Jump to content

Samoderzhets

Members
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Samoderzhets

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. On the product page: https://www.battlefront.com/black-sea/cmbs-base-game/?tab=patches The link for Engine 3 patch v1.04 is the same as v1.03 and what is worse, the actual file is patch v1.01. So both v1.03 and v1.04 missing there. Not only that, but there is an issue with the main patch page also: https://www.battlefront.com/patches A Mac user gets all the patches, but for Windows user the patch v1.03 is missing.
  2. According to World Bank Russian economy was size of 836 billion in 1999 and 2014 it was 3484 billion (and the military budget has grown by a similar factor). I am sure in the "reality" you live in that is about the same... Even in the internet it is rare to see someone having as strong bias as you show in everything related to Russia. It is astounding really. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.MKTP.PP.CD
  3. Pretty funny how stereotypical nonsense even the administrators are spewing here. It is clear that western people are no more immune to nationalistic bias than any other people. Looking at Soviet/Russian military designs as if simplicity was some overriding theme is just disconnected from reality, but it is pretty convenient misconception when one really wants to believe in some western superiority. Really neat way of framing the whole reality. Certainly there was some areas where a dual track system was in place. Obvious example is from MBT lines where T-62/T-72 represented the cheaper 2nd class line of machines and T-64/T-80 represented the more expensive and complex high-end line of machines. Somewhat similar system was seen in the airforce where MiG-29 was the cheaper line and Su-27 the more complex and expensive. Of course this wasn't unique for the Soviet Union, the USA had similar system in place with F-16 being the simple and cheap and F-15 the more complex and expensive. It is also rather illuminating to note that the Su-27 project was constantly being updated with new information coming about the F-15 and intention was always to surpass the american counterpart, which the Su-27 in many ways did as flight records and such show, but not obviously in everything. Also there is some embarrassingly misguided views on budget issues and the nature of military industry. Comparing budgets in the US currency gives a very skewed view as for example russians don't earn wages in dollars. Even before the ruble lost half of its value the Russian wages were about 4-5 times lower than US wages. So with 10 billion dollars you could hire 4-5 times as many Russian scientists to design military products than US scientists. With current exchange rate the difference is even bigger. Also it is good to understand that budgets are not formed identically in different countries, some expenditures that go in to military budget in Norway might go into a different budget in Finland. USA obviously has a very demanding global commitments in form of literally hundreds of military bases all around the world that eat a very substantial part of its military budget.
  4. I don't see the basis for your very absolute thinking. Nuclear weapons has been used before and have been seriously considered for use at least in Korean war and Sino-Russian conflict in the 60s. They were also integral part of Soviet plans to conduct war against Nato and as you mentioned they still belong to the Russian doctrine of war. In the Russian doctrine nuclear weapons are not just a deterrent against nukes but also against a threatening conventional war. It appears to be popular to view all nuclear weapons with almost hysterical considerations and thus disregard any idea of them having a practical military utility. And it is understandable in the light of the kind of controllable and in the end trivial military operations that the western countries are familiar with. There is absolutely no reason to even think of nuclear weapons as practical military tools in the conflicts against the Libyas and Serbias, the West always has the overwhelming conventional superiority and control of escalation in these situations. Nuclear weapons appear in a different light looking from the Russian perspective and in particular in the case of war against Nato. If ever there is a place for use of tactical nukes it is against the conventionally superior force. I would like to remind that it is not by accident that Russia has retained such a large arsenal of tactical nukes. I am not saying that Russia would escalate to a level of use of tactical nuclear weapons without pre-existing serious conventional war. But Russia may not be as afraid of a conventional escalation even against the Nato as you seem to think, because they have the option of at least avoiding a military defeat with the use of battlefield nukes. To my mind the most likely response from Nato would be a similar level of use of tactical nukes and a very very serious attempt at negotiating ceasefire. You seem to unreasonably easily to expect a suicidal order from western leaders to answer a battlefield nuclear strike with a genocidal strategic nuclear exhange. It would be funny logic to think that because Russia after escalating the conflict to the level of use of tactical nukes is such a scary and unpredictable actor that it would be sensible to just get over with it immediately and guarantee an absolute catastrophe by ordering a strategic nuclear war. A situation where conventional Russian and Nato forces are engaged in serious battle is already extreme and the context for using extreme weapons is very different from this time of peace we are living. In the times war people tend to do radical things. If we look at what the good guys did for example in the WW2, they were radical and horrible things, that would be disgusting to even consider in peacetime.
  5. Nuclear war doesn't necessitate an all-out annihilation. I find it very hard to believe that US would retaliate with a strategic nuclear exhange to a Russian use of battlefield nukes i.e. tactical nuclear weapons, as it would be the end of both Russia and United States. The thing here is that Russia has a pretty massive superiority in tactical nukes, which means that Russia has an escalatory control. Russia has the option of tilting the unfavorable conventional balance to its favor (or at least stalemate the fight) by use of tactical nuclear arsenal as US doesn't have any form of equality in that area with Russia. Only way the US would have to escalate from that would be the use of its strategic nuclear arsenal, but US and Russia has a parity on that sphere, so that is a guaranteed suicide. So it is my conclusion that US can only lose a nuclear war (in this context) whereas Russia can lose, but it conceivably could also win.
×
×
  • Create New...