panzersaurkrautwerfer
-
Posts
1,996 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
31
Posts posted by panzersaurkrautwerfer
-
-
They're great actually, just no beards. Mustaches to the corner of the mouth? Great*! But more than that is as far as I can tell not done outside of SOF dudes. I have to throw that caveat in simply because for all I know FOB Roberts in Afghanistan ran out of razors for several weeks. I do know I was clean shaven every day in Iraq, and I've policed up my mustache hairs using the exhaust from my tank to keep the water in my shave cup from freezing**
It's your mod man, and what you've put out is great stuff. Just letting you know beards aren't quite right.
(Also Sergeant Majors, both Gunnery and Command types all come from the same place as far as I can tell)
*Ancient tanker tradition: Annoying infantry Command Sergeant Majors by growing our mustaches to the literal exact definition of regulation.
**I was just standing behind the tank. The smarter way to do this is get one of the 7.62 NATO ammo cans, remove the lid (the hinge is open, so opening the lid and putting it to one side removes the whole assembly), stick the lid into the grill behind the exhaust while the tank is spooling up in the morning so it makes a shelf. Then fill the can with water, and place on the ammo can lid. After a few minutes the water will be comfortably warm thanks to the heat from the gas turbine, being transmitted through the metal sides of the ammo can. You may now shave in comfort at -4 degrees.
-
I guess that thé fact that the BMPs are moving and the Bradley is not negates their spotting bonus provided by the panoramic sight and also their crew is green and regular and the Bradley is vétéran. I'll lose one but the other will kill it.Yeah that'll do it. Also keep in mind the Bradley has an independent optic for the commander and the ability to slew the turret to whatever he's looking at, so while the gunner is shooting the first BMP, there's a decent chance that unless the second BMP is shooting fast, the Bradley might just get both of them.
-
Police them moostaches!
VS-17 addendumNow that I think about it, the tape itself is legitimate, but the tape would be applied around the sides like a picture frame. No need to actually change it unless you really want to/are not busy effectively reskinning every object in the game and making it more awesome.
-
Lizardian Vampires are great at cleaning up nuclear fallout so it seems legit.
-
I'd just call it an "HR" myself.
General McMaster is awesome. Beyond his battlefield record his tankers and scouts loved him (as a Regimental Commander as that was the vintage of guys I was dealing with. I can hardly tell you what my first two Brigade Commanders looked like, let alone express any sort of affection for them), and he has a reputation for saying what's right vs what's "right" if you get my drift.
Not to mention the whole 73 Eastings thing.
-
I wonder what an M1A2 commander would say...That a two man crew is stupid and asking for trouble.
Even with advanced optics, the gunner is basically fixating on shooting once a target is engaged. Having a separate tank commander, especially one with his own advanced optics means that instead of "spot target, shoot target, spot target, shoot target" each of those steps are happening at the same time, the commander is finding a target or if needs be maneuvering the tank in the wider sense (or imagine, you tell your driver to move to that there berm and get in a hull down position. He's smart enough to pick his own spot on the berm, and select a position that'll be hull down, but he doesn't really have the situational awareness to do much else, and driving a tank is a simple job, but it's one that requires a fair amount of attention to do).
Which is to say any two man tank assuming technological parity will be much slower to find targets, and will have generally poor awareness of what's going on around it.
The only crewman I consider up for debate is the loader, as clearly he adds a lot of size to the tank, and all the "life support" requirements of a vehicle by a fair bit, however human loader performance is still on par if not better than autolaoders for speed, and the third set of eyes and hands in the turret makes managing the tank, both fighting, and out of contact a lot easier.
I'd almost advocate for just having a fourth crewman autoloader or no because of their utility for things that weren't loading.
-
When the US cranks out another MBT they'd better name it after General McMaster. Can't think of a better candidate.
-
n fact Russian kit has a very good reputation for doing “what it says on the tin...” as we say in the UK these daysI'm not really trying to be antagonistic, but I would qualify that with "it does what it says on the tin if you hold it right, and it's not a day ending in "y" or "in the strictest technical sense that labeling a day optic with a decal that says "night sight" does make it technically a night sight, but it doesn't make it a very good one"
All the Russian hardware I saw generally did what it was supposed to, just with appalling quality and shoddy worksmanship. Maybe it's better now, but it is the same companies doing it since the stuff I handled was cranked out, so perhaps not.
Granted it was mostly infantry gear, but I expected "rugged and simple" not "did something just fall off? I think something just fell off"
Also
BTW The Economist Intelligence Unit rates the Russian education system ahead of the the US, Sweden, Israel, Norway and many others. No point arguing with me about it, just Google it and do your own research. Every year they produce a table that tries to take in full range of measures, Pisa is just one, and Russia does OK and is not declining at all. Compared with western countries education wise.then
BTW.. I am not being rude, but don’t like political discussion on the net, the pub is for that, too easy to get the tone wrong. So will not respond. The Economist and Financial Times are as hostile to Russia and Putin as Neo-Cons but... they don’t fiddle facts. They are also smart when it comes to collecting and evaluating data. If they rate Russia as number 13 in the world for educational outcomes ahead of most western nations, it likely they are correct. They will have known it would be controversial and double checked. Given they measures they are using. They may be wrong, but the default is that they are not.RUSSIA IS SUPERIOR BUT I AM NOT GOING TO BE POLITICAL SO I WILL NOT TALK ABOUT THE FACT THEY ARE SUPERIOR. ALLOW ME TO INSERT SOMETHING ABOUT HOW SMART RUSSIANS ARE INTO A TOPIC ABOUT PUFF THE MAGIC RUSSIAN TANK THAT IS TOTALLY REAL AND MY BEST FRIEND YOU JUST CANT SEE HIM.
I like the UN's education index. They're not trying to sell me something
Additionally can we just have one Armata thread? It seems to be the pattern that RT publishes how Aramatatata will eat all the American babies from 10 KM while jumping a ditch and someone sees fit to post another thread because we cannot possibly have heard of this tank that is the promised one instead of simply adding to the existing half dozen Armata threads.
-
I have obtained early view of T-14 and M1A3 platforms.
Extensive testing indicates the M1A3 will defeat the T-14 under all circumstances.
Thus the Armata is terrible and should not be in the game, and we can stop having "ARAMATA IS COMING" threads.
Regards:
Your repitllian vampire overlords. -
Playing Poking the Bear with my TOW mounted Strykers I was able to take out multiple T 90s. Dicey though as if given half an opportunity the T90s would toast them. Narrow firing lanes, rear arc, T90 on the move, I had the odds decked in my favor, but still risky.One of the scenarios at Cavalry Leader's Course is conducting a Squadron Screen against an Iranian division level attack using Strykers. The whole thing is an exercise in "What sort of idiot sends Strykers to a high intensity conflict?" Even against earlier model tanks you're still really needing to leverage the heck out of standoff, mobility, and terrain to really get any mileage out of your Stryker ATs (the IBCT scenario at least, had the diginity to be a COIN-centric route recon). TOW is a very capable system, but ATGM carriers across the board really need to have luck and good terrain on their side against tanks.
-
Russia has a history of breaking the mold in armor tech. They should not be underestimated.Last Russian tank I'd call ground breaking was the T-64. It's been a spell.
Sure, we can mock the Russians for their blister but lets remember the US's ability to stay on-time, on-budget and within spec is not exactly sterling either. There's supposedly an *M1A3* out there somewhere that weighs tens tons less than M1A2. Theoretically to be fielded within CMBS timeframe though not so much as a notional drawing of the thing has appeared in public.True, but in no way is the US military claiming it's the be all end all tank that will be in service in less than two years without anyone having actually see it for reals (I believe there was some years ago a "2017" date associated with it, but it's long since slid past that).
-
Provided for plow tank pornography purposes:
Enjoy the wicked sweet early 90's VHSness. Delete all references to CEVs, and consolidate the plow/MICLIC/lane marking roles into the ABV and it all works more or less the same.
-
Yeah, looking at how the Abrams naming mod went, while cool, you will for sure have multiple tank 212s. This isn't as big of a deal with gun tube names as you need to get close for those, but tactical numbers it'll be super-obvious.
Perhaps you could choose from a series of divisions, and have seperate files for different divisions? I get the impression it would be uncommon to see T-90s from different divisions in the same BTG, so giving us the option to have a mix of one discrete division's markings and unmarked in a series of mods vs one unified mod that gives our Battalion a mix of markings from several divisions.
Good mod though, the dark green makes it all look aggressive, and the modernized cold war stuff looks less tired and more like it's part of 2017.
-
Aha, let us know more.
Dunno. There's equal evidence the Armata's armor is made from only the finest cheeses, and it is armed with phased plasma cannons. When we see it we can all talk about it, but right now? Thing might actually be a battlemech for all we actually know about it.
If Russia do not deliver on this tankit will make them look at bit meh lol
They kinda dont need that look right now.
Something will show up to the parade. It's just a question of it it's:
1. An operational vehicle
2. Actually the final model of the Armata or a prototype
3. Is actually connected to Aramata at all (so say, a super-sexy plywoodium turret over a dressed up T-90 hull built explicitly to show an "Armata" at the parade, while option two would be one of the actual prototypes)
4. It's not going to be covered from skirt to commander's MGs in tarps for secrecy's sake.
We're too close to the release date for out and out nothing to show up, unless this is just part of a Putinplot to rage-fire the current generation of tank designers and production companies for incompetence and start anew.
-
I'm really not insane. Promise. I just noticed the second file after I changed some names, and noticed Dildo was still in the rotation.
edit:
-
Re: BMPT
Like how CMSF had a module that included Syrian T-90s and BMP3s, perhaps a "Defense Spending Gone Wild!" module would be fun. Toss in the BMPT, throw in the Armata with hopefully what we'll know about it in a few months/years, US F-35 CAS, etc, etc etc. All assets that are right now dubious/interesting but rejected for inclusion in one off scenarios.
Re: Mine clearing
Mine clearing tanks I'm pretty sure will be included in the next module since they were already added to the cmbn vehicle pack. They are pretty much a must have for any serious attempt at depicting modern combat with extensive minefields deployed. One of the reasons why giving up AP mines (Ottawa treaty) is not actually that big of a deal is that eastern mechanized forces are able to clear AT mines with plows and rollers basically from the go. From all the materiel I have read regarding soviet/russian mechanized doctrines, a mechanized spearhead company would be assigned one or more engineering tanks so that the force can quickly push through encountered mine fields. These special tanks are important part of the eastern doctrine of attacking from the march formations without any significant pause to the operations.Most armor formations have some sort of mine clearing tools. The US Armor company for instance, has a plow per platoon, and a mine roller per company. In practice the plows are simply kept attached to the tanks (it impacts fuel consumption, but otherwise tank is as mobile as its peers), although the roller is only fitted in preparation for deliberate breaches as it impacts the tank's performance significantly. For a breach operation, super-historical like 80's-90's there'd be CEVs, dozers and towed line charges assigned to the breach company, but more recently the a lot of these capabilities are rolled into the ABV vehicle (mineplow or dozer blade, lane marking equipment, and two line charges under armor).
I'd be thrilled if CMBS let me plan out combined arms breaches, with all the associated tools.
-
It even had SAR missions you fly in support, right? Which was rare, don't remember any other sim with thoseIt did! I remember a very tense mission fending off waves of Iranians to get a CH-53 on ground to scoop up some SEALs too. Was great. By the time I was done was black on anything but 30 MM, but the SEALs made it.
Same deal with flying Blackhawks. Good times.
But real men started with Gunship and Gunship 2000 from Microprose back in the day
I played Gunship 2000, but I was way too young to get it. My elite squadron of "flying Snacks" did not benefit much from my skills, or spelling.
-
Firstly:
Great work. I'm actually going to have to use Strykers for a change.
Secondly:
Did you notice in your tank name file you've got "Dildo" in for both file #4 and #18 I believe? No major nuisance, it just explained to me how I had a platoon of Dildos (I've since replaced them in my files, but for others if you too, have an excess of Dildos, that's where to find them)
-
The Russians don't actually use the BMPT. It was trialed but not purchased
-
Haha. Ha.
When we know what it actually looks like/has on it/there's something more than CG renderings it might be worth thinking about. Emphasis on might.
-
Judging my your apparent reactivity to my post, I appear to have struck a nerve or maybe nerve plexus. To characterize me as a "man who thinks tanks are aircraft carriers" is pretty snarky, and "thread-Stalin" was even worse. The latter wasn't wry humor, for it "bit" the instant I read it.You did compare the ability of the Soviet military in 1980's to conduct anti-shipping warfare to the ability of the Russian Federation to conduct CAS over hostile airspace in 2017. You also announced it was your duty to bring a thread that was pleasantly derailed back to quite honestly a line of discussion that was pretty well tapped out.
So yeah, apples and monkeys, thread-Stalin.
Anyway, so now I'm bored, annoyed, and I AM FILLED WITH THE ANGER AND FURY OF A'TOMIC POM*
You did a bang up job of misconstruing and distorting a whole series of things I said. I never said the US IADS is all, to the contrary, I depicted it as subject to multiple forms of attack, including SpecOps. I pointed out, in instance after instance, where the vulnerabilities lay and what the Russians had the wherewithal to do, having very carefully thought through what they'd be facing. I then essentially argued that a variety of frictions (ECM, anti AWACS and anti Patriot weapons, OPFOR SpecOps vs Patriot, AWACS and such, poor US MCRs and more) would significantly degrade expected US combat performance, in turn making Russian aircraft more survivable. That would likely reflect positively in the Russian CAS/BI side of things.Re: SOF
There's practical limitations on just what they can do. Russian SOF is not some sort of collection of ubermench able to accomplish any mission, any time without raising an eyebrow. In a practical sense given the overt, and high intensity nature of the conflict we can assume the level of force protection is to put it mildly, "harsh and draconian." Preventing observation of these high value assets will be a priority, let alone keeping folks back and away from the launchers. Counting on a SOF campaign to do anything but knock off the odd launcher is fool hardy and the Russians are not at all that stupid.
This isn't 1988 man. There's no ultra deep cover Spetnaz company waiting by Ramstein to conduct a suicide attack with the Red Army Faction to knock out as many fighters as possible. In talking about conducting SOF missions outside of the Ukraine, it's a game Russia will be hard pressed to play, simply put if it starts running craziness in NATO countries, it's inviting effectively like escalation into Russia, which is damage it cannot afford to absorb (Again, how hard would it be to send a few dozen Chechen fighters via funding through Saudi Arabia with Iglas in hand to camp out below any airport/air base?).
There's also a practical limit on how many special forces units can be deployed against targets (just in terms of teams available, and able to effectively blend in), mobility (likely restricted to foot movement, full scale war will doubtlessly bring a curfew and civilian traffic will be restricted.
Which really gets to the point of we can expect an effect, but again, an effect to the point where it strongly influences the ability of NATO to the degree it negates a nearly three to one advantage in airframes, literally dozens of AWACs and other radar platforms, the 1,000+NATO available PATRIOT missile launchers (again, they're not all going to the Ukraine, but it provides a number to draw from, and PATRIOT can be air transported pretty easily compared to other hardware) is just daft.
The FRG may be gone, but that in no way invalidates the point I was making about AWACS coverage.But it does. The loss of one AWACS would hurt, but it's not going to remove the capability. The number of AWACS available also means you could afford to have more than two E3s in the air at once, say some sort of two forward one back setup. It also handily negates your earlier statement about airframe/crew fatigue, they're not going to run into the ground with that many available platforms. Two AWACS over West Germany reflects the 80's availability of those platforms. It's not 1988 anymore, and the capability has increased to the degree where your point is moot.
I do NOT share the views of some here who think the A-10 wouldn't be survivable in the campaign we're discussing. A-10s have flown as many as seven sorties/day in combat, too. Consequently, I'm very much of the same opinion regarding the SU-25's prospects. In one case during that Georgia business, a Russian Su-25 took an engine hit (SAM blew up under the plane) from an SA-6/SA-11 (don't recall which) SAM which destroyed one engine outright, but thanks to armor around the engines, the other one was fine, and the plane got home. Any such hit on a single engine plane is goodbye plane.A-10 has a role, but its after the Russian Air Force has been put to bed, and SEAD/DEAD has done its job. Same deal with the SU-25, but there's no reasonable observer who believes the Russian Air Force can take on the NATO air element, to the degree it prevents the NATO CAP from being able to operate freely above friendly forces.
Additionally how many sorties did that damaged SU-25 go on to fly the next day? I rather imagine it was difficult with significant parts of the airplane missing. A plane that badly damaged is effectively a self-conducting downed pilot rescue and little more. Even if hundreds of SU-25s are limping home (this is doubtful. The Georgian example made it home because once it left the target area it was safe from enemy fire, over the Ukraine the SU-25 would have to dodge the pursuing fighters), holed by various hits, they're effectively "killed" for the purposes of follow on operations and likely the remainder of the campaign.
And how many here are blithely prepared to sign up for the "Russians won't be able to fly CAS" while at the same time proclaiming over on CMRT how the Russians beat the Germans at the operational and operational strategic levels? Do the chess playing Russian strategists now suddenly revert to tiddly winks just because it's air warfare and not ground combat? Somehow, that doesn't seem like a safe bet at all.We aren't talking about just superior technology dude. We're talking about better planes, we're talking about better pilots, we're talking about three times as many airframes, cutting edge sensors, advanced command and control, all conducted above highly advanced friendly air defense. If it was just one for one each side had 200 planes, but the US had 200 F-22s and the Russians 200 MIG-29s, it'd be a rough go, but certainly some CAS would leak through just by saturation.
But to the degree the Russians are outnumbered, to the degree they are behind technologically and training wise....god. It'd be a bad day to be a Russian pilot.
Which goes to the REDFOR planning cycle. They're not going to commit horribly outnumbered, out gunned, and out-manned platforms to knock out a few tanks here and there. Giving up a few Bears or Backfires to kill a carrier is an effective trade, carriers are important. Giving up a four strike fighter element for a chance at a tank or two, the math just doesn't work. The Russians only have so many planes, and they cannot afford to fritter them away by hoping THIS SU-24 isn't going to be picked up by AWACS while somewhere over Russia before catching an AIM-120 after crossing the border. Further any fighters expended trying to make a hole through CAP is one less fighter to keep the few thousand NATO strike capable fighters away from bombing the tar out of Russian forces.
The actual value of the Russian Air Force would likely be closer to the whole "fleet in being" because that's the only way it survives the war without getting its heart ripped out over the Ukraine.
. Create a corridor through which to ram further forces to wreck the SAM defenses and create a secure corridor through which to move the strike force proper.All well and good, but how fast do you think it'd take follow on NATO CAP to arrive? Given the number of AWACS, and NATO interceptors, any hole will last for a few minutes, and only be created at major losses. This was viable when the air forces were basically 1:1 in number, or Russian superiority, as losing some number of planes to secure a local advantage was sensible. But in a fight where NATO has vast superiority of numbers and systems it's just feeding the NATO kill count. Make a hole, AWACS sends more fighters to fill the hole. They have more fighters and more capable systems, Ivan's skeletal remains are collected up by a MIA recovery team in 2034 that's working with permission from Kiev. His MIG-29 is in pieces, not over the Russian Army, A-10s have party funtime in late August because there's no Russian fighters left to challenge them.
Third and fourth order effects.
and they can do it from standoff ranging from minor to several hundred klicks.Which gets to the point that building a new SHORAD system is moronic now.
Simply put Russian CAS may get some hits in. But it will also almost certainly die in the process. And Russians are not stupid enough to throw away their platforms and pilots to bag a couple of tanks.
*I discovered the PX sells rip-its. My Grandfather picked up a strange affection for spam after his years in the Marines, it appears I've acquired at least an occasional nostalgia for terrible energy drinks after my years in the army.
-
To me there's two tiers of graphics:
1. Is this game a cutting edge FPS? Then it'd better look good.
2. Is this game anything else? Graphics better not hurt my eyes, and should portray information effectively.
BF stuff doesn't hurt my eyes, and the information is well displayed.
-
We were talking about something cool, and then nooooooo, another student of military history knows better.
Just in short, I do enjoy how impenetrable Russian IADS is, and how NATO will struggle with it, but supremely unstealthy last generation Russian fighters will zip on through NATO/Ukrainian IADS and kill all the mens.
Carrying on in good order though!
This thread, methinks, very much needs to be put back on the track. Am not going to attempt to respond by individuals, so am going to address this by specific issueWho died and appointed you to be thread-Stalin? It was off track and we were happy there talking about much more relevant topics like how cool Longbow 2 was.
Re: IADS examples.
Super-off topic! The question was never "will NATO bomb the Russians?" because the answer to that is fairly well agreed by all parties to be "Yes, eventually." The million dollar question was if the Russians could bomb NATO.
And apparently given your able defense of large SAMs and the 2S6, the answer is "no, all Russian pilots will die shrieking in their canopies as they are violated from every direction by PATRIOT and 2S6 fire because IADS is the end all"
However I do not think that was your intent, so carrying on in good order.
Effectively the realistic outcome of any ADA component is to raise the difficulty of bombing something, but like all defenses, given effort and proper equipment they can be breached. Anyone with a basic understanding of military workings understands defense is the stronger form of military operations, but it is never the decisive one (or, even if the defensive fight was important, what decided the matter was the follow-on offensive, or threat of same no matter how anemic it was). The Israelis had to suffer through the slings and arrows of both first generation ATGMs and SAMs once they'd moved beyond babby's first missile stage. However, as time and time again has proven, the IADS builds complexity into the operation, but to act as if they were the be all end all is a shallow reading of military history. Hanoi still rocked with bomb blasts, Israeli jets still snake and naped their way across the desert. Like all defensive, reactive ways of warfare, they're only good if you can follow up the breathing room they've given you.
Which gets to relative strength.
Here's what the Russian Air Force can muster circa around now:
830 "fighter" type planes (includes multi-roles and assumes the Russians would potentially commit MIG-31s offensively)+60 additional PAK-FAs maybe+100 claimed MIG-35 starting initial small number service claimed 2016
535 "Strike" type planes (planes with unambigiously strike-only role, chiefly SU-25 and SU-24)+89 claimed SU-34s
For amusement:
16 A-50 AWACS type planes
19 IL-78 aerial refueling planes+31 on order
Here's what the USAF brings to the fight:
1,473 "fighter" type planes (F-16, F-15s minus Es, F-22, F-35s in inventory)+1763 F-35 on order)
534 "Strike" type planes (F-15E, A-10C)
32 E-3 Sentry (AWACS)
16 JSTARs (Sort of AWACS for ground)
417 refueling planes (KC-135, not bored enough to look up KC-46 procurement)
USMC could bring if invited
229 Fighters (F/A-18s, to be replaced by F-35s)
99 Strike (AV-8, also to be replaced by F-35s)
USN if they get sick of the ocean
998 fighters (F/A-18A/B/C/D, and F/A-18E/Fs)
117 Dedicated SEAD (EF-18G)
Here's what our special relationship would show up with should Her Majesty deem fit:
125 Fighters (Typhoon)
102 Strike (Tornado)
6 AWACS (E-3 Sentry as operated by RAF)
Deutchland
109 Fighters (Typhoons, to eventually become fleet of 143)
116 Strike (Tornadoes)
Merde. It is time for zee French:
135 Fighters (Rafales, remaining Mirage 2000s in fighter role)+37 additional Rafales if the Navy shows up.84 Strike (Mirage 2000s in strike units)
4 AWACs (French owned E-3s)
Za naszą i waszą wolność!
80 Fighters (MIG-29, F-16)
23 Strike (SU-22)
"I swear guys! THIS time we're going to pick a side and stick with it!"
76 Fighters (Typhoons)
134 Strike (Tornadoes, AMX International)
Ukraine:
50 Fighters (operational and on hand, others broken/in storage)
15 Strike (remaining operational SU-25s)
NATO
18 AWACS (E-3s "owned" by NATO)
These numbers:
Total commitment by all parties involved. Obviously not the case in event of war, each of these parties to include Russia will be forced to commit platforms to protecting other fronts It's safe to assume this will equally effect all countries involved, and NATO is much better able to spread forces around at this point.
The only numbers that include F-35s are the USAF simply because I got bored of adding those in quickly
Russian "new" planes only count confirmed orders.
Only USAF tankers are counted, again this is a boredom thing on my end.
Russian and USAF strategic bombers are excluded. It's doubtful any of those assets would be used for CAS, and very likely, at all for fear of causing some sort of "is this B-1 heading towards the Russian border dropping bombs on a bridge, or is it carrying nukes?" situations.
This excludes a large number of NATO countries. I simply stuck to countries we've gotten some indication might show up in CMBS.
You can see the massive disparity in air power, capabilities, and numbers. There are more USAF F-16s alone than all fighters in the Russian inventory, and significant numbers (nearly 50%) of Russian strike fighters are SU-25s, which given how everyone's crowing how dead the A-10 would be over Ukraine, I think it's safe to say they're not any more likely to survive terribly long either. Additionally the 60 or so AWACS type platforms vs the 16 or so A-50s is a massive disparity in surveillance and command and control capability. And bluntly russian SOF can only get lucky so many times, while risking the fact that "Chechen separatists" may suddenly appear in western Russia and do the same before disappearing to never be heard from again.
Some more random one off key points:
What are the MCRs (Mission Capable Rates) for the F-22A under high sortie conditions?Who knows, there's only about 180ish of them I think, there's going to be a TON of other high end fighters in the air though, and the stealth isn't going to be as important for CAP over friendly lines.
If memory serves, the wartime scenario over West Germany envisioned only two E-3As up, covering the entire region.If memory serves, West Germany isn't a country any more, and the hypothetical war of 1988 is not the hypothetical war of 2017.
My section head, Bill Knight, ran OPFOR--Tu-22M BACKFIRE & SOJs (Stand Off Jammers); his boss, Dave Spencer, had the FAD for a BLUFOR CVBG (carrier battle group). Site of battle? Navy tactical simulator in Monterey, California. Each side had its own war room, and there was a separate Control room where all was known. The stakes? A good bottle of wine and gloating rights on Monday. Event was part of a threat conference the weekend immediately before Monday.Irrelevant to a painful degree. Finding a tank company gone to ground is something much harder to do than finding a CVBG. While standoff is going to be important, the defender's ability to acquire Russian aircraft will be much greater than Russian aviation's ability to acquire NATO ground forces. Simple reality of finding a plane in the cold blue sky over a tank on the cluttered green earth.
Summing up, I believe the expectation that the US would almost immediately own the skies over Ukraine to be on the scale somewhere from delusional clear up to clinically insaneSays the man who thinks tanks are aircraft carriers.
As I have shown there is a MASSIVE difference in NATO capabilities and Russian capabilities. And we know unambigiously USAF/USN/USMC avaitions, and several of their NATO counterparts fly significantly more than their potential Russian opponents. 830 Russian fighters to the 3,312 fighters NATO could call on, even assuming mirror capabilities is simply not a fight the Russians are going to be able to manage. And ESPECIALLY something the Russians will not be able to manage over PATRIOT (from various NATO allies and US Army sites), MANPADs, Ukrainian ADA, etc, etc, etc. The idea an SU-25 is going to live long enough to make a pass is possible, leakers can happen. The idea it's not going to be part of his posthumous medal for valor is positive madness.
Even assuming leakers, the odds that an SU-25 or SU-24 is going to get over US forces, make more than one pass, and survive to return to friendly lines is even more insane. With Russian IADS, it's going to be hard for US forces to bomb Russian forces as much as we'd like. Russian strike pilots would do well to jettison their landing gear on takeoff to save weight, because god knows they wouldn't be needing them again if they make it to the FEBA. The war in the Ukraine is not a war of national survival. The Russians would not be desperate enough to simply throw away aircraft they cannot afford to lose by the dozens to achieve tactical level strikes (especially considering each of those 830 fighters that follows the SU-25s it was trying to protect crashing to earth is one less fighter to stave off the 991 dedicated strike craft+ 3000ish now bomb carrying fighters from NATO).
Given this force, this literal swarm of current generation airframes, something like a yankee imperialist 2S6 is a stupid, stupid, stupid waste of money. We're best served by the might of our winged bretheren, and saving our pennies to make sure those flyboys get all the crew rest they need instead of pretending it's still 1989 and paying for Chaparral 2 or Son of Linebacker.
-
I can't see the average Russian buying into whatever promises he's given. Nor have his actions contributed to the dream of a Russian resurgence - yet. The populace at large has long been cynical of government by nature, don't you think? And a change would bring "reformers" not hardliners, and maybe that's all wishful thinking.He's telling them they're right to be deeply offended at the west, and after a long stretch of Russia being weak, he's offering them a "Strong" Russia.
It's confirmation bias at this point. He's telling them he's making Russia strong. Aramatas will be trotted out (although I think they might be less operational than let on), Ukrainians shot, NATOs ignored, Russia must be strong now....while totally ignoring the basket case economy, reliance on effectively western goodwill for prosperity and a lack of meaningful foreign policy except for flipping the west the bird and cuddling up with despots. But hey let's talk about those sweet guns and that butter that is totally coming one sunny day!
US army
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
3rd ACR also performed wonders in Tal Afar for what was supposed to be a unit designed for tank on tank open warfare. There's a somewhat infamous moment where then Colonel McMaster used some very colorful expressions to describe his intent to use his tank's main weapons, permission from Baghdad or not because it was his prerogative as a commander over the objections of the all-Iraq Corps level HQ. And Corps backed down.
He's got the same sort of reputation in the tanker realm of things as Chuck Norris has elsewhere.
If he was anything but one of the best officers in the Army his career would have been dead at Major. I had the pleasure of seeing him talk in person* on a few occasions and shaking the man's hand. I'm pretty cynical when it comes to senior officers and politicians, but he's one of the few that I saw both the officer and enlisted ranks have any faith in.
He is shorter than you'd expect though.