What is the state of Russian armor?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Lancer
That could get rather messy. Russian air defense would likely be very intensive. Anything that survives the SAMs would have to deal with the Russian airforce. This isn't Iraq, Serb was right about that.

If it came down to it I'd send in the ground forces with a NATO CAP, but not try to do it with planes alone, too costly. Problem is, NATO exercises in the 70s and 80s revealed that as soon as things start going sour NATO field officers would use a tactical nuke. I imagine Russia would do the same. From there...

Hope you're correct about Putin pulling out, backing down.

I doubt anybody would pop a nuke unless there was an actual invasion of Russian territory or NATO territory. If things turned sour for one side or the other then it would probably be a pretty quick cease fire and the loser withdrawing.

Russian Air Defenses are substantial, but getting them "in theatre" in quantity to deal with a massive NATO strike could be an issue.

If there were an armed conflict, which I highly doubt, then the West would certainly have its own logistical challenges. As Georgia is on the Russian boarder, it would be very difficult to keep any force logistically well supplied.

The idea of cutting through Russian territory to get to Georgia is a non starter as well. In Russia, it would be extremely difficult for NATO to keep a supply line open...assuming they could open it in the first place.

The only solution for the West militarily would be through Turkey. As the US saw in Iraq, the Turks are not keen to have an invasion launched from their territory even against a country they don't like with little chance of reprissal. Turkey would have to be very scared and very certain of further Russian aggression.

NATO forces are certainly much more capable than their Russian counterparts, but as in real estate...location, location, location.
Russia picked a good spot to poke a stick at the West.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
Even if Putin decides to say, I think it highly unlikely that we will try to intervene militarily. No rational person is interested in engaging Russian forces over Georgia. Everyone is going do a lot of talking, the Russians will probably stay right where they're at, and the US will lose a little prestige. Hopefully we've learned a lesson about supporting a rash, unpredictable, and potentially unstable country.

All very valid points. There will, no doubt, be a cost to Russia for this. It just depends on how the West views the intent behind this action. I would imagine that the Russians have calculated the risks and rewards and have decided that the gamble is worth the price. It is not often these days that the Bear gets to jab a stick in the Eagle's eye and they really picked a good place to do it.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Actuall battle conditions... Against Iraqi T-62's. Color me unimpresssed?

T-72s, actually. To not exclude the cornucopia of small arms fire, RPGs, ATGMs, etc that comes from combat.

The Leo 2 is also seeing combat in Afghanistan, but it hasn't seen combat against a "real" army with the full spread of AT weapons.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by PLATO


I doubt anybody would pop a nuke unless there was an actual invasion of Russian territory or NATO territory. If things turned sour for one side or the other then it would probably be a pretty quick cease fire and the loser withdrawing.

Russian Air Defenses are substantial, but getting them "in theatre" in quantity to deal with a massive NATO strike could be an issue.

If there were an armed conflict, which I highly doubt, then the West would certainly have its own logistical challenges. As Georgia is on the Russian boarder, it would be very difficult to keep any force logistically well supplied.

The idea of cutting through Russian territory to get to Georgia is a non starter as well. In Russia, it would be extremely difficult for NATO to keep a supply line open...assuming they could open it in the first place.

The only solution for the West militarily would be through Turkey. As the US saw in Iraq, the Turks are not keen to have an invasion launched from their territory even against a country they don't like with little chance of reprissal. Turkey would have to be very scared and very certain of further Russian aggression.

NATO forces are certainly much more capable than their Russian counterparts, but as in real estate...location, location, location.
Russia picked a good spot to poke a stick at the West.

Well, I'll respectfully disagree. The region around Poland and the Ukraine is excellent tank country and sparcely populated compared to western europe. NATO ground forces would dominate the battlefield in southern Russia and once Russian armor was destroyed and SAM sites overrun maintaining supply would be fairly easy. NATO could then press on into Georgia and clean that mess up. Likely there would be a diplomatic solution allowing Russia to save face while at the same time pulling out of Georgia.

Again, the only problem then is how tight a control the Russians have over the tactical nukes distributed to the front line units. If Boris and his missile truck could make the decision all by his lonesome, well that would be bad.

Also, is Putin nuts? He could end the world if he didn't react well to getting his army destroyed.

[Kidlicious]

Russian armor SUCKS!

[Darius871]

Glad I could inspire you Kid.

[One_more_turn]

[onodera]

Originally posted by Lancer


Well, I'll respectfully disagree. The region around Poland and the Ukraine is excellent tank country and sparcely populated compared to western europe. NATO ground forces would dominate the battlefield in southern Russia and once Russian armor was destroyed and SAM sites overrun maintaining supply would be fairly easy. NATO could then press on into Georgia and clean that mess up. Likely there would be a diplomatic solution allowing Russia to save face while at the same time pulling out of Georgia.

Sparsely populated? Do not think so.

[Vanguard]

Twenty years ago we were worried if we could hold the Fulda Gap against Russian armor. Now we're supposed to easily beat them on the plains of Poland? Or be zipping across the southern Ukraine to Stalingrad.... err, sorry, Volgograd?

C'mon.

Nato forces are well equipped and well trained. But after three months of intense combat all that equipment and all those trained troops will be gone. And Russian mobilization will be reaching full power. At that point we lose.

[GePap]

Ah, Russia is not the Soviet Union, and given Russia's falling population, in a long war, they don't win.

Though again, I find all this talk about a war in central Europe plenty inane.

As for Russian Armor, they build their tanks based on a different general war fighting strategy than the West. IN the West the main idea about warfighting remains that you engage the enemy army and destroy it. Its sort of a mix of the German blitzkrieg and the Anglo-American reliance on firepower from WW2. The point of battle is to destroy the enemy army on the field. Fast movement is to break up and isolate enemy units, then you kill them.

The Soviets built their tanks on the WW2 developed notion of deep operations. You would use mass and speed, not technical superiority, to overwhelm the enemy at certain points, but then, instead of just turning to destroy the enemy army in pitched battle, you drive deep inside, destroy internal lines of communication and supply, and threaten their industrial and political interior. This might leave significant portions of the enemy force without being destroyed, but now their position is untenable, and they have to move back. You gain territory and position. This is why Soviet tanks were made smaller, cheaper, easier to maintain than western tanks. They are not built for one on one tank warfare, they are built to overwhelm a position, then run wild in the back country. This obviously exposes units to encirclement or flank attacks, but the point is to move in so fast and deep that the damage you do is one that the enemy can't recover from.

[Saras]

Originally posted by GePap
Ah, Russia is not the Soviet Union, and given Russia's falling population, in a long war, they don't win.

Though again, I find all this talk about a war in central Europe plenty inane.

As for Russian Armor, they build their tanks based on a different general war fighting strategy than the West. IN the West the main idea about warfighting remains that you engage the enemy army and destroy it. Its sort of a mix of the German blitzkrieg and the Anglo-American reliance on firepower from WW2. The point of battle is to destroy the enemy army on the field. Fast movement is to break up and isolate enemy units, then you kill them.

The Soviets built their tanks on the WW2 developed notion of deep operations. You would use mass and speed, not technical superiority, to overwhelm the enemy at certain points, but then, instead of just turning to destroy the enemy army in pitched battle, you drive deep inside, destroy internal lines of communication and supply, and threaten their industrial and political interior. This might leave significant portions of the enemy force without being destroyed, but now their position is untenable, and they have to move back. You gain territory and position. This is why Soviet tanks were made smaller, cheaper, easier to maintain than western tanks. They are not built for one on one tank warfare, they are built to overwhelm a position, then run wild in the back country. This obviously exposes units to encirclement or flank attacks, but the point is to move in so fast and deep that the damage you do is one that the enemy can't recover from.

By what you're saying, Russians are ill equipped for defence. Eeeexcelent!

[onodera]

Originally posted by Saras


By what you're saying, Russians are ill equipped for defence. Eeeexcelent!

By the way, when are you going to give Wilno back to Poland?
I think Tusk won't mind our invasion if we promise Kresy to him.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by One_more_turn

Great video One_more_turn, really enjoyed it. They even had Uncle Joe in there. I think he's on the outs there now.

[Saras]

Ha, won't work, we're buddies now

[Lancer]

Anywhere a squadron of M1 Abrams shows up only smoking Russian wreckage would remain. A point proved by my old unit at 73 easting. Sure, these are different T72s, but I doubt it will matter very much.