Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Sheb]

Miljan: That definition doesn't apply to the NATO treaty, as the 9/11 attacks weren't conducted on behalf of a state.

Now, of course what happened so far is way to mundane to trigger article 5. But that's the point of salami tactics: take a bite at a time. Suppose Russia next seize a Latvian cargo ship with its border guards. Armed attack? Now, Russia shoot warning shots at a Estonian Coast Guard vessel because it's too close to whatever. Armed attacks? Now, some scenario, but one shot hit "by mistake". Armed attack? Etc etc etc...

[mainiac]

The gulf wars were the wars that showed us that numbers stopped mattering in conventional warfare a long time ago and it became a lot more about the ability to secure and use air supremacy.  This wasn't exactly revolutionary insight at the time but there weren't any other major conventional wars to illustrate the concept.

I think we are using different definitions of world power.  Lets agree to disagree.

[Sergarr]

Russia has a lot of means to secure air supremacy, however. Ranging from anti-air missile complexes (S-300/400/500, Pantzir, etc.) everywhere to the fighter/interceptor aircraft on par with the best Western ones.

[mainiac]

on par with the best Western ones.

 

[Loud Whispers]

The gulf wars were the wars that showed us that numbers stopped mattering in conventional warfare a long time ago and it became a lot more about the ability to secure and use air supremacy.  This wasn't exactly revolutionary insight at the time but there weren't any other major conventional wars to illustrate the concept.
I think we are using different definitions of world power.  Lets agree to disagree.

The world learned about the power of the air in WWII, the Gulf Wars taught the West that intelligence is key. The coalition wasn't as effective as it could've been had command not hoarded a lot of the information they collected (though even then, they were still effective and knew where all of Saddam's armour was wherever they were) and there were some coordination and identification issues (friendly fire) and there were a fair few amount of times where Saddam could've messed with the coalition's sophisticated tools (sophistication comes hand in hand with vulnerability). But by virtue of having the best intelligence the coalition could navigate the deserts, conduct unconventional warfare just as well as conventional and also eliminate key targets like missile launch sites and the enemy's communication and command centres, paralyzing the Iraqi army.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

A)No, not on paper. The number of plane, armors and men is readily available : Russia is stronger than any European countries, bu weaker than all of them.

OK, lets compare Turkey (I think you meant NATO sharing borders wih Russia not European) and Russia

Ground forces:

Active personnel
Turkey: 290,000
Russia: 285,000 

Khmmm... not so bright for Russia

Tanks:
Russia: ~15 000 ( ~12 000 of them are in reserve)
Turkey: ~3 500  ( ~1500 of them are in reserve)

Here it looks like Russia has more tanks. But does it have 15 000 tank crews?  How many of that tanks are actually usable?

If you look at active tanks... there are little difference in numbers... And I believe that Leopard I is better than T-72, modernized T60 Patton is better than  T-80, Leopard II is better than T-90

I will not continue further. Sapienti sat

[Sergarr]

A)No, not on paper. The number of plane, armors and men is readily available : Russia is stronger than any European countries, bu weaker than all of them.

OK, lets compare Turkey (I think you meant NATO sharing borders wih Russia not European) and Russia

Ground forces:

Active personnel
Turkey: 290,000
Russia: 285,000 

Khmmm... not so bright for Russia

Tanks:
Russia: ~15 000 ( ~12 000 of them are in reserve)
Turkey: ~3 500  ( ~1500 of them are in reserve)

Here it looks like Russia has more tanks. But does it have 15 000 tank crews?  How many of that tanks are actually usable?

If you look at active tanks... there are little difference in numbers... And I believe that Leopard I is better than T-72, modernized T60 Patton is better than  T-80, Leopard II is better than T-90

I will not continue further. Sapienti sat

The gulf wars were the wars that showed us that numbers stopped mattering in conventional warfare a long time ago and it became a lot more about the ability to secure and use air supremacy.  This wasn't exactly revolutionary insight at the time but there weren't any other major conventional wars to illustrate the concept.

I think we are using different definitions of world power.  Lets agree to disagree.

This is actually hilarious tragic.

[mainiac]

This is actually hilarious tragic.

Coming from you that's high praise indeed.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Russia has a lot of means to secure air supremacy, however. Ranging from anti-air missile complexes (S-300/400/500, Pantzir, etc.) everywhere to the fighter/interceptor aircraft on par with the best Western ones.

wanna talk airfoce?

For starters Russia has no enough pilots and no enough modern aircrafts (not that MIG-35 is comparable to F-22 or F-35 or even modernized F-16)

Crap like su-27 and mig-31 is nothing but a target. Crap in what matters in modern warfare - electronics. Plus, repeating myself, Russia has no enough pilots to tackle NATO

[Erkki]

Look, it hardly matters what is said to Sergarr or what references are given or evidence shown. He has chosen his side.

I am in reserve myself, in C&C. It isnt strictly true that Su-27 series can not compete with Western fighters as a lot has to do with what kind of weapons(=missiles) the aircraft can carry. But when going on an offensive, an integrated air defense system can be tough nut to crack and sheer numbers can become nothing if there just aren't offensive tools such as AWACS, ARMs, datalink C&C systems(not just for aircraft) or EW among other tools to deal with it.

1 on 1 in a vacuum a Su-27 a series fighter may be able to score 1:1 or better against F-15, F-16 and so forth, but land-air-naval battles do not happen in vacuums. Modern aerial warfare is about information. For now, Russia does not have the tools to deal away with even Sweden(no matter what you think about news of Swedish pilots being at coffee break when Russia tests them 3-4 times a year) and take air supremacy over her without committing to a land campaign.

[nanomage]

U really talking russia vs us/nato war in what's supposedly "europolitics" thread? hell I thought my local moscow reality was the warmongers' bunker not b12. Meanwhile, there's been an anti-war rally down here assembling tens of thousand people: (local police reports <5000, as always)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/russia/2014/09/140921_moscow_peace_demo.shtml

[nanomage]

ugh sorry man i'm really ashamed but what exactly is "agg thread"?

[Erkki]

I like how NOBODY listened to me telling them to go to the AGG thread since that thread was made to deal with this kind of stuff.

Unfortunately this may be Euro politics for a long time from now on. Brought to you by Putin.

[LordSlowpoke]

I like how NOBODY listened to me telling them to go to the AGG thread since that thread was made to deal with this kind of stuff.

Unfortunately this may be Euro politics for a long time from now on. Brought to you by Putin.

don't blame putin for something you and a couple other posters are responsible, 'kay

he might be doing what he does, but it's you who discusses this here and not in agg

[cerapa]

I blame the people who tell others to talk about it in another thread while not linking the thread.

It's like telling someone to RTFM after they ask you where the manual is.

EDIT: Apparently at the moment it was on the third page.

Armchair General General AKA AGG for all your armchair generalling needs.