VladimirTarasov
-
Posts
817 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by VladimirTarasov
-
-
Yep, Putin indeed is in it for the money. And he isn't he one who actually brought Russian standards high. He's a dictator who only cares for himself. Honestly with no disrespect to anyone, this sounds like CNN and Fox News. Russia would not be able to invade and hold the Baltics. But it would be able to invade and destroy the baltic military, and withdraw. Russia doesn't care about the baltics. They already hate Russia anyways. The only way I see Russia attacking a Baltic country is if the Russian population is abused by the governments of those countries. (Which I don't think is going to happen.) All this media coverage on a Russian invasion onto the baltics is just NATO's way on expaning east ward. Ukraine plans to join NATO by 2020... who would have known.
-
Ok
1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:1. Chechnya is most certainly no terribly happy with being in Russia judging from Russia external sources. Continued terror operations from the Chechens, and counter-terrorism operations by the Russians seem to indicate an insurgency that is either in remission, or biding its time vs a resolved situation. Large scale military operations against NATO would provide an opportunity for Chechens to again visit their grievances writ large.
2. Georgia as part of a larger war would be fun times for Russia, simply because it'd either obligate forces away from the decisive theater to preclude NATO/Georgian attack (and rest assured, tactically bombed would end with a lot of dead Russian pilots and very little else if NATO is in play, whatever Russian air efforts succeed are reliant on massing forces, distributing them across theaters would simply allow them to be killed piecemeal), or invite an undoing of Russia's regional goals.
3. If NATO supported the Ukrainians like Russia supports the insurgents, Donbass would be securely in the hands of the Ukrainians, and the DPR and LPR leadership would be in jail or swinging from lampposts depending on how merciful the Ukrainians are feeling. With a large amount of highly illegal support the insurgents are only holding the Ukrainians at bay. If this support had to go elsewhere, the Ukrainian situation would be settled quite quickly.
4. The only folks who are seriously considering tactical nuclear weapons would be the Russians. Which would certainly end very well for the Russians and I am sure will have no lasting repercussions the next time Russia needs food.
5. China is not Russia's friend. You were traded a long time ago, and the amount of trade that China does with the western powers makes Russia's look like chump change. China's interest in Russia is making money off of you. Once you're not a worthwhile investment (at war with NATO), they'll declare neutrality, implore a return to peace by all sides, stop taking the Russian ambassador's phonecalls, contact the US/UK/etc to reassure them they're sitting this one out, and to offer reduced prices on electronics for customer loyalty or something.
Russia would lose in every way possible in the event it provokes a conventional war. I think the interesting what if is if it'd be a civil war or just a failed state that would result.1. A rebellion is looked down upon by a great majority of Chechens as they have their own republic. Grozny is among the happiest cities in Russia, check it out. And BTW I have talked to Chechens in Grozny. I've been there 2 times.
2. Perhaps tactically bombed would end a disaster if NATO had AA asystems that can hit planes that launch KH-55 missiles 2,500 KM away? (TU-22s TU-95s TU-160 can drop these in a bunch of numbers) Georgian military bases would be flattened in a day if they are looking for full scale war.
3. If NATO supported the Ukrainians like Russia supports the insurgents, There would be an active Russian military presence (in other terms official battalions worth of units) deployed to counter set that.
4. Sure that is maybe why US has active tactical nuclear weapons in quite a few NATO airbases? If we starve fighting a war so be it.
5. China is Russia's friend, but I'm not saying China will fight NATO for Russia that is silly. They wont sell their selves to the US against Russia either. That is a sign of weakness.
Russia is not as weak as you make it to be.
-
31 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
1. Chechnya is most certainly no terribly happy with being in Russia judging from Russia external sources. Continued terror operations from the Chechens, and counter-terrorism operations by the Russians seem to indicate an insurgency that is either in remission, or biding its time vs a resolved situation. Large scale military operations against NATO would provide an opportunity for Chechens to again visit their grievances writ large.
2. Georgia as part of a larger war would be fun times for Russia, simply because it'd either obligate forces away from the decisive theater to preclude NATO/Georgian attack (and rest assured, tactically bombed would end with a lot of dead Russian pilots and very little else if NATO is in play, whatever Russian air efforts succeed are reliant on massing forces, distributing them across theaters would simply allow them to be killed piecemeal).
3. If NATO supported the Ukrainians like Russia supports the insurgents, Donbass would be securely in the hands of the Ukrainains, and the DPR and LPR leadership would be in jail or swinging from lampposts depending on how merciful the Ukrainians are feeling. With a large amount of highly illegal support the insurgents are only holding the Ukrainians at bay. If this support had to go elsewhere, the Ukrainian situation would be settled quite quickly.
4. The only folks who are seriously considering tactical nuclear weapons would be the Russians. Which would certainly end very well for the Russians and I am sure will have no lasting repercussions the next time Russia needs food.
5. China is not Russia's friend. You were traded a long time ago, and the amount of trade that China does with the western powers makes Russia's look like chump change. China's interest in Russia is making money off of you. Once you're not a worthwhile investment (at war with NATO), they'll declare neutrality, implore a return to peace by all sides, stop taking the Russian ambassador's phonecalls, contact the US/UK/etc to reassure them they're sitting this one out, and to offer reduced prices on electronics for customer loyalty or something.
Russia would lose in every way possible in the event it provokes a conventional war. I think the interesting what if is if it'd be a civil war or just a failed state that would result.Sure buddy
you gave me alot to write back on, I'm gonna write back to you later.
-
the campaign is amazing I really enjoy it, It's giving me a real war feel. But I think there was a language misunderstanding. I was wondering if the last file you shared was the fix for the briefings.
18 minutes ago, dragonwynn said:Ok that make me feel better lol. Sorry for the inconvience. I hope the rest of the campaign is going well.
-
8 minutes ago, dragonwynn said:
Thanks GruntGI let me know if the briefs don't show up from mission 2 on
dragonwynn the last file you shared has the briefings?
-
Guys obviously that tank was brought into service from old Ukrainan stocks (sarcasm) to be fair the T-90s were brought in for a short period to help tip the battle in LPR's favor. So yep I'll give my American colleagues a point in this one.
-
4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
I personally don't see a situation where the Baltics are attacked and NATO sits by due to political disagreements. Maybe if Russia had Green Man'd them 5 years ago, but not now. Green Men have been declared Article 5 material and NATO is putting even more "trigger forces" into the Baltics. Which means if Russia were to attack they would be killing US, British, German, Polish, and other forces as well as Baltic. Can anybody show me a single instance of US military forces being attacked by a nation state NOT being dealt with militarily? Never. Having seen how quickly the American population went from placid to war mongering after 9/11, I think it is utterly stupid to presume that the US would not retaliate in a MAJOR way if Russia killed even 1 US service member. And if the US is going to go to war with Russia, so are a lot of other nations even if they don't really want to. And since the US has enough military force to affect a major defeat upon Russia even without any European help, even if countries like Germany balk on their NATO treaty obligations and sensible self interests, Russia would be in big trouble.
However, this is not really all that should be considered. If Russia were to take the Baltics, killing NATO forces in the process, the gloves would come off. Ukraine would be fully armed and would go on the offensive with NATO forces (i.e. the Black Sea game scenario), which would quickly result in a crushing defeat for Russia without a doubt. The Caucuses would likely pick up where they left off after the 2nd Chechen War and NATO would be not-very-covertly helping with money and weapons. Transnistria would be returned to Moldovan government control. Georgia would have a chance to take back its territory with direct NATO assistance. Economically, Russia would be banned from SWIFT and a full trade embargo and asset freeze. Any nation that so much as hesitated to be on board with that would face immediate wrath of the US economic leverage points. China would be pressured to shut Russia out of trade, or at least make it much more costly. The "Stan" republics would be incentivized (by money, weapons, trade deals) to deny Russia what it currently gets from the region. The Black Sea fleet would have to stay in port. Electronic warfare would be waged, which might not be so good for the West, but definitely would heap more problems onto Russia's plate as well. More than likely there would be at least one coup attempt, perhaps by forces even dumber than whomever thought taking the Baltics was a good idea.
The list goes on and on. But notice what I've not mentioned; attacks on soil that Russians unequivocally view as their own. I even removed the possibility of direct NATO on Russian Federation force conflict, such as trying to retake the Baltics. Why risk a nuclear response when it's absolutely unnecessary?
This is why I don't think Russia will invade the Baltics. It's not only a losing proposition in terms of the short term, it's suicidal as a nation state.
Steve
The Caucuses will not lift off from the 2nd war, as the people of Chechnya are now getting perfectly along with us and we won the 2nd Chechen war. Sure a small insurgency why not, there's one currently(Terrorist cells instead of a rebellion mind you). Georgia cannot take any territories back without being tactically bombed on their military infrastructure. In 2008 we beat Georgians with a way less technologically capable force, and with less numbers. Georgia has upgraded its forces from back then, but Russia has too. (and our larger forces are right next door)
As for Ukraine, NATO countries trained them during the war and Russian backed DPR and LPR had successes against them. What can NATO provide that can change the outcome? If Ukraine were to invade with NATO towards Russia you can expect the whole country to be mobilized (including me so I'd rather not a war to start
) I agree with you that the surface vessels of the Black Sea fleet(All Russian fleets) would have to stay in port (50 KMs out at most) NATO is just superior in terms of air power (numbers alone) mind you I'm not saying that Russia would be able to beat NATO on a full scale invasion on our territories but you can expect tactical nukes to fly on NATO bases, just as how NATO would send tactical nukes onto our bases. (Which is enough to shut both sides off from a war like this and as you have stated Steve, NATO would win based on embargos alone. Not counting militarily.)
China has a very big gas deal with us, If they were to trade us in for America (highly doubted as Russia is now buying a bunch of stuff from China) they have a thing to worry about. Plus Russia isn't denying Chinese claims in their seas, with military tension.
What will harm Russia the most is economical sanctions, it'd be very bad to say the least. So sure we are pretty scared to invade the Baltics.
-
3 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
That NATO could eventually muster sufficient firepower to retake the Baltics is not in question. What is in question is if there would be political will to do so. The Baltic states are not comparable in importance to West Germany, Belgium, France ect. in coldly-calculated strategic terms and it's debatable if NATO would collectively be willing to risk nuclear escalation in the same way they were during the Cold War. And Russia could be punished in non-military ways. But I agree that this is more about reassurance of nervous eastern NATO members than any belief that Russia is really going to invade (the US portion of the build-up is actually called the European Assurance Initiative).
NATO would indeed respond to a full out invasion of the Baltics, although any threats posed to Russian territories (Like Kaliningrad) will meet the threat of tactical nukes being used against military infrastructure of NATO. Which is indeed a bargaining chip against NATO superiority, as you mentioned it would make NATO think its plan through due to nuclear escalation.
Everything aside, I really hope hope these tensions are swept aside as all these new military build ups do not show a great future ahead.
-
To be fair, Russia can invade the Baltics and hold it in a limited time scenario. But in a long term scenario NATO would with Air power be able to crack Russian air defenses in the Baltics. But the good news is Russia has no interests in the Baltics. Win win for everyone, but a lose to NATO taxpayers because Russia is now considered a threat and NATO will deploy a whole bunch of stuff to counter our threat.
-
5 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Pack it in the pair of you.
This cr@p is why I don't usually sign up to gaming forums.....Grow up.
Does anyone have any actual news on Armata or is this just a willy-waving thread?
Fair enough apologies, no news other than the 100 Armata's being bought. It was seen on the parade grounds May 9 pretty good pics on it you can check'm out.
-
1 minute ago, Wicky said:
Back on topic of Russian shodiness http://tass.ru/en/russia/808026
This should be counted as trolling honestly. You're just trying your best to provoke me but luckily I've dealt with many people such as yourself on the net. If you are trying to prove Russia is incapable sure go believe it
-
I thought this was the armata topic
keep going on with the butthurt.
-
Quite immature.
-
22 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
You don't buy Russian equipment for quality. That's for sure.
Lol! good one, expected from you
-
@dragonwynn I've played the first 4 missions (victorious on all missions :D) but there seems to be an issue, the briefings for each mission are not showing up only the campaign briefing was the only one that showed.
-
Possible spoilers:
First mission I got a Russian army minor victory, I held 4 hills and wasted a brigade worth of guys. I inflicted over 200 casualties while suffering 48 losses and 76 wounded. I have one suggestion for this awesome campaign (probably the best campaign) the spetsnaz lads are only veterans they should be at a higher skill set ranging from crack to elite.
-
The Russian navy is mostly scrap iron at this point? That is a laughable statement, is the Russian navy as capable as the US navy? Of course not. But to call it scrap iron is a very biased opinion. The Russian navy is a defensive one, and it isn't because we want too its because we have too. And I am pretty sure our navy can play defense very well coordinating with land based systems, as well as air based systems while on defense.
Also what suppliers are you talking about for the Russian Air Force?
And honestly just not to start a political flame war I'll just keep the argument non-political and keep it militarily.
-
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Sorry, it appeared that you were making unsupported factual claims, rather than stating your opinion.....Perhaps look for some evidence before making controversial and, as it turns out, incorrect posts?
Look for evidence for my posts? Ok will do!
-
Our navy is what is the most effected, already weird ship producing mixed up with budget cuts will slow to modernize and build our navy up for a while(our navy is 44% the US navy because most ships are being overhauled.) Our ground forces suffer from budget cuts, Uralvagonzavod has been modernized a while back and its very modern and newish from what I've seen. Our tanks wont be lacking in quality more so it will lack in the wanted quantity because of sanctions and oil drops.
Airforce has to lower spending as well, but modernizing of the air force is pretty decent for now. It is a shame that Russia is being sanctioned over Ukraine, where other countries deserve to be sanctioned more so. France is rolling back on the sanctions, I hope our other European partners put an end to the sanctions as well.
Kinophile,
The Armata program has been well funded already since 2011 set backs will be only against the numbers of the tanks bought and not quality. Russia has been modernizing on full scale since 2009. Given the outlook of our economy plans will be set back or the scale will be reduced. Given that our military doctrine is mostly defensive, I don't see an issue as long as our strategic and tactical assets give us a great bargaining position.
-
43 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Do you have some sort of evidence for this statement or are you merely attempting to stir the pot?
I don't get what you mean by stirring the pot but it turns out I was mistaken since during the time there was no info, I assumed such important tanks would be crewed by Russian crewmen. The crews as far as I know are Syrian soldiers trained to use the machines.
-
I during service was able to hit a armored vehicle sized target at 150 meters, the sight on the RPG-7 makes it more accurate than one would think. In game I got hits at 150-180 meters but sometimes they even miss at 70 meters.
-
Here we go again with the Russia abusing its neighbors. I'm not willing to continue on this.
-
49 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
Dunno man. Might want to look at a mirror and ask yourself if your country could win in a fight against the rest of the world.
Of course not... But you're making it seem as if we don't know this, and as if we aren't a capable force to fight. The farthest the Russian military would be able to fight NATO is the baltics after that obviously it wont be possible. It would be left to strategic assets to try and destroy NATO bases and all that stuff, but other than that Russia cannot launch a ground offensive into the bulk of NATO obviously we don't have the numbers to pull that off.
-
12 hours ago, dragonwynn said:
That's true Vladimir there were Chechens who fought against the militants and were used quite effectively in the second conflict.
I've read quite a bit of material on both conflicts when I was building this campaign and you are right wtf would be putting it nicely. The use of conscripts and a very poor battle plan cost the Russian military dearly. Especially the urban fights where the Russians were unprepared for.
You know, The worse part about it was not using conscripts as even conscripts are trained and can fight. But the worse part is that maps or any knowledge of where they were simply did not exist. The high command assumed sending some forces into areas would work or something like that.
you gave me alot to write back on, I'm gonna write back to you later.
New pics of T-90 in Luhansk
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Yeah you're right, probably field testing. But T-90s would indeed help against Ukrainian AT assets and the battle around Luhansk airport was very intense.