy armored brigade in Poland with 90 M1 and about 150 M2. Polish tank forces do not number more than 650 operational units. The German tank force numbers about 400 operational units. There is a lack in field artilery, SPG and MLRS in both Polish and German forces.

            In 2010 the Russian forces in Kalininingrad consisted of over 800 tanks, 1200 IFV/APC and 345 artilery and MLRS units.

            NATO cannot overrun Kaliningrad with whatever forces they have available, since it is a narrow front line heavily defended.
            NATO fighters, Polish 48F-16, 32 Mig 29, along with German 89 Tornadoes and 123 Typhoon does not constitute a meaningful force against an air defense bubble equipped with a layered air defense system. If Russia was to carry out a preemptive strike, airfields 500-800 Km from Kaliningrad would be attacked and rendered inoperative.

            This is not RT, Sputnik….etc hype, this information is readily available and anybody who can think military matters analytically can reach similar conclusions.

          • logicbomb007

            Yeah yeah kremlin stoog we heard this BS all before russian shit is all the best and American gear is all trash cause in ur lala land the USA is corrupy and backward like russia and russia is aperently atlatice?!?!?! Ok buddy watch out though ur tin foil hat is slipping. Pols and the rest of nato are nothing on there own but then at least there not a corrupt conscript circus like the russians. Us spout these stats off of some fake news as if there fact. There might actually be 800 tanks in stockpiles but they dont have the trained crews to man 50 while poland has like 150 and probobly stockpiles in the thousands of soviet eria 72. Kalinigrad will probably be able to fight no but no iskander is or sam is gonna be able to oporate for more then a few minutes before counter battery fuckes ther day up with some shitty arty. Hell every inch of military instilation is gonna get mlrs strikes to shit from the get go by all of the same soviet mlrs spam as the russians have. Also i like how u list the active units of poland and germany yet count inactive reserved stockpiles for the russian’s.

          • Jesus

            I would like to reply to you, I am having a hard time understanding what you said.

          • logicbomb007

            Haha yeah sure here u go. Pols and the rest of nato are nothing on there own but then at least there professional and not a corrupt conscript circus like the russian military. Where do u get these fake news states. There might actually be 800 tanks in soviet stockpiles in kaliningrad but they dont have the trained crews to man more then 50 while poland has like 150 and probobly stockpiles in the thousands of soviet eria t72s and twardys. Kalinigrad will probably be able to fight no but no iskander or heavy sam is gonna be able to oporate for any length of time before counter battery fuckes there day up with some shitty arty. Hell every inch of military instilation in kaliningrad is gonna get striked to shit from the get go by all of the same soviet mlrs spam you where touting for the russian’s in the polish inventory. Also i like how u list only the active units of poland and germany but saw it fit to include the reserve stockpiles of ancient t72s and mostly NAvInfenty t55s and pt76s.

          • Jesus

            You do not know how many russsian tanks are crewed in Kaliningrad, so if Poland and Germany have older tanks stored, how many crews do they have to man the old equipment? How much of this equipment is working? As far as the Poles hitting every square inch of Kaliningrad, first of all you have very little field artillery and SPGs.
            Say exaggerating maybe 400 units, and say 200 MLRS, 600 firing units in total firing 60 rounds…..do you think 36,000 rounds would cover all of Kallinigrad? The S400 and the Islanders are mobile, and the counter fire will be significant; right now based on the info I looked at there are two polish brigades facing Kaliningrad, and another one south east, away from Kaliningrad.
            If you were to concentrate all Polish artilery and MLRS West of Kaliningrad, do you think the Russians will just sit around and do nothing?

            What would you do if a Russian tank army moved through Balarus and enveloped the polish forces cutting them off?

          • logicbomb007

            There are only two brigades in kaliningrad, one is a light Naval infentry brigade which is not too heavy on modern MBTs or IFVs. Also pretty sure those polish brigades are divisions and both are mechanized with that far off third being a heavy armored division a hell of a lot closer then the Russian one in moscow. Unlike the russian units all these are manned by 100% professional soldiers as well.
            Now to speak to crewing the russian forces even the more contractya NavInfentry are still mostly conscripts. 2/3s over all so this means a third of there force is brand new with less then 3 months of training needed for boot camp and just a little advanced training by nato standards. Another third are 3 months or less from being discharged and cycled out for a fresh batch. This means only a third of there brigade a battalion is ready to go with out several days if not weeks to mobilize troops and gear. Assuming there matching nato’s matainance attrition which is dubious considering the turn over in conscripts. This means with the one mech brigade in kalingrad there is a tank battion with one of 3 companies manned trained and ready to go with about 50 tanks at any one time. Polands closets division has 2 brigades one right on the boarder with its two mech brigades ready to over run or bring under fire all of kaliningrad.
            As for russia’s two heavy manuver divisions coming through belarus well that assumes Alexander Lukashenko wants to play ball which is not likely considering romania and the US brigade in poland to say nothing of the ones in germany and italy which will move a lot faster then russian tanks and won’t break down right and left. And now that all there troops are commited in the west whst is gonna keep a pair of marine divisions coming in and grabbing a few beach heads for the many continental USA based armored brigades to threaten russia’s miniral and oil wealth.

          • Jesus

            I do not buy your figures regarding readiness of Russian forces, Kaliningrad being the most advanced post against NATO requires high level of preparedness. If this happens now, Russians could mobilize 200,000 troops with 2-3000 tanks, Belarus will have no say if Poland attacks Kaliningrad. Russia can quickly call the reserves and do another 300,000 troops easily. As far as an eastern attack, good luck with that, the carriers would be dead meat to MIg 31 Tu 22 and TU 160 along with a wide array or costal batteries and submarine launched cruise missiles. Eastern Russia is not Iraq, Russia can deploy regular troops and reserves to Kamchatka and Eastern Russia along with enough armor and air power.

            If this was to happen 5-7 years from now, and Russia continues its rearmament program, then the entire scenario will be heavily favoring the Russians on either front.

          • logicbomb007

            Dude that figure of readness is generous for Russia’s army of conscripts and assumes they can match the servicability and training tempo (if not duration) levels of professional nato troops, as if. Poland’s 3 brigades on the boarder with russia are by the same logic as you make for your assumption about kaliningrad units’ a high readness force.

            Regarding this belarusian front Im not buying these troop numbers that is like a 3rd of the whole russian military and even if they could mobilize and deploy all of them through Belarus it wouldnt be before nato would detect it and mobilized its low readness and reserve units into poland to counter. NATO reserves who unlike the russians are actually trained meanwhile 2/3 of that massive soviet tank army and conscripts with a quarter the training of nato troops. This is also to say nothing of Ukraine who will certainly take such a perfect opurtunity of russian forces comkited north west to prosecute its own claims against russia.

            The isolated bases in the far east will be even worse off with some of the oldest gear and poorest manning against the massive US Navy with massive strike and air capability from rolling in and landing a few heavy divisions. 300,000 untrained reservists in old t72s and bmp1s aren’t gonna stop a pair of marine divisions and a few armored brigades from takeing the pacifice coast while there big tank army is commited in poland. Funny you think nato cruise missiles will be usless yet expect them to be the game winning weapon for russia against the USN’s Ageis and massive carrier air wings. USN carrier aviation even its present poor state is made up of half brand new 4 gen+++ fighers more then the whole Russian airforce has recived in the last 2 decades and marine amphibous air wings are already operating the f35. Almost all USN capital ships have a theater air defence capability in Ageis compared to the mear 4 russian cruise supporting such systems same as the number in a single USN CBG. Russia has only just matched Ageis capability to network multiple systems into a single integrated air defence with there newest land based so called c400 systems. Russian naval avation and surface units are gonna get murdered by all the carrier jets and with there EW superiority in the air wings EA18Gs and E-2Ds. The superior numbers of quieter nuke boats are gonna easly hunt down russia’s big and load carrier killer boats and all while the US boats subject russian surface ships and land bases to the same cruise missile threat. Russia is in no position to fight a two front war and the US is in the perfect position to gove it to them.

          • Jesus

            US cannot fight two wars, one in Europe and one in the Far East. If US is going to start a war in Europe they will need most of their forces there. A brigade here or a brigade there is a joke. If US does not deploy the bulk of its forces in Europe, Europe will be defeated quickly. A couple of tank armies with 200,000 troops will roll across Poland and Germany.
            Forget the Ukrainian joke, maybe the Russians would go through Ukraine instead of Belarus for a more central deployment and to settle some unfinished business.
            As far as the Far East, your gloating over Aegis is a bit presumptuous, since an Aegis destroyer was blinded by an Su24 EW plane.
            US navy’s attack tools are carrier borne aircraft, have you looked at the Far East map?
            You have Kamchatka peninsula on the east of the sea Okhostk, which has military installations and you have Sakhalin Island on the west side of the sea. You have about 1000 km of open sea between Kamchatka and Sakhalin before getting close to the Russian coast line. You think carriers would try to go through that area, given the availability of Russian missiles and air cover?
            A deep layered SSM defense could engage the carrier force quite far before the F-18 will get anywhere close. The Aegis might have been the gold standard in the 90’s- 2000, however, countermeasures have been developed. It remains to be tested in the battle.
            Yes, the Russians can deploy enough missiles to overwhelm Aegis defenses and sink carriers. Also the introduction of hypersonic weapons would make the US navy a lot more vulnerable.

          • logicbomb007

            What is presumptuous is this fantacy about the su24’s EW capability Over the D Cook. The whole story was started unsubstaitated by a kremlin funded blog in Canada, its fake news! You go on to presume that US EW especially the navy which unlike russian EW has seen 2 decades of continued development uninterrupted through the 90s and the war on terror, you some how think there not gonna do the exact same thing to the weaker c300 and 400 platforms. Something turky and Israelis seem to do against the c400 in syria regularly using our equipment.

            Now 200,000 men is like a third of the russian military almost all there ground forces bro. There wouldnt be an infentry battalion in force left in the rest of the country. As for breaking through the kurils im sure we will have to do a little island hoping but the japs and the koreans too i bet would love to back us up there. Then all the open sea cutting up into russia and isolating kamchatka will allow USN Agies air defence and landing forces to cut off the Peninsula and land troops to cut off Vladivostok. With you insisting there gonna over commit to a mad zerg spam to fight through the tank hords of the former soviet states to join battle with Nato in poland. Also it might just be easier and even faster to go through the fight in the baltic rather then commiting most of russia’s 230,000 ground troops total to occupying neutral states. At any rate such a massive troop consitration would be evident to nato and see them easily mobilize the much greater total of NATO ground forces in europe to meet it.

            Mean while all of russia’s wealth will be unprotected from the US after we hunt down all there missile batteries and bases and strike them all with our drown swarms, stand off missiles and OUR MASSIVE air wing of strike and EW jets. Or carrier air wing’s airborne radars means Ageis which alread has a more powerful phase array radar in itself also has the hight advantage from its ability to network witb platforms something russia is only just getting in the c400. This means that unlike most russian air defence Ageis is not limited by the curvature of the earth or terrain cause it can get sensors up and look over it and see those long rang cruise missile strike comming in time to use there long rang SAMs at range. This as well as see those strikes and and mig31s coming intime to head them off with 4 ships of Fa18Es trucking Amraams for days. Now maybe if if the russians could get the whole pacific fleet to sea with most of there naval air force along with a few from the north sea fleet. If they can manage to find and track the carrier long enough to deploy and execute a 360 missile swarm attack they mightget one or 2 through and get the carrier with its airpower maybe. But with the reality of logistices and maintance that is just not gonna be the case. There never gonna all be ready to go or even most and the russian navy with its ancient gear and fleet eapecially is mostly mothball navy. Also the USN is gonna go out with its air wing, massive attack sub fleet and its Drone swarms and subject this shit to attrition and harrasment. Pretty much all this Russian gear is 1980s or early 90s tech like the anti ship missiles which are the ones when used in this very type of stratagy that Ageis was designed to counter that made it the gold standard the last 2 decades. Alot of there ground forces shit which is stored is even worse shit for the 70s its russia naked flank.

          • Jesus

            Quit kidding yourself, US would start a war in Europe they will loose.
            As far as Donal Cook aegis destroyer being blinded, prove it to be a fake story.
            For the last 20 years US has been fighting counterinsurgency wars, no major technological development and breakthroughs have been accomplished.
            Do not be foolish, 200,000 men are no big deal, they got millions of reserve, and they have the equipment to arm them.
            Russia’s wealth is all over the country not only on the coastline of Far East.
            As far as the US navy approaching Kamchatka, US navy has not fought a war using its carriers against a peer power, the peninsula is a heavily militarized area, and can be armed even more heavily. Russia has the advantage of strategic depth and more manpower and equipment, while US does not like its carriers sunk or taking tens of thousands of casualties. As far as the technological BS of what the US navy is able to do, they have to prove it first.
            They had the opportunity to prove their stealth technology in Syria and use its presumed superiority to establish a no fly zone…….they did not feel they had real superiority over Russian missiles. US navy revolves around 10 carriers and escorts that have no offensive power, they are relegated to defend the carrier.
            As the Russians develops Zircon and project 4202 hypersonic weapons, carriers will become sitting ducks waiting to be sunk. And their escorts will be useless in protecting the carrier, and the Aegis will be a joke.

          • logicbomb007

            How the fuck does the US start a war that has russia over running the baltics with just its high readness troops? Your clearly so bias and hystericly anti american your delusional without any objectivity Also its not gonna be the US its gonna be NATO cause russia started a war and trigered artical five.
            Now this Donald Cook fantacy is gonna require you to prove this wild unsubstantiated allegation made by some kremlin funded fake news blog in Canada? As for this no “major technical break throughs”, we have revolutionzed figher desgine with the first and second new 5th genration fighters were developing lasers and rail guns?!?!?!? WE HAVE ARMIES OF ROBOT SWARMS your talking out ur ass with this with this “no major technological development and breakthroughs” babble. Clearly blinded by all this SF, RT, qsputnik propaganda.
            I mean ur living such a fantacy “US navy has not fought a war using its carriers against a peer power” you say yet they only beat the japanese and there navy single handheldly same guys whos navy kicked russia’s ass and all this in a two front war. Or “Russia has the advantage of strategic depth and more manpower and equipment” yeah ok buddy. Russia has 230,000 active ground troops 200,000 you have already had commited to retaking Ukraine, Belarus and only then all of NATO. That leaves the 750,000 reserves who are all untrained undrilled leves whos only experiance was doing a year of conscription back in the 90s, when training was so great. A source for those numbers bra;
            International Institute for Strategic Studies: The Military Balance 2015, p.186
            As for equipment mabye in old 70s eara tanks but not in fighters jets, subs, mobern IFV and tanks with optics and sure as fuck not in ships cruise missiles or trained oporators for all of them. Tech and training the US has proven repeatedly against soviet tech and tactics much like Russia’s in places like Iraq, vietnam, libya serbia and syria. What hasnt been proven them selves are all these late soviet novelties russia is just getting around to fielding and the one time the russian’s have fought a conventional war they got there ass kicked in every respecr u claim they dominate. Old Georgian soviet made SAMs mauled the russian air force whos sead or EW couldnt do shit against. These guys are supposed to be jamming the latest modes of Ageis yeah right.

            All you got is this fake news bullshit about russian hacking making sailors desert or this fairy tail about the us not flying in syria’s skies but the Brit parlement killed the no fly zone years before Russian SAM showed up. Still those SAMs didnt keep the turks from inforcing there no fly zones or Israel from stiking there allies right under the russian’s noises. You talk about ultra hypersonic missiles coming down the pipline for russia but the US has the exact same as well as lasers to shoot such missles down which there already putting on ships or there rail gun that will lob rapid fire artilery the distance of a intemediate range balistic missiles. As history has shown with stealth fighters sub launched icbms and stratigic bombers russia is 10 years behind the US in getting there hypersonic missile out. Probably almost as far behind the chinese.

            The US navy is gonna steam roll up the okhotsk sea after is massive carrier air wings drone swarms and stand off missiles wipe away any shore or AA batteries leaving them free to give the cat C units with there hords of ancient equipment the iraq war treatment. What few troops of the skeleton staffs of the equipment storage base units or the tiny security battalion will be no match for crack marine combined arms landing forces even if they can get mobilised reserves to man there stockpiles of old tanks and bmp1s. This is not likely as the USN’s stratigic strike missiles will harassing the shit out of the limited transportation infustructer and the distance for the population center. After enough attrition us air will have destroyed there bases and platforms. Those that do mannage to sortie will be taken out by the Ageis platform’s offensive capability, only half lack ASuW missiles but not for long and only now cause most are on subs or on carrier jets. Still all have stand off land attack missile capability to outrange and suppress shore battries and there air defence means they could probably take on a CG with just guns and SAMs which do have an antie radation vapability as anti ship missiles. The lead US SAG will proabably get mauld breaking the russian defenses and we will lose a crusier mabye a destroyer or two but so what we have like a hundred of them russia has 4, the sea is ours and so is all the easter terriroty if u send all the army to invade europe.

          • logicbomb007

            To be clear there is not some untold hord of russian conscripts to be had. The russian population is a 10th that of the US and decimated by demographic the last 20+ years and most of the population is old pensioners not fit for service. Russian reserves aren’t reservists they are just prior conscripts recalled NATO Reserves are all trained and drilled. Russia is gonna fight with what it has trained or in training at the start of such a conflict.

          • logicbomb007

            Also russian is struggling to man the brigades and the one tank division it has with mass conscription how do u think its gonna find the men or even enough women to man another tank army. That the big question given the nature of the russian and even soviet armies how much of these units are actually fully manned at any one time. Who is gonna defend the far east from the 3 us marine divisions and all the rest of the US army?

          • Jesus

            You are misinformed, Russia has been organizing and equipping 3 new divisions in response to the NATO encroachment in Poland in Baltic states.
            Yes, they can form another tank army consisting of 3 armored divisions and a mechanized division, they need about 55,000 troops, the state of readiness can be 50-60%.
            As far as you dream about the marines and the US Army attacking the east, they will suffer heavy casualties and gain what? Is that how they are going to move against Moscow?

          • logicbomb007

            Nope they have just two divisions a motorrifle and armored neither fully manned and are stuck in moscow on the wrong side of belarus and the urals. As for the far east it hold half of russia resource wealth and is right next to siberia that hold the other half and it all defended by illequiped catagory b troops who have skelton manning. A pair of marine divisions and the rest of the USA’s heavy brigades are gonna roll right up the transiberian against this nothing while our air and cruise missiles cut ur lines of supply and reinforment. Who needs moscow and the russian population mass, eastern europe is a shit hole all the wealth is in the east where there are no people to get in the way.

  • gustavo

    What are you talking about ? In case of war with USA-OTAN, this one will not be local, this war will be global, and the MAD system of USA and Russia will be activated. There will be not winner, all people (China, India, Israel, Pakistan, USA, Europe, etc.) will be dead. There is not better guys here, all will be dead. There will not be a single person be able to write what happened to the human being. What USA and OTAN is doing is just a movement of idiots.