panzersaurkrautwerfer

The big difference is the South Dakota is basically a smaller Iowa, built to still be more or less treaty compliant. Because they were laid down earlier, they saw more active service and tend to have more interesting history than the Iowa class. In reference to the engagement, It's the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. The USS South Dakota and USS Washington both showed up, but the South Dakota basically had a massive electrical failure, leading to most of the shooting being carried by the Washington.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Offer void outside of my immediate area. High value, high cost equipment is rarely well spent on suicide missions, and Putin has the next few decades of his rule to worry about. Losing the Russian Air Force, and Navy for the Ukraine is not a good trade, especially considering a major escalation all but ensures it's the Ukrainian campaign of the Third World War, instead of the Ukrainian conflict. And now onto your regular Lucas stuff: Would have been interesting, but looking at the outcome of the battle, it was the sort of forces on hand for August-October 1990. And would have ensured a rematch while totally precluding the diplomatic outcome Saddam believed (not without reason) was distinctly possible. Again, brush up on Clausewitz. War is a continuation of politics by other means. Which is to ignore the political element of war at your own peril. If your key goal is to make war unattractive, and costly enough to quit, you have to make quitting viable. Launching a new push into Saudi Arabia in August-October alienates a lot of Arab states Saddam was trying to court, and destroying the Arab element of the Coalition would have been devastating to the allied war effort (as Saddam astutely observed, and tried to do so by getting Israel to intervene). Again one dimensional counting of divisions misses the point. Limited wars especially demand a higher level of attention to the "soft" or "long" consequences, of which I would expect someone with a history background to understand. I just didn't find it held water. I've firmly established that I do listen to other opinions, and went to elaborate I value outside opinions. Arrogant is likely the most unlikely of adjectives my peers would apply to me. I am not alone in my beliefs in regards to air defense given the whole US military, including the air defense insitution itself displays a disinterest in LAAD or SHORAD type weapons systems, and again I challenge you to show where a few small missiles or some automatic cannons would make a difference in a battle where the largest most powerful air force, and amazingly capable ABM level air defense systems have failed. A new ADA platform is silly and rightly was canned with ADATS at the end of the cold war. You have not demonstrated where LAAD was an effective piece of a defensive system, while instead showing lots of times where the more decisive and relevant piece of IADS was larger PATRIOT type systems backed by air intercept. Re: Russian Navy Wat? In a localized regional conflict, there is precisely zero chance that NATO is going on an offensive and will dictate such terms. Also effectively to accomplish mission, NATO just has to not have any sort of threat from the Russian fleet. If the Russian fleet stays home, it is not an objective worth braving some very major ADA over Russian soil for. The only way the Russians actually lose their Navy is if they do exactly as you seem to think they MUST do. Which is silly. Re: Saddam Only if you're monday morning quarterbacking. Also Hamdani is a poor source, you see the same thing with the Egyptian Army in defeat, it wasn't the military failing it was the political leader's fault. If you're Saddam and you're sitting in the Saddam seat, you'd likely have made the same choices. Iran was weak in 1980. Saddam failed to appreciate the fact his attack would be the one thing to unify Iran, but so too did Putin fail to understand that while the Ukraine was disjointed and weak, the one thing it needed to turn around, unify and defend itself was Russians showing up in green suits and parking BTR's with "peacekeeper!" painted on it on the border. Saddam's judgement on Kuwait was done from an understanding bolstered by interactions with other Sunni states, and again, it's really easy to look back now and say he was a dumby, but hard to do if you're in Saddam shoes in 1991. Also in regards to his being a moron, he seriously underestimated the lethality of US forces. So did the USSR, China, and other regional forces, which led to a collective mind losing in those nations. He made a lot of the same choices, and assumptions other world leaders did at the time. It just happened his led to an output worse than others. Which is not to claim Saddam is a master genius of all things, he made some pretty major mistakes. But for someone who harps about underestimating people, Lucas sure is good at it.

Nah. I got burned out on WOT and War Thunder. Also Xcom 2 and Fallout 4 are still recent enough that my game playing preferences are pretty fixated on those two. Looks cool, but I don't know if I'll ever get into it. Re: Lucas I am entirely capable of agreeing with well read informed civilian opinions, and have done so several times on this thread. I am entirely trying to pull a punch here and be polite, but I am unsure if you have stated a well read or informed opinion for some pages. Failing to understand your enemy is the actual sin you're trying to accuse me of. It's not that I doubt the Russians are capable, but strictly placing them side by side with what they'd be facing, coming to the conclusion they would not engage in suicide tactics (effectively your words, not mine) to accomplish modest goals such as a delay or a mere five cargo ships of dozens if not hundreds sunk seems to be giving the Russians less a rational actor status, and more than of an implacable video game villain who only exists to fight with all of his assets right now because the player has arrived and it is time for total fight of final destruction. You don't understand a long game. Putin is not going for broke on the Ukraine, it's a limited objective that might lead to a limited war. He still has other wars to fight down the road, or at least a credible threat to pose. Defanging that threat, even with a victory does not make any reasonable amount of sense, and simply repeating Putin is a moron for not fighting how you would expect him to should not be mistaken for persuasive reasoning. Also just because I'm me: I generally hung out in my CP for paperwork purposes, or to give the troops some breathing room. No one likes it when their boss hovers (on the other hand if you want to put emphasis that this job is important, showing up and hanging out for three hours sends the message "THIS ONE IS IMPORTANT" which can be useful). I also liked to think of myself as a first peer, or someone who's job was to lead than a position innately superior to my subordinates because inspite of being awesome (because I am) my senior NCOs had several times my time in service and I respected their opinions (I still had to tell them to go pound sand a few times, but I wanted to at least have them understand why they had to pound sand). Even my new LTs might see something I didn't or have a good idea (infrequently, but it happens, and it also let me better educate them on why their overtly good idea might not be so). This is because I understand the importance of the Hegelian Dialectic (it is the only thing that gives my time in Poli Sci 333 meaning). Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Input, challenge to input, input revised after challenge. I have received your antithesis. There is nothing to show that the Russians posses the numbers, training, or readiness to overwhelm a CAP without incurring crippling losses. There is nothing to show the Russians will sacrifice having an air force to accomplish a limited objective war. I researched the disparity between forces, and observing the commitment of Russian forces to Georgia it indicates a conservative long game minded sort of warfare. The Russian hybrid form of warfare also indicates an unwillingness to commit strategic, high value assets to a fight unless they would be decisive, instead relying on cheaper alternatives or mitigation measures over direct combat. You have instead replied with Red Storm Rising and how the Soviets would fight, despite there being a 20+ year absence of Soviet Union. Simply pointing out military cases of hubris does not negate that, or negate the fact I am not a single voice in thinking you are off base, but instead one of several, some professional military, some well educated civilians. Unless there's a specific reason why you're a superior civilian, I have to question why your opinion is more valid than theirs. Perhaps some proof besides calling Saddam a moron would be in order? Saddam did attempt a disrupting attack in early 1991 that failed rather miserably largely due to forces already in region, learning a classic lesson about attacking without air superiority and the limits of LAAD. And he lost two divisions for it. But that isn't what we're talking about. We're discussing why Saddam chose to fly his planes, or bury them in future conflicts instead of destroying them inflicting delays or even tactical reverses on US forces. The ADA situation wasn't much better than it is now in 1991, the Vulcan* and Chaparral were crappy stop gap systems and wouldn't have done much in the event of a total Iraqi commitment to attacking the various cantonments. Chemical weapons in an opening attack certainly would have delivered the results that you think would have knocked the US out of the war. It is the analysis of a lazy man to call someone a moron. Virtually everyone has an internal logic, and leads, even marginal leaders rarely make choices that are "stupid" and more frequently choices that are misinformed or follow an internal logic divorced from reality. However in conducting an analysis worthy of being taken serious, you simply must start from "this was an idea that makes sense" and work towards "actually that idea was rubbish." There's reasons why Saddam's flying his air force and attempting to send his navy to Iran were not good ideas, but why would someone savvy enough to rule over an entire country not see the obvious Lucas endorsed choice to instead sortie all of those assets either in a strike to delay a build up, or use them later to conduct CAS? *Rumor has it however, it was a great anti-sniper platform Addendum: I am envious in regards to F-14 and A-6 watching. Beautiful birds. There was a boy scout camp I used to go to that was under whatever military approved low flight corridor there was for Whidby Island (EA-6Bs) and the Oregon Air Guard (I think it was F-16s, might have been F-15s though) on their way to whatever exercises they did on their way to the East side of Washington state. You'd just be minding your own business, then sorta hear a jet noise and before you knew it some black blur was on its way to do something awesome with all the heavy metal thunder jets are capable of. It was pretty awesome.

I too had that model. I really liked it. I also had a Missouri, and had the pleasure of walking the decks of the real thing when she was still moored up in Bremerton. I mostly did airplanes though. My grandfather on my mother's side was a radioman on SBDs and later TBFs (and got a purple heart flying in each of those types!) and that got me all interested in Naval aviation. I also grew up down the road from Boeing so was also quite into B-17s and the like. British ship names are pretty awesome. I got a collection of old ship recognition guides when I was a young boy, and I used to pilfer the British section of it for names for ships in various games that let me rename vessels. I like the state/city names though. It added a distinctly yankee flavor to things. The battles/original frigate names were awesome though. I think naming carriers after anyone but Nimitz level folks is a giant mistake.

Re: LukeFF That I have. I also highly reccomend: Arabs at War by Kenneth Pollack Mother Of All Battles by Kevin Woods The first is self explainitory. The second is based on all the documents captured in 2003, what the Iraqi side of the fence was thinking in 1991. Very interesting in terms of thinking asymmetrically. Re: Australian M1A1s The only functional difference between an Australian M1A1 and a US National Guard M1A1 (or historically, some of the lower priority active units) is the lack of DU inserts and likely some stuff they don't even tell me about. Optically, communications infrastructure, FCS, post-Iraq widgets and upgrades, all included. They were actually better than the average M1A1s in National Guard/places God forgot like Fort Riley for a while, although the upgrade package itself was eventually applied to the US M1A1 fleet too. On a whole a pretty sweet deal, you've likely got some of the best tanks in the Pacific outside of USFK and on par with the ROK and it's K1A1s.

I said surface vessels. All the same the Macon and Akron are totally awesome. I have to wonder if they'd not met their respective fates if they'd turned into a thing. Doubtful, but at least on some level I can be amused by thoughts of a mega-Macon dropping Wildcats and Dauntlesses. Totally +1 to the Fletcher class. On a similar note, the Battle off Samar remains one of those moments that defies reasonable comment.

Or better yet, perhaps it has been torpedoed. So while we're waiting, what's everyone's favorite surface combatant class and specific ship? No carriers plz. I'll go first. I think the South Dakota class of battleships was one of the finest big gun ships to ever enter operation. That said if I have to pick a specific vessel, the USS Washington (BB-56) takes the cake though, as one of the few Battleships to go in a serious guns vs guns fight to the sinking of a like classed ship.

Black shoed devils they are and all.

Re: Vladimir I'm referencing the 1991 conflict. Saddam had an extensive chemical weapons stock before, during, and after. Re: Rhetorical Questions Again though, the Iraqi air force was capable of conducting offensive operations. It would not have lasted long, but it could have done some damage to the building coalition and bought time. Why was it not committed?

Short and violent: M1 production forks at the baseline M1A1 from 1985 or so. Everything after that (M1A1HA>M1A1HC>M1A2>M1A2 SEP>M1A1SA>M1A2 SEP v2) includes armor packages that are not exported. All export M1s are basically the 1985 M1A1s upgraded or modified to suit local requirements. The M1A2 the Saudis use is actually predates the American M1A2 because the US version was initially unfunded at the end of the Cold War, while the Saudis wanted the independent commander's optic the Abrams had been designed all along to accept. So unless it's a yankee imperialist M1A2, it's not carrying the 1987 vintage HA armor upgrade and beyond.

I for one, am claiming resounding and total victory, and am holding a parade to that effect. Just some parting thoughts though, for the millionth time: Re: Blue in the Face Any good idea is the result of a process of challenge and discussion. If your ideas, when challenged offer very little traction, it is worth sitting down and reconsidering if you might be off about some things. Repeating it again at louder volume is rarely effective. Re: IRAQ AGAIN Fools don't become the total ruler of major nation states for decades on end. People make miscalculations, but calling them fools indicates a superficial level of understanding. So. Riddle me this. Iraqi had an air force, and a large amount of chemical weapons, in addition to a smallish naval force capable of limited regional operations. Logically he had to prevent a US build up to allow for the war to end on his terms. What did his air force and navy attempt to do and why? "Nothing because he's a fool!" answers will be discarded out of hand. Further on those lines, Hitler understood he had to knock the US out of World War Two. Why didn't he load up ships with strumtruppen or whatever and try to take New York? Surely it would have bought time, as would have fully developing an America Bomber. Could it be there's other considerations beyond simply having an action that might be a good idea when it comes to military thinking?

I am seriously pondering changing my name to "panzersaurus" as a result of that post.

Yeah but there's a sort of trainwreck element to it, and it's led to some really interesting posts on naval warfare and stuff. It's entertaining at least.

The only way to win a regional conflict is to provoke a global conflict! I'm really seeing the genesis for a remake of Dr Strangelove here. RE: Article 4 Article 4 makes sense if the Russian fleet sorties, as clearly something is up short of an attack, and consultations are a good choice to figure out what we should respond with. However Article 5 only stipulates an attack on a NATO member state. An attack on a NATO flagged vessel (military or merchant) is abjectly and indisputably an attack on that NATO member state, let alone crazyland cruise missiles swooping over London. I cannot explain it simpler than that. NATO was designed to be a giant tripwire in the event of Russian military action to provide a unified defensive response to that aggression. It's done some other stuff since, but the core root of it is responding to any aggression against NATO states with all out full alliance response. I really have no idea how you've gotten this strictly passive perspective of the west, that's simply going to take hundreds if not thousands of losses, and sanguinely go back to reality TV show because it's only an unprovoked Russian assault across Eastern Europe, with associated airstrikes against targets in Western Europe and unrestricted warfare, chip chip I hear the Queen's corgi is sick!/the Kardashians are showing their butts again!

Someone is apparently unaware the Article 5 can be invoked simply in the event of an attack on national assets vs sovereign soil. If someone is shooting at NATO member ships (unless those ships of course, are strictly defending themselves from the NATO member's aggression) it's Article 5 time. This delusion of "limited action" is totally the kind of thing that starts major conflicts.

They kinda are. I mean they're not literally the same tanks, but the armor array is strictly vintage 1985 or so. The HA armor upgrade (which begat the updated armor array for late model M1A1HCs/SA, and M1A2 SEP, SEP v2, and now SEP v3) was never something included in any export tanks (Australians included, which is a good sign of how close that armor is held to our hearts). They're also 1995 vintage M1A2s, so while not as germane to the protection discussion, a lot of their systems are not so modern. I'm not entirely unsure if they haven't received some upgrades over the years in that regard though. With all of that said, the key difference between the Iraqi and Saudi military is effectively nil. The Saudi Air Force is the one military arm worth a damn, the Army is comprised of people not smart enough or rich enough to be pilots in the officer class, and the average enlisted struggles to read (or simply doesn't). One of the endemic things about Middle Eastern military forces seems to be a focus on equipment=performance. So in that regard it is essential to have the same kind of gear that better, cooler, armies have (see Iran under the Shah's runaway acquisition process, or the prevalence of high performance tanks and planes in places than can support neither), but the training, maintenance and the like is for babies and we don't have time for that. Oh no, we lost another war! THIS CURSED RUSSIAN/FRENCH/BRITISH/AMERICAN GEAR HAS FAILED US, GET US THE RUSSIANS/FRENCH/BRITISH/AMERICANS ON THE LINE TO SELL US MORE BETTER EQUIPMENT SO WE WIN NEXT TIME.

I think you need some more education before you start posting on such things.

If you ever want a painful experience, try taking T-90As against Abrams. Or fighting against US infantry that's got enough Javelins to go around (seriously, once that missile breaks horizon, it's pretty much kissing a tank goodbye).

I kinda have to agree. I am one of those hobbyists. It also helps to have some variation when you're modeling rag tag forces, or veteran units that have simply taken anything that was not nailed down. Adds character. It might not add enough character to be worth doing, but again if you've got folks that will go nuts to have literally every halftrack in the game, might be worth some effort. I'm a fair bit younger than a lot of forum members, but same deal. Growing up getting a 1/48 scale fighter plane or something was the kind of thing my parents might do as a reward for not kicking and screaming all the way through shopping. Now even fairly modest 1:35 tanks compete with video games for unit prices. I paid something like 70 bucks for the M1A2 SEP v2 I will totally not be building for a few years* *On the other hand, I wanted to make sure I picked up a model of the exact variant I operated so I could paint it up like my tank. On the other hand, I'm getting okay at the Tamiya level models, the Dragon ones are pretty scary in terms of complexity right now.

Re: Javelin vs TOW Its been considered, and may yet happen. The main differences however: 1. Javelin has a max effective range of 2500 meters vs TOW's max range of 3750. 2. There are a lot of TOWs still in the inventory, and most enemy armor threats are not cutting edge anyone's equipment 3. Anti-armor upgrades until recently have ranked pretty low in the big scheme of things, so there hasn't been the funding/interest. That said a Javelin ER, with a larger rocket motor seems like a pretty good bet for the not so distant future, or at the least, I would not rule it out.

1. Invoking article 5, resulting in total NATO commitment to war against Russia, likely resulting in Russian expats in London swinging from lamp poles thanks to hooligans. 2. See above 3. We've shown how unlikely this is, also will virtually certainly invoke article 5 given some of the waterways involved, resulting in total NATO commitment to war against Russia. 4. Invoking article 5, resulting in total NATO commitment to war against Russia, in the case of Germany and other Eastern European countries utterly eviserating Russian exports and resulting in total economic collapse in a few years. 5. Invoking article 5, resulting in total NATO commitment to war against Russia, likely the world at large given the abjectly expansionist violation of international law and standards. Russia stands alone and dies alone, by the sword or by the famine. 6. And loses, by your own admission, likely invoking article 5 and resulting in total NATO commitment to war against Russia If those are reasonable, boy do I have some pamplets on lizardmen illuminati conspriacies that are right up your ally. None of those are smart actions with any sort of long term benefits for the Russian government, people, or the world at large, and frankly had this conversation not occured, I would refuse to believe someone could be as off base as this has gone. You cannot argue for a fast war with the west, while arguing the only sort of acts that will virtually ensure that does not happen are reasonable, rational choices.

Speaking as someone who used to Bradley: 1. If it's a tank, unless I'm on the move, I'm initiating with TOW fire against tank type targets. 2. If I am on the move, unless it has gun tube orientation on me, I'm holding fire until I can somewhere to fire a TOW. This might be simply doing a short halt and risking being in the open, or trying to go to ground first. A lot depends on the range (short range, short halt as the missile flight time is short enough to get a kill before the tank can react, long range I'm going to find some lowground if possible because 30 seconds is a long time to sit in the open for a 3750 meter shot). 3. I would only have engaged with 25 MM against tank type targets if the enemy had clearly spotted me and was going to engage, or the firing angle is just perfect (I am behind them, flank shots at 90 degrees with enemy gun tube orientation facing away from me. I can see the BMP-3 not firing ATGMs first simply because they're likely battle-carrying HE rounds (battle carry is what you load before the battle into the guntube), they'd likely either fire the HE to clear the tube, or unload it, whichever is faster. But for anything with a distinct and separate ATGM launcher, seems odd they'd default to cannon fire. I'm also less than sold on APS in the game. It was cool starting off, but it's looking less like the Russians are able to field it in numbers, and the US system remains largely hypothetical. I generally play without it because I feel it best captures the modern armor on armor dynamic (and ATGMs are already dicey enough with ERA and advanced composite armor). Short story: Interestingly enough, one of the Platoon Sergeants in a Troop I was in for a time had been a Bradley gunner in the first Persian Gulf War. His platoon came in contact with some number of T-72s. His Bradley opened up with one TOW which then caused the affected T-72 to simply explode, like tank now, and then gone. He then shifted to a second target, firing the other missile, which departed the tube and then went no further thanks to a rocket engine failure . By this time the tank's friend is realizing something is up and is drawing down on the Bradley. The Bradley cuts loose with as much 25 MM AP as it can pump out, and after a short time, the tank just out and out explodes. In short order the Iraqi tanks are all destroyed from M3 or M1 fire, and they take a pause to collect prisoners, reload and refit. Absolutely full of himself, the Bradley's gunner pops the hatch to survey his two tank kills. Then he spots something. Strung across the front of his Bradley is a TOW guidance wire. What had actually happened to the second tank was the Bradley's wingman had fired a TOW literally over the frontal slope, right by the turret, before continuing on to the Iraqi tank. Some of the other guys I worked with talked about ripping up T-55s and derivatives with 25 MM, but consensus seems pretty much if you've got something labeled "Anti-tank guided missile" failing to use it on a tank is a bit of a mistake.

One final addendum: There's a big disconnect between things that should be done vs can be done here. Putin would love to put the Mediterranean in lockdown, mine the entrance of Norfolk, put Spetznaz in the halls of congress to force the US government to surrender Alaska back to the Russians, but the key to strategy is identifying what you need to accomplish, and your limitations to accomplishing those goals. A US landing in France in 1943 was technically possible, the equipment existed, the men were around, but given the inexperinence, limitations on existing landing equipment and logistics it ultimately was taken off the table until much later when those limitations had been much better mitigated. It didn't matter that a second front right away, and attacking on the most direct route to Berlin was something very smart to do to end World War Two, what mattered was those objectives could not be accomplished with the tools at hand. Limiting or preventing a US build up of forces would be something the Russians would like to do, but it is something their Navy cannot do in its current state. Even in some fantastical Charge of the Light Brigade in which anything that can sail is sortied to do battle with the West, fully knowing it's going to die nobly, the damage done to Russia will outweigh the damage done to NATO, and even worse has very doubtful prospects of accomplishing even modest goals against shipping or major strategic assets. We're looking at a battleship Yamoto sort of situation, overtly a powerful, potent weapons system capable of doing great damage if launched against an enemy fleet. However when it met its fate it did so deprived of the aviation it needed to survive, against an enemy with much greater battlefield awareness, with a massive qualitative edge. It was a stupid choice that simply added to the losses of the Japanese. As the case is the Japanese sort of were going for the dying with nobility sort of warplan which is its own discussion, but unless the Russians become fatalistic suicide warriors, tying those red and orange ribbons around their heads before crash-diving MIG-29s into advancing US tanks, I see the Russians more likely to look out to the sea, and the odds, mutter something about "the old days" before surrounding their ports with S-300s and S-400s, and planning for having nuclear carriers in 2067.

This would appear to be a moment of unhingedness. You keep floating your credentials like they're especially relevant. I really mean the next bit in the least insulting way possible: A. I am a 8 year veteran of active service in several ABCTs. I have done time in both the Cavalry and Armor communities including Company Command. I served both in Iraq and Korea which gives me a modestly rounded perspective on both insurgency and high intensity conflict. I am also currently serving at the Brigade Staff level for a National Guard SBCT. I have degrees in both Political Science with an emphasis in international relations, and just a general purpose history one too. I've been playing wargames since the very first Close Combat came out, and I still play a fair amount, including some actual boring for reals tabletop with tiny painted tanks games. I think I have some grasp on strategy, how the US intends to fight a groundwar, and I am at the least, a semi-educated professional on what Russian military behavior, capabilities and I think thanks to my almost biological compulsion to fight in the Fulda Gap, a pretty good understanding of who the Soviets were, vs who the Russians are. B. Duchess is from what I know of him: i. A graduate of a military type academy ii. A Naval Aviator, which comes with a lot more schooling than "turn this plane on and go places" iii. Might outrank me given some of the references he's made iv. Also does Naval wargaming. v. Assumption: watches Archer. Good taste in humor. In that regard, for a game that is largely oriented on land warfare, on this forum he is likely our best Navy expert on the forum. C. Sburke seems pretty smart. I've got no professional background on him. Seems to hate pretty hard on Putin, but his writing indicates a level of education. D. Currahee is a military college student which gives him some professional education, but by golly seems like he's got enough wargaming under his belt. E. Vladimir is a former Russian paratrooper, and a pretty strong advocate of Russian capabilities. We're all in loose agreement that the scenarios you're presenting are unrealistic. If we had some sort of crazy groupthink going on, that we all worked in the same basement at the pentagon, authored a report together, were all graduates from the USAF academy and stewed in the same bizzaro airpower pot etc I think your one man stand would have at least some validity, but at the least we are all equally, if not more educated, experienced, or realistic than you're being, and it is frankly getting a little old to be told we're wrong by someone who cannot be bothered to count submarines or explain their logic beyond not wanting to be Saddam. So here's a few quick nuggets, then I'm going to consider this matter settled: Re: Ignoring History Not wanting to be on the receiving end of History Repeating is a valid point. However your logic is flawed in which history. Worse than Saddam in 1991 where he let US Forces build up and crush him, the resumption of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, Pearl Harbor, and September 11th all graphically demonstrated how to turn Americans from ambivalent about international involvement and military conflict, to just short of putting heads on pikes and marching on a holy war to lay waste to their assailant. If there was one truism beyond never starting a land war in Asia, it is never explode Americans on their home soil/kill Americans in general. This is not World War Two or Three, even avoiding port strikes, given the state of global trade and use of commercial ships to move military hardware, it's going to be hard to tell if this is a container ship heading to Lisbon with a load of ipod cables, or it's some mix of munitions, armor, and energy drinks for 2-1 ABCT gunning for Antwerp. Sink enough ipod cables, or engage enough cruise ships and it's going to become World War Three very quickly. Re: Sacrifice The Russian military has no capability to rebuild major surface combatants. This is a simple reality, the infrastructure does not exist, nor does the money. If the Russians were willing to trade away their surface fleet today, it would be for no Navy in the future. Again this is not World War Three wherein you just have to win at the finish and you're set for life, in the event of the sort of conflict you're describing it would likely continue well past the destruction of those assets (thus yielding control of the oceans to the west), or will certainly be revisited down the road. This makes little sense to virtually anyone given that it leaves Russia open to carrier air raids, a near total embargo, and seeing as we've gone beyond regional and into global conflict, allowing for a build up that frankly would make the 1991 one look like a hasty collection of odds and ends.

The impression of the Russian Navy as weak relates to: 1. How much smaller and less capable it is post-Soviet Union 2. While the Russian Navy is capable of missions, it is burdened by a very bad readiness rate for crews and vessels. This is compounded by a mission set and doctrine that still fits a much better funded, larger force. The Kuznetsov itself is a prime example of this, as designed it is an ocean going force projection tool, but in reality it does neither especially well, but at great economic cost in proportion to that utility.