VladimirTarasov

No of course ADA is not the God of the field, however the US airforce hasn't gone against a modern ADA opponent since Vietnam so we can't just assume because the Soviet legacy SAMs failed against arguably the best technologically equipped air force that modern Russian AD is going to be the same as the Iraqi AD. SHORADs are quite useful especially modern ones, but of course I'm not saying they will be scoping F-15s and F-16s left and right, that is not the case. I'd think that's up to the scenario maker more so than simulation. Correct, but modern versions of the Tunguskas like M1 variants and to some extent the Tunguska-Ms are capable of attempting to engage incoming precision weaponry. Russian PVO has vehicles like Pantsir-S1s that are pretty capable on hitting incoming precision weaponry. But of course no one says a Tunguska-Ms going to be hitting the incoming maverick, terrain and location can limit these capabilities. MANPADS are over powered IMO. The NLOS capability could certainly offer good capabilities against opponents, hopefully there can be an attempt to add that in. Definitely the USAF/USN/USMC have put alot of thought into operating in these environments. But SPAA type systems are a part of the whole AD network in Russia's case. You guys have a bunch of aircraft for that role, we use the air force together with ground AD to make up for our lack in numbers and capabilities in AD roles. Yeah it'd be funny if a IGLA took down an F-15E flying way above the engagement range. But has anyone actually tested the effectiveness of MANPADs against fighter jets in game? I'm not sure if Tunguska-Ms are guaranteed but I know they have those capabilities, especially systems like Pantsir-S1s which actually engage precision missiles.

I think the in game AD represents it okayish compared to real life. I'd also like to bring out another issue this time in regards to AD. AD as far as I know has the ability to engage a variety of guided missiles (to what effect depends on variables) so if a Maverick is coming at a T-90A who's about to super snipe a Bradley, the Tunguska can try to engage the incoming missile, if the F-15E is too far to hit. But also who says the F-15E is going to be flying safely at it's max engagement range, maybe the S-300 system deployed a little back will cause it to panic and abort mission or drop it's payload or just like in game, force it to fly lower to avoid being hit by aerial denial systems like the S-300s or BUKs. I think the in game SHORADs are represented fair enough, there could be some tweaks to it but I don't think it needs a total do over.

Just because I don't want to open a new thread, playing a PBEM with a good buddy of mine, I've realized how important LWRs are. I was just amazed at how rekt I got from his assault, and it came to mind. In the future will there be an option for non LWR equipped US forces?

Sure better to arm Al Qaeda affiliated groups and get them to become the new government. Totally ignoring any facts and actually saying Assad has murdered thousands is totally ignoring any facts that there is a total conflict where both government and rebel forces have committed crimes. I'd rather that we can actually look at Syria and see another US or who ever geo political strategy of toppling an anti-westernish regime and installing a new proxy. To deny the US has been doing so in the region is plain out sillyness. US can care less whether or not Syrians live under a dictator or what say you, they're more interested in the gains from it, or what directly effects the US. Assad is definitely not the creator of ISIS those are laughable claims, I'm quite sure a certain recentish war a while back in Iraq is one of the main reasons. The whole middle east is destabilized and that is far from Assad's fault. Steve you make good points sometimes but c'mon this one is pushing it too far.

You've confirmed it!

To be fair they were late to the game compared to the US , anyways your points on geopolitical ambitions from all countries are quite true. Some actions are justifiable some aren't anyways I think we should get the topic back to the military aspect. So how long would it take for the US to be able to deploy a armored brigade combat team to say reinforce Kiev?

Of course geopolitics are the main reasons I'm just talking about the justification.

Sure, but Georgia provided us the oppurtunity by attacking our troops and attacking South Ossetia. Of course Russia used the moment to end a possibility for NATO expansion to the country.

I surrender guys panzer scared me with the NGO teams ?

The evidence I will provide is extremely sensitive (graphic, and touchy) I already feel as if I'm offending our Ukrainian forum mates on here whether or not who's side they are on. So I'll PM you some of my links instead. 700K plus fled to Russia, 400K to Ukraine. At least that's what the wiki numbers say.

Yeah during 2014 there was a lack of man power, guys were staying home with their families. Once the war kicked off and the ATO committed some atrocious crimes fighting local "terrorists" thats when things started getting personal. There is however no lack of support for them, go ahead search the videos of the local populace showing their disgust of the Ukrainian government's actions in the region. You can see videos where women usually of the older age yell at OSCE observers for not recording the Ukrainian government's shelling. I'd provide the links but some of them contain graphic materials, so I'd rather you go search it on your own.

Of course, there are many people who did not want a war in Donbas. But the vast majority support the DPR/LPR forces and not the Ukrainian government. Ukraine IMO had the right to change their government, just not the way they did it. The reason why the DPR/LPR rebellion is supported in Donbas is left on two events, first one being the brutality of the Ukrainian's ATO the second being that Donbas was not taken to account when Yanukovich's government was overthrown. And that is why I've been trying to point out that Russia is not the cause of this war, it has played a part and this is certainly not deniable. But to say the thousands of deaths solely rest on Russia's shoulders is too sharp of a verdict. Russia would not have intervened if Ukraine atleast sat down and listened to Donbas's issues. I don't get how Ukrainians have the right to overthrow their government but Donbas Russians have no right to separate from the government they had no choice in. Again this is a double standard, let's not act as if there is no actual civil war over there.

Russia's policy towards Chechnya in the first Chechen war was immoral because of the heavy handedness of the operation there. Chechens who had nothing to do with the rebellion were brutally killed by our operations. It is a sad reality. I'd wish something could have been done so that Russia could have solved the Chechen problem differently. But again there are minor details that play important roles in these conflicts. The Chechens who have rebelled had ties to actual terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ect. Where as I'm sure there were genuine Chechens who chose to rebel against Russian rule there were also many Chechens who did not. So we can't compare the conflict in Chechnya to Donbas. The only thing we can compare is the brutality of the operations in those countries on the behalf of government forces. I'll agree that Russia acted fast and could have tried other ways to get Crimea back, but again there was no guarantee. If in your case Russia did illegal stuff in Crimea to get the referendum, the majority of Crimea rather be in Russia, don't you agree? If you don't agree I'm all ears on why you think so. I can't compare Vietnam to EE of course so you're right. It wasn't the right analogy in this case.

Okay I'll agree with that too, but again if we're going back into history we will find wrongs from the US or Russia. We are talking about the current world era, obviously the USSR collapsed and that regime is over. The Russia of today cannot be compared to the Russia under the Tsar or the USSR's policies. The "rigged" referendum in Crimea was without death when the Russian military intervened into the process. Supporting the rebellion in Donbas who's only goal is to separate from Ukraine because their region was ignored through out a whole country is not comparable to anything the USSR has done, or even close too. So let's stop pretending Russia is the only bad guy here and start looking into the details, quick fact checks: The Russian Federation beyond Ukraine has not done any "aggression" and it was only an isolated case. Crimeans were already having unrest long before the Russian intervention took place, Donbas region is historically pro-Russian so they will obviously rebel against the Ukrainian government that is so anti-Russian. Whether Russian covert ops in Donbas was wrong is arguable, and in some aspects it is wrong mostly due to the fact that they were covert, but other then that there is a legitimate rebellion which Russia has supported in the region. If you want to throw shade at Russia by bringing up screw ups on the Soviet and Tsar systems, then ok fine. Russia has actively condemned molotov ribbentrop. We have acknowledged the mistakes and crimes committed. But this new out cry of the Russian threat is no more justified than Vietnam screaming for an alliance against the US threat for bad history a while back under a different era because the US has intervened in another war.

All you are proving is that USA can do whatever and get away with it because the countries in question are either taking orders from the top bossman, or they really just love America. I'll agree with that! And that's what I've been pointing at. A double standard. If Russia even points to the same things the US does again we get that God awful dreaded word whataboutism. It's not even worth arguing because you always revert to it, and try to shame Russian actions, where you know deep in your armored heart that you guys have done way worse things in the recent history. You guys get away with it because you are the world police, Steve has mentioned it, everyone knows that the US thinks of itself as the world police. You guys put your noses into everything, Syria, Ukraine, Libya, Iraq, the list goes on and on. If Russia is being hated because we aggressively intercept your air craft and ships which are very near our borders with the goal of countering a Russian threat, or Russia taking Crimea and supporting a rebellion that's goal is not to topple a country's power unlike other rebellions (cough Syria) then so be it. That is a double standard beyond me, and the only thing you guys have to say about the things you've done, that have gone without any condemnation is that "stop your whataboutism you evil Russian" Okay we are evil demons, what about you guys? Must be angels or something.

I don't recall such a thing, however geopolitics does show that Russia is not happy when countries join NATO. Hmm, do not act like we are the only ones in the region who flies without a transponder. There have been NATO craft without transponders on. The recent interception of the US spy plane in the Black Sea, the P8 had its transponder off as well. It's a standard now. At least we don't actually violate a country's airspace and "accidentally" bomb the country in questions army. Honestly I'm being accused of whataboutism on here but that's whataboutism in its own sense. Please only pay attention to Russian craft. They're flying around running "simulations" while others fly around uninvited in other countries's airspace, actively doing strike missions.

But talking about what the USSR did in the early-middish 20th century is okay? Okay I'll just agree to disagree and stop this one. If this is the view the West has of Russia, then I'm afraid this is not going to end well at all.

I understand where you're getting at, I'm not trying to imply anything other than you're thinking over it too hard Our main policy relies on our nuclear forces even today, but obviously we aren't going to nuke someone out of nowhere. There will be certain situations where such sinfully wrong devices will be used. The only one being used in a defensive role, where our country is under threat by a very powerful unforgiving force. The days of nuclear bombs being used during offensives (atleast on Russia's side) are over after 1991. The Russian public would not accept us nuking Warsaw for anything other than retaliation. Plus let's not forget, we aren't the country who has used nuclear weapons. I'm not happy when my country is demonized for having nukes, when we've never even been close to using them. The closest we've gotten is on a drawing board for a hypothetical conflict that never happened.

Quick replies to your points: If the US nuclear forces do not simulate bombing Moscow, then you guys need quick modifications to your nuclear armed forces. We fly bombers around so what, they're well in coordination with international law. I'm even too scared to write what you guys do, because I get hit with the God almighty NATO warhammer "whataboutism" c'mon if we want to put in history I can bring up lots of dirt on lots of countries.

LOL good one. but seriously let's look at it this way. The USSR under Stalin is not the Russian Federation of today. That's like Russia being scared of the Germany of today because world war 2 happened. We need to be realistic here. Poland joined NATO for many other reasons, but being scared of the Russian Federation is totally out the equation. It is however a good justification, and if countries in Eastern Europe would like to be apart of NATO there's nothing we can do about it. But again, adding to the "RUSSIAN BEAR AWOKEN" hype does not help the situation at all. Especially if you add more units in those countries, with the official goal of countering a Russian threat, that just adds more very unneeded tension.

Where as I do agree with panzersaurkrautwerfer (aka armored brigade commander but lies about it ) that NATO can expand towards Russia because the nations are not being forced into it, I will disagree that they did it out of fear. There are many benefits to being aligned with superpower country Let's use Poland for an example now. Poland even before the USSR hated Russia. In fact, Poland first attacked Russia way long before any USSR. They came and did brutal things to Russia. The USSR collapsed Russia emerged, you don't see Russia scared of Poland because the Polish Empire came all the way to Moscow before. That's wrong thinking. Poland is just geopolitiically aligned with the US. Their government is pro Western now, and there is nothing wrong with that. Eastern European countries should be given the rights to do whatever, no one should force them to not join NATO. However, it starts getting messy when they get involved with the tensions. Russia being the new threat to world peace now, agreeing with it and adding to the tensions is what aggravates the Russian government. Or else, who cares if Poland or Estonia joins NATO, but adding to the anti-Russia policy is where issues are met. I'd also like to point out that, Russia is ready to bring back ties with the NATO countries. Even with NATO ever since its creation being made against Russia (USSR) and now they've reverted back to it and are anti-Russia again. This is where the Russian government starts having issues IMO.

Whether or not Russia tried to provoke a war before 2008 is irrelevant, what is relevant is that Georgia launched an operation into Ossetian and targeted Russian peacekeepers. And before we say stuff like Russia is occupying Georgia let's look at the war prior to Russian peacekeepers coming to the region: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991–92_South_Ossetia_War i know wikipedia isn't a good source, but just look at the conflict prior to Russian peacekeepers being ejected into the area. I can dig up some from Georgia as well. I was joking hehe

Carve off a piece of Georgia? You don't seem to know the history of the region. Osettians and Georgians have been at it long before we came to stabilize the region. Beside that fact, there are many evidence providing through the ethnic battles between them even when Georgia attacked that murders on behalf of the Georgians have taken place. But of course Russia automatically carves it off it comes to stabilize the region. But anyways poor understanding of the conflicts history plus ignorance does it's role. What the freak does that have to do with anything, Russia does not discriminate against any of those regions, they all get a say in the country, so there is no justification for it. Chinese have no claims in the region anyways, maybe the Chinese businessmen plus the illegals they can come to referendum lol!!!! Russia lies but so does the West, when Russia and the West lie on the same subject it leads to a cluster F of information that gets mixed together. It leads to false arguments, false tensions, and also supports one side for either case. I like to look at this conflict from the Russian perspective, and that being my people who've been living in Ukraine for centuries was totally ignored and the selfish majority of central Ukraine ousted the whole government system. Yes Yanukovich had many issues to solve, however that doesn't give Ukrainians the rights to install illegal governments over the night without the say of the rest of the people. Especially when John McCain like guys come and shake hands with ultra nationalists, as well as install deeply anti-Russian figures as head of state. There are countless of videos showing anti-Russian stuff going on, if only it would be against the Russian government, it's against Russian people. Soviet statues being brought down, Banderist groups, many more important issues. Russia secured its geopolitical goals, the revolts were in no way or form "free" in fact it destroyed the whole country. If Ukraine's government relied solely on Crimea and Donbas (they have 9% negative growth in economy) then they should have thought about it before abusing Russian rights. And that's my final case for this. What else can I say? You want me to make believe stuff? Russia annexed Crimea with majority support, the same way Ukrainians threw out their government with their support. A rebellion in Donbas started, instead of listening to the people's will, an ATO was opened. In counter to that Russia has supported the DPR/LPR.

Georgia did not attack Russian peacekeepers in the region? And invade South Osettia first? Let's mention those minor details first. Seriously it's as if you ignore anything Russian and go by that countries claims. I'm well versed with the conflict in Georgia. Our peacekeepers were attacked first, and in response Russia invaded Georgia. No proof, but since Russia has lied about intervening in Donbas, of course we also cyber attacked Estonia, the same way there was a phantom submarine off the coast of Sweden. I've provided many facts, and agreed to your facts. Yet you overlook obvious reasoning sometimes. But anyways we've been over that too much. Jesus Christ, you're not saying I'm comparable to him now are you? Or maybe acting out of geopolitical gains, and not only limited to that, but anyways I'm getting tired of repeating the word "justified" because in your case you believe that Russians had a say in the Ukrainian crisis right up to the ousting of the government. You bring up corruption which is correct Yanukovich had a corrupt government in certain areas and it was far from perfect, but again you're still ignoring the millions of Russians (living in Ukraine) who've hadn't a say in the country they've been living in for centuries. So Russia "illegally" takes control over Crimea with the support of the people, and allows the voting process to happen, even if the voting process was rigged (let's assume it was for your case) Crimeans are totally happy with joining the Russian Federation, and this cannot be denied. Ukrainians are probably not happy with losing Crimea, but I'm very sure that Russians weren't happy for what happened in Kiev without their part in it.

Nukes are not going anywhere for a while, I don't think one should be worried about Russia's or America's nuclear arsenal but more so of countries like North Korea, but even then I highly doubt they would ever use nukes. Russia wont use nukes unless her territories are in grave danger, or for retaliation purposes. Same reasons with the USA. Considering the fact Russia is not going to threat US land or vice versa there shouldn't be too much worries about nukes. I'd say what has to be worried about is the fairness of incorporating MAD. Placing ABM shields in other territories close to Russia for example kind of threatens MAD, and offers other capabilities to NATO for example. There isn't much Russia can do against this but it still isn't pleasant and it just adds more tension. Not that strategic nukes will IMO ever be used after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.