Family update ?

[Michael Emrys]

The whole idea of a NATO vs. Russia war is pretty scary. How long would it take before it goes nuclear? And how long after that before it goes full-blown Armageddon nuclear? We got through the Cold War because the leadership of both sides took that very seriously, but there are some jokers in power now whose maturity is open to question.

Michael

[Lee Vincent]

7 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Putin knows that he has nothing to fear at all from NATO unless he is planning aggression against a NATO member state. This inane "NATO invades Kaliningrad" scenario doesn't weigh in for a second in the minds of Russian military planners. If Russia finds itself in a shooting war with NATO something went horribly wrong along the way, 100% Armata/Kurganets force is not going to save Russia from epic defeat. Conversely, there are three scenarios that Putin actually cares about: potential public declaration of war with Ukraine, potential renewed war with Georgia, and potential renewed (full-on) conflict in Chechneya, Ingushetia, and Dagestan.

"some people in Russia actually fear that scenario" because Russian state-owned media told them to fear that scenario. It is a concept from the revolutionary period in the early 1800s known as nationalism. Us vs. them has a way of taking peoples' minds off of social ills. C'mon man these are basic mechanics of state-craft.

Nothing to fear from NATO, uh huh. This is the NATO that is aggressively pushing up against Russian borders and many of whose constituent members are illegally in Syria and arming terrorist groups, and have been pushing to 'Bomb the Syrians and Russians'.

The NATO invades K/grad scenario is no more likely than the ridiculous Russia invades the Baltics scenario.

If any state owned media is responsible for creating fear and hysteria, it is that in the West with their neverending 'The Russians are coming', along with hacking elections and power plants in the US LOL.

 

 

[Rinaldi]

9 minutes ago, Lee Vincent said:

Nothing to fear from NATO, uh huh. This is the NATO that is aggressively pushing up against Russian borders...

WEW ???LAD? ? ?. Another spider web unraveled. Allow me to follow up with another stunning revelation: 'Twas I who shot J.R.!

Yes I suppose Poland and Estonia shouldn't be flashing all that exposed skin around, saucy little minxes that they are, the nerve of these countries sharing a border with Russia :'((((( - Anyone who uses the word 'aggressively' to describe a defensive alliance of tenously connected nations is, at best, deluded. At worst, they are being intellectually dishonest. Yawn.

4 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

The whole idea of a NATO vs. Russia war is pretty scary. How long would it take before it goes nuclear? And how long after that before it goes full-blown Armageddon nuclear? We got through the Cold War because the leadership of both sides took that very seriously, but there are some jokers in power now whose maturity is open to question.

Michael

In the actual era of the USSR? It would've went nuclear immediately, don't kid yourself otherwise. Depending on who made the first operational move, the reaction would've been immediate and would've resulted in at least the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons. Most people think the USSR would've substituted the first echelon for tac nukes instead to tear the front open, but that's not fully corroborated. Regardless, if they had crossed the Elbe, or had they reached the Rhine, the French most likely would've unilaterally deployed their nuclear weapons. The US probably would've deployed well before anyways.

There's always the rhetoric of the thoughtful commander with his finger over the trigger hesitating, and while the optimist in me likes to believe in that, the realist in me knows a soldier will use a weapon if he has it.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Rinaldi

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Sigh.

Okay I've got five minutes before work.

In so many words the point isn't that 400 tanks will completely destroy the Russian juggernaut great victory high fives, it's that it'll force a large enough commitment on the part of the Russians to be OBVIOUS they're up to something, in the event of hostilities buy time for more forces to arrive (likely already in route given the hand tipping from the build up to deal with those 400 tanks and such), and in the event that fails make it enough of a fight to destroy the quick and easy victory that would make such an action viable.

Which gets to the root of it, this isn't preparing for "war" directly, it's posturing forces to make military against the Baltics unviable, either too expensive or kicking off a war of a scale well beyond what Russia desires.

Without those NATO forces in place, a hundred or so BTRs filled with "Latvian" volunteers might be enough to accomplish regional Russian goals.  With those NATO forces it would require the overt war against the west Russia is not capable of, and has built its whole doctrine around avoiding now.

As to Antaress, please just stop man.  Every time the Russians announce anything involving a tank or AFV you post how it'll kill the Abrams from the front, and needs to be in the game now, when much of it, even assuming Russia's capability to get such things out the door improves, is still best set for a 2020-2025 game (optimistically).  

[sburke]

36 minutes ago, Lee Vincent said:

Nothing to fear from NATO, uh huh. This is the NATO that is aggressively pushing up against Russian borders and many of whose constituent members are illegally in Syria and arming terrorist groups, and have been pushing to 'Bomb the Syrians and Russians'.

The NATO invades K/grad scenario is no more likely than the ridiculous Russia invades the Baltics scenario.

If any state owned media is responsible for creating fear and hysteria, it is that in the West with their neverending 'The Russians are coming', along with hacking elections and power plants in the US LOL.

 

 

Agreed we can stop saying the Russians are coming, as the Ukrainians have noted "the Russians are here".  Kind of hard to portray yourself as not the aggressor when your tanks are cruising across an international border and you have trucks going the other way carrying the bodies of soldiers you have lost . Yeah that all makes sense. You think Putin has considered hiring Kelly Anne Conway?  This is right up her alley.

[Lee Vincent]

NATO is a defensive alliance, which is why they are in Syria. I see.

This is a fairly balanced article, and nationalinterest are certainly no friends of the Russians.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/stop-poking-the-bear-18838

[Rinaldi]

16 minutes ago, Lee Vincent said:

NATO is a defensive alliance, which is why they are in Syria. I see.

Not sure what that has to do with a so called aggressive buildup on Russia's borders, so big old 'k' on that.

Some article; "give diplomacy a chance" - another big old 'k' on that. The neatly bulletpointed list of so-called Western aggressions  basically can be surmised as 'let Russia get everything it wants.' No. Full stop. The article is even asserting that NATO's expansion is a clear threat to Russia's security - hmmm, perhaps what Russia should really be asking itself is why ex-PACT countries leapt at the first oppurtunity to be protected from successive Russian governments....what possible reasons could they have for this. Ah, beats me, probably just anti-Russian hatred.

5 posts and 2 of them blatantly apologist attempts at de-railment. God Bless.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Rinaldi

[cool breeze]

I don't see how explaining why Russia would perceive NATO as a bigger threat now than it did 5 or 10 years ago, as it relates to Russian tank procurement,  would be apologist attempts at de-railment.

[Rinaldi]

Because all he has done is regurgitate the point without adding to it and doing the text-based equivalent of screeching 'but what about...!'  - its the literaly definition of de-railment. This thread hasn't been about how the Russians are hoping to have modernized T90s in production for several posts now. Its actually been about staying woke and realizing that HATO is the real Evil Empire(tm)

It went from a dicussion as to why they may have a renewed impetus to modernize their tank fleet, which is tangenital, to "HATO bad. Bully Russia :'(" Spare me. The double standards put in place and the lengths people will go to die on a hill for an autocratic government continue to astound and amaze. Russia invades the Ukraine on grounds flimisier than the last defense I ran for a client, but then I have to thumb through an article explaining why we, the West have to stop provoking Russia. Its comedy, its off topic, and worst of all its wrong.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Rinaldi
various

[cool breeze]

That's one way to see it I guess, but nobody actually said that.  I read it as people simply talking about the Russian perspective as it relates to tank procurement, which seemed pretty on point, as in relevant and accurate. 

[cool breeze]

But also on point is the stuff Panzersaurkraut said about it being more relevant in the 2020+ timeframe

[Rinaldi]

Just now, cool breeze said:

But also on point is the stuff Panzersaurkraut said about it being more relevant in the 2020+ timeframe

Yes absolutely, he spoke for the majority of us in this thread with that succint post. No one has told the OP that "this is explicitly never happening" - we just take great issue with his time line. Yes, the Russians have from their prespective good reason to hustle up and rush these planned projects into widespread service, but nothing indicates they have the capabilities to do so in the time frame being suggested. BS is set in 2017; leeway has already been given to all three belligerents in terms of their equipment, but they're at least based in antcipated reality.

The entire discussion was about whether Russia could get these things into service to counter its growing security needs in time. Now its become a discussion about how we need to stay woke and realize that they have security needs. Its like grog broken telephone. The slide into this nonsense isn't the OP's fault anyways.

[IICptMillerII]

14 hours ago, antaress73 said:

A T-90M as described here would be a very serious threat to an Abrams in the GAME and in a tactical setting. Gee, well employed the actual russian tanks are useful. You guys seem to think i'm talking on strategic level here. That new gun with the new ammo would ensure frontal kills against the Abrams in the game under (let be conservative here) 1500 meters and the Malackit ERA would help the tank survive the first hit more often than relikt. I dont care about Operational numbers or what would happen on a strategic level. I care about  the tactical level which is the focus of this game. I'm well aware you guys are so entrenched in your superiority complex that there is no use in arguing what would actually happen in a shooting war. 

My main point is that at least once per decade since the fall of the Soviet Union, and now more like once every two years or so, Russia announces some new super tank/upgrade thats really going to turn everything around now guys! The other main point is that just because a prototype exists, or even a handful of working tanks exist, does not mean it becomes relevant in any kind of war. By the end of WWII Germany had many such wonderweapons. The Maus comes to mind. Many people ask for this tank to be in games set during WWII because "they made a few" or "they were about to make a ton!" or whatever other reason. That doesn't mean it should be included in the games. 

Sburke sums this point up nicely:

13 hours ago, sburke said:

If Russia's GDP were higher than South Korea and the military actually met the lofty goals it keeps announcing and never meets, maybe we would take the Russian military seriously.  But considering Russia barely takes it's own military seriously - per your own statement

 

So yes, a T-90M would be somewhat more relevant on a tactical battlefield, but would it be at all practical? I highly doubt it. Lets also not forget that the Russians/Soviets almost always overestimate the capabilities of their vehicles. 900-1000mm RHA equivalent of penetration? I HIGHLY doubt that. The Russians have not produced new rounds with better penetration since the early 90's, and all of a sudden they're going to effectively double their current penetration? Again, I HIGHLY doubt that. 

As to your "superiority complex" thing, whatever dude. I can tell you that I don't have one, but you probably won't believe me. I can tell you that I know full well that US air defense assets are greatly outclassed by the Russians and many NATO counterparts both tactically and operationally speaking. The Abrams isn't invincible, the Stryker is a mechancial nightmare and essentially useless on a modern conventional battlefield, the Army has fallen behind on threats like electronic/cyber warfare, and many other issues I could list. So no, there is no "superiority complex" from me. 

13 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

The second is that if WW2 taught us anything it's that the technical characteristics of tanks are largely irrelevant to the outcome of wars. In fact, it's probably better to have a larger number of technically mediocre tanks than a small number of really good tanks.

Exactly. A handful of wonderweapons are irrelevant. King Tigers didn't turn the tide for Germany, and a handful of T-90Ms (if they're ever even made) won't do any good for Russia either. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

6 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Sigh.

Okay I've got five minutes before work.

In so many words the point isn't that 400 tanks will completely destroy the Russian juggernaut great victory high fives, it's that it'll force a large enough commitment on the part of the Russians to be OBVIOUS they're up to something, in the event of hostilities buy time for more forces to arrive (likely already in route given the hand tipping from the build up to deal with those 400 tanks and such), and in the event that fails make it enough of a fight to destroy the quick and easy victory that would make such an action viable.

Which gets to the root of it, this isn't preparing for "war" directly, it's posturing forces to make military against the Baltics unviable, either too expensive or kicking off a war of a scale well beyond what Russia desires.

Without those NATO forces in place, a hundred or so BTRs filled with "Latvian" volunteers might be enough to accomplish regional Russian goals.  With those NATO forces it would require the overt war against the west Russia is not capable of, and has built its whole doctrine around avoiding now.

None of this is in dispute. Not sure what you're sighing about

Do note however that about 250 of those roughly 400 tanks i mentioned are in the Polish Army. While it would be possible to deploy some portion of those to the Baltics they are not part of the European rapid reaction forces and at least the bulk of them would be retained to guard Poland's border with Russia. The number of NATO tanks in the Baltics themselves is less than 100, or will be when the British battalion arrives in the spring.

[Vanir Ausf B]

2 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Exactly. A handful of wonderweapons are irrelevant. King Tigers didn't turn the tide for Germany, and a handful of T-90Ms (if they're ever even made) won't do any good for Russia either. 

In reality. In Black Sea they would make a big difference. Tactical wargames by their nature exaggerate the importance of such things and some of Black Sea's quirks further exaggerate the consequence of thick frontal armor and the ability to penetrate that frontal armor.

[Michael Emrys]

13 hours ago, Rinaldi said:

...don't kid yourself...

Whatever on earth makes you think I might be kidding myself? The scenario you describe after you wrote the above is pretty much the one I subscribe to. The difference between then and now is that aside from the Cuban Missile Crisis (which in the end got peacefully sorted out), the leaders back then were pretty careful not to go too far and were very anxious of war starting through miscalculation. I am not sanguine that the cowboys of recent years are capable of the same level of mature care.

Michael

Edited January 28, 2017 by Michael Emrys

[Rinaldi]

30 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

Whatever on earth makes you think I might be kidding myself? The scenario you describe after you wrote the above is pretty much the one I subscribe to. The difference between then and now is that aside from the Cuban Missile Crisis (which in the end got peacefully sorted out), the leaders back then were pretty careful not to go too far and were very anxious of war starting through miscalculation. I am not sanguine that the cowboys of recent years are capable of the same level of mature care.

Michael

My apologies, I had no intention of being condescending. Just making conversation and being rhetorical.

[Michael Emrys]

2 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

My apologies, I had no intention of being condescending.

Well, that's all right then.

Michael

[luigim]

Definitely we want second echelon Forces for both US and Russia.. T80s T72B1 and M1A1.. and a module with US Marines and Russia VDV.. and A10 Warthogs please this would be a dream game.. sorry I'm dreaming about CM North Germain Plain 85

[sbobovyc]

Third echelon forces such as militia/volunteer units 

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, sbobovyc said:

Third echelon forces such as militia/volunteer units 

And little old granny ladies who poke and whack the enemy soldiers with their umbrellas.

Michael

[JUAN DEAG]

On 1/27/2017 at 7:09 AM, Lee Vincent said:

This is the NATO that is aggressively pushing up against Russian borders

Russia's neighbors have very good reason to aggressively join defensive alliances. Their citizens would not feel the need for collective defense if Russia wasn't aggressively pushing into borders of sovereign nations. Just felt the need to clarify popular Russian misconceptions, my dude.

On 1/27/2017 at 7:09 AM, Lee Vincent said:

If any state owned media is responsible for creating fear and hysteria, it is that in the West with their neverending 'The Russians are coming', along with hacking elections and power plants in the US LOL.

 No western country has 'state-owned media' or 'ministry of information'. Unlike Russia, in western countries media is operated by private individuals rather than what the government dictates. Also, western media and western governments are pluralistic and have multiple different biases and views. This contrasted by Russia by her one ruler, one agenda, one source of information mentality. (LOL)

On 1/27/2017 at 7:09 AM, Lee Vincent said:

arming terrorist groups

I'm sorry but when the Russian government says that neo-Ottoman empire backed by negro Obama is top secret supplier of ISIS; I hate to break it to you but the Russian government is not being very truthful with you. Also, SDF is not a terrorist organization, fam.

On 1/27/2017 at 8:17 AM, Lee Vincent said:

This is a fairly balanced article

"U.S. officials undermined the democratically elected leader of Ukraine"

"Russia responded by securing Crimea"

"Russia has dealt with this delicate situation for decades; let it continue"

"End the Western provocations"

 

Quite.

[JUAN DEAG]

10 hours ago, luigim said:

Definitely we want second echelon Forces for both US and Russia.. T80s T72B1 and M1A1.. and a module with US Marines and Russia VDV.. and A10 Warthogs please this would be a dream game.. sorry I'm dreaming about CM North Germain Plain 85

+1

9 hours ago, sbobovyc said:

Third echelon forces such as militia/volunteer units 

+1

[John Kettler]

What about these for the US? Naturally, I would support similar AFVs for Ukraine and Russia. Hadn't ever seen actual footage of these, except the Hercules tank retriever.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Rinaldi]

You know John, jokes aside I would be wholly in support of breach vehicles like that. I'm not sure if you've played the Ukranian or Russian campaigns in game yet (spoilers if you haven't) but there's definitely times where I was wishing for a dirt-dozer or minefield breach type of vehicle.

I'd pay good money to see an ESMB in game - but minefields with the density and complexity seen in the final mission of the Ukraine campaign are rare sights indeed.