.jpg.526cd77784702913dcd2f6a68cb3cbd4.jpg)
Codename Duchess
-
Posts
320 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Codename Duchess
-
-
If the RPO's effectiveness indoors is increased, then so too does the M25. The weapon can easily and consistently be set up to detonate inside an open window (presumably one someone is shooting out of). Body armor or not, I'm going to bet that a 25mm grenade going off in your face is going to lay you down.
-
No I get that, and it makes sense with how they're going about it. The problem is there are a lot of legacy systems in mothballs that could be scrapped at this point. It also doesn't help that the general explanation is that NATO is the greatest threat to Russian security when up until this "situation" in Ukraine, no one in NATO particularly cared about Russian aggression at this point. So with that frame of reference now in mind, suddenly Backfires supersonic over the North Sea, or Russian VDV training on the Estonian border, or the entire Northern fleet scrambling. And now these same formations are getting the latest toys...
Well it just doesn't look that friendly anymore
Edit: I'm having a hard time phrasing it, so let me ask a question.
Why is NATO a threat to Russia? -
Unfortunately I don't know of any way to answer that without delving too far into the political realm, which is both expressly forbidden in the forums and a line we've likely already crossed. PM me if you want my opinion, but I'll try and summarize it below.
What I will clean it up to say is I frankly don't see the need in the 21st century for either NATO or the Russians to maintain huge forces arrayed against each other. NATO has no desire to go East, and presumably Russia has no desire to go West. And yet both sides waste billions of dollars pointing tanks at each other and justify it because "well they started it".
What would I do if I was in charge of the Russian military? I'd focus on my nuclear weapons for homeland defense. Hordes and hordes of tanks is redundant at that point. If you want an expeditionary force similar to the US there's a lot of restructuring that would need to be done which includes ditching all those tanks in storage. The US has the economy to mix the two, Russia does not.
Out of curiosity, what is the general status and array of ground forces in the east (aimed at China). If we're talking implausible but possible, I'd say China going north would have been just as likely as NATO going east.
Not sure what you mean by "centralized", and how is it done in the US, but I'd say that anything centralized is easier to destroy.
Right with a nuclear weapon, and at that point it doesn't matter.
-
By that token then shouldn't we keep all of our land forces at the US and Canadian borders? I mean we've fought wars with both of them, and our border with Canada is quite large (~4000 miles using google earth ruler tool, not exact but good enough). By comparison, the Russian border with all of Europe is ~1500 miles, and a similar number with Eastern China (Going to go ahead and assume Kazakhstan isn't a major potential adversary). We also have a 1200 mile border with Mexico. Again rough numbers, but still.
I believe the point he is trying to make is that the positioning and usage of Russian military forces is both antagonistic and wasteful. There's no motivation amongst European nations to invade Western Russia, and yet I get the impression that there is a lot of drumbeating* saying that the might Russian army (and it is mighty) at the western borders is all that is keeping the German/Polish hordes from repeating 1941. I understand the need for border security, but when you have large standing forces with "colorful" rhetoric, it causes unease in the European community, and that's exactly what we're seeing. Why does Russia need to keep so many forces at the border? Why not use larger centralized garrisons, a la the US?*
*I have no specific examples of this, forgive me, but it is the general tone I have seen in news reports and inferred from online interactions with people.
**This does not include forward deployed US units but those have already been covered as being comparitively weak. Additionally, the role of the US in the modern era is not the same as that of the Russian Federation. -
I tend to agree with everything said here, with the exception of the RPG-7. I find it to be a huge advantage in CQB, and when it hits I always seem to lose 2 men. The Russians are also much more likely to use it (HEAT or Frag) against infantry than the US soldiers will with Javelin.
-
I, for one, welcome our new mafia overlords.
-
Probably a dumb question, but what are the chances that the vehicles in the parade keep the turret tarps on?
-
It is a big stretch to justify Finnish forces in Ukraine though.Yes, to get back on topic, the Russians have made a few noises in Finland's direction in the last twelve months, so it wouldn't be a big stretch for game plausibility.
Perhaps much down the road as a Baltic/Scandinavian game, but best case that would be many years from now. Winter War seems more reasonable.
-
What are said side armor issues?
-
None of the firings I've seen, apart from McChrystal, have been necessarily politically motivated. Its been everything from cheating scandals, sexual misconduct, or just a "poor command climate." I'm not opposed to firing bad leaders, but the publicity within the Navy has definitely hurt us as a whole. Fortunately apart from the Blue Angels CO (for pretty ****ty reasons too), the Aviation community has gotten away clean.
-
Bold move by that cameraman, I'm sure it'd be easy to figure out who he is. Cool tank though, looks like the 3D concept was bs.
I've also heard the Indians are less than pleased with the T-50. I'm sure the US would love to sell them F-35s so there has to be a lot of pressure to pull out. Can't imagine that would help the PAK FA program.
-
I was referring to the Army Times / Navy Times / Marine Corps Times / Air Force Times. (Branch) is easier. All are owned by the same company and not affiliated with the DoD. They're sold on base though. In the past they've had some pretty poor reporting jobs.
I remember reading somewhere that like 20 Navy COs per year have been relieved in the past few years (including the Blue Angels CO). The Navy has been very public about them in order to appear accountable, but a recent Navy survey found that it has actually been severely detrimental to morale in all parts of the fleet as no one wants to aspire to command anymore. The problem stems from the politicians running the Navy being far more focused on the politics of the branch rather than operational side.
-
Indeed, a Russian prototype module would be very interesting.
-
"Anyone know if it is true about Top U.S. Commander Heather Cole under arrest for choosing not to comply with orders to fire nukes at Russia?"
What on earth are you talking about? She was relieved for a bad command climate. That article said nothing about any sort of Nuclear first strike. She probably just ran a ****ty shop. She isn't the first and won't be the last. Also the (branch) Times newspapers have had shoddy reporting in the past, so grain of salt.
And is there a translation problem, or are you implying those guys were Chevron Oil Corporation Commandos? Because lol.
-
I appreciate that source, thanks. Like I said earlier, not at all unreasonable especially if it includes modernization of older systems as well. The bolded point you make is absolutely key. No one has given a numbers for these next gen systems, unlike for aircraft and ship/sub numbers.**
How much is that modernization expected to cost? Again if you factor in what I mentioned regarding aircraft and seacraft (nevermind Nuclear forces), we are talking A LOT of money all at once. The ground numbers aren't ambitious, but the others are. Put them all together and I see a lot of room for problems to propagate, especially in light of current economic woes.
**50+ PAK FAs by 2020, 20+ new surface combatants and submarines in the same time frame. I'll accept that they are cheaper than US systems due to complexity, technology, etc. What I don't believe is that they will be under budget, given the performance of similar US programs.
-
They're not game changing, however again you are talking of eventually replacing every armored vehicle of every type at once (or I'm misinterpreting this 3 chassis thing). Obviously older models will still remain, but there is enough rhetoric that these will all be "the next big thing" of the Russian Army and not a fluke. Therefore we are talking a lot of capital right there. Now you want to add some cutting edge technology to these vehicles, increasing automation and the like. Again not groundbreaking, but also not cheap. Why do we expect this to be more successful than T-95 or Black Eagle? Not the vehicle itself, but the actual process from paper to mass production.Uhm, how exactly any of the new gen Russian vehicles can be considered "game-changing"? They are all quite ordinary, if you ask me. Except for some parts of Armata's claimed abilities. BTW, nether of which was actuaply claimed by MoD, IIRC. Only by press. And lets leave the planes and the Navy out of the picture to make the discussion more on-topic.
Planes and Ships absolutely belong in context. We are talking sweeping updates and mass production in the Army, Navy, and Air Force all in the next 5-7 years. I don't doubt Russia could be very successful in any of those programs at all. The problem is that those all are occuring simultaneously. "Ambitious" seems very polite.
-
Looks more like the Chinese IFVs if you ask me, but I see the resemblance.Wow, Kurganets-25 looks cute, even with side armor panels off. Kinda small, like a British Warrior/Scimitar, don't you think?
I'm generally skeptical of any major "game-changing" military acquisition by any nation at this point. The US has "enjoyed" a Military-Industrial Complex with enough practice over the previous decades to really refine their ways, and they still regularly suffer from cost overruns, project delays, unexpected bugs ("how about we just paint the fuel trucks white?"), you name it. Yes we do get some stuff handled well (Virginia Class) but no one will say we're the most efficient. But here we have broad claims from the Russian MoD and press of three all new and comprehensive replacement armored vehicles, mass production of their first stealth aircraft (never mind other programs - I would love Sukhoi and Lockheed Martin stock), and dozens of new ships and submarines for their Navy all within the next 5-7 years. I frankly don't see how it's possible for Russia. Look at the numerous similar US programs that have been cut or scaled back (Ground Combat Vehicle, Future Soldier, CG-X, DDG-1000 LCS, F-35 production number plans, etc.) Obviously Iraq and Afghanistan didn't help funds in those areas, but our economy remained strong enough to keep us going strong. China pulled off their modernization thanks to their Economy (would US forces have modernized as fast as China without OIF/OEF? Who knows) and a helping of luck. Russia does not have the economy of China or the US, but their plans are even grander.
I don't want to smear, appear jingoistic, or any of that. I am just generally interested in the opinions of others here on how Russia plans to actually carry out all these plans successfully.
As for low recruiting numbers and medical disqualifications, those are both faced here in the US as well. Despite the worldview of the fat American, there are enough seemingly fit people here that you wouldn't expect the medical disqualifications that you do see, and yet there they are. So I don't think the numbers given of Russia in that article are anything extraordinary. If I wasn't on my phone I'd look at other professional militaries as well, but I don't believe medical qualification to be an issue narrowed to just a few nations.
-
Doesn't seem cost effective. Nevermind the alternative ways to go around this, once the FO notices something is wrong he'll just tell the battery to change the fusing.
-
Unfortunately it's way over budget and behind schedule at this point. The original plan was to buy 50, SECDEF cut that down to 32 (expect this to drop further) with the other 18 now planned to be an upgunned version that still has some serious downfalls. Literally the only thing LCS has going for it is speed (at the cost of range). It's best weapons are the 57mm gun and Griffin missiles (essentially a Navalized Javelin). Absolute waste of taxpayer dollars. I really believe we should have gone with a European Frigate.Yeah, the LCS from my casual look is probably okay for its original designed mission, but is probably a whole lot less than optimal for the jobs that real frigates are called on to do. I expect the Navy is well aware of this and has been forced to go down this road due to budget constraints.
Michael
-
MLRS was deliberately left out because they're not really meant for use on tactical targets and because it's not fair for EVERYTHING in a 1km area target mission to die instantaneously.
TLAM would be interesting. The Block IVs are capable of retargeting in flight and hitting moving targets, plus they could be launched from safety outside the Black Sea so Russian Naval Assets wouldn't be able to harm the launch platform. It could be an interesting (QB cheap?) one time use support mission. I'm not sure if Tunguska can track munitions IRL, I know MANPADS can't. Even if Tunguska can, if it were modeled in CMBS then the Tomahawk should have a much lower probability of being intercepted seeing as it only flies at like 50 feet off the deck.
That said, I imagine most Tomahawks would be tasked against the Russian IADS network as well as forward C3 positions within Ukraine.
-
Yeah...there are literally tons of Tomahawks in VLS systems, but they can't theoretically fire at a moving ship.
I ca BS on the pigeons not surviving. And for those that think that looked like a wimpy impact, there was no warhead.
Re: Frigates
The USN has retired the Perry's in favor of the LCS (recently redesignated as a Frigate). The problem is the LCS is a terrible platform for many reasons. The problem is that we wouldn't consider buying the rights to produce a European frigate here at home. The Danish Iver Huitfeldt class for example being cheaper and far more capable while still being designed along modular lines like LCS.
-
Your AARs are top notch, the Shurikens were a nice touch.
It doesn't strike you as odd that the pride of the fleet always has a tug? Steam Plants are old but they're not that unreliable if well maintained. From my understanding the boilers were not replaced in the most recent overhaul.
-
As outdated as it's most recent deployment in May of 2014?I didn't realize they'd invented time travel, because that is some seriously outdated info.
"As well as the Kuznetsov, the task group included the Kirov Class nuclear powered battle cruiser Pyotr Velikiy; three tankers; Segey Osipov, Kama and Dubna; one Ocean-going Tug Altay and the Landing Support Ship Minsk."
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2014/may/08/140508-russian-task-group
Edit: Are you the same Apocal who plays CMAN:O?
-
ASW has atrophied worldwide in all nations (except those that never had it, China being the big one). Fortunately for the US, our submarine fleet is huge, the best in the world, and never did stop practicing. Virginia Class Submarines would be the real heroes in any upcoming war. The real degradation has been in anti surface warfare capabilities in Western Navies, which is only recently being remedied. Lamentable but forgivable as until the recent rise of the PLAN there has been no need for ASUW or ASW. A lot of guys have to learn some long forgotten skills. Fortunately from my talks with bubbleheads and Maritime Patrol guys, non-Western ASW is laughably bad. That doesn't mean a lucky D-E boat can't cause a lot of problems though. Which is why we leased a Swedish one for a couple years to practice with.
I'm all for smaller Asian navies growing their sub forces. Its the best way to counter a certain rising Asian power. There was even some strong arguments made by naval analysts to lease out some LA class boats to Australia, which in my eyes would be a great choice.
Armata soon to be in service.
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
" a Russian schematic of the new T-14 tank translated into English by a U.S. Army analyst. Illustration via the U.S. Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office." Spoiler'd due to image size.
(Source)
Is Post-War referring to the Cold War, or the Great Patriotic War? Because there's plenty of third generation tanks, including ones not at all designed or developed in the Cold War.
Source listed above claims 2300 T-14s by 2020. I don't know if that was a misinterpretation of general modernization plans like we discussed earlier in the thread, or an actual claim by the Russian Government and/or defense industry. If it's what is claimed by the Russian government I stand by my claim that that is almost criminally optimistic in light of the economy + other modernization plans and acquisition/development programs across the full spectrum.
Maintenance of the turret space looks like it's going to be a massive pain in the ass. I'm going to presume that since it's unmanned, they aren't leaving a lot of free space in there. Any and all sort of work in there is thus either going to be very uncomfortable or require quite the effort to open up/expose the juicy innards. Thoughts?
Also, what about all the backup systems usually afforded to a manned turret? Between emergency optics, manual rotation, etc, I don't see how a remotely operated turret will still allow those systems to be implemented, at least in as robust of a system as in other tanks. It seemed like pretty much everytime I took a solid hit in Steel Beasts (that didn't kill me) I would have to rely on some sort of secondary/emergency system that required increased "human" interaction.