Moscow Victory Day (70 Years) Parade

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Again, it depends on the era.  The gap between M48/60, Centurion and T-55/62 was either non-existent, or narrow enough that it was mostly a crew delineation between victor and 'esploded.  The T-64 was a fair bit better than the M60 (although again the gap narrowed with the A3 and such), and Leo 1 variants, and we can start a long argument with British people how the Chieftain stacked up.  There really should have been a better, newer West German/US tank circa 1970 or so, but from 1970-1980 there was a bit of a capabilities gap in varying degrees.

[Stagler]

I think that all military analysts of the Cold War era did a great dis-service to America by consistently over-hyping the capability of the Soviet Military in order to line their own pockets with lucrative Defense Department (taxpayer funded) contracts.

 

I.e, the missile gap, the bomber gap, Soviet tank and aircraft superiority. It all turned out to be bunk. One case in point the Mig-25 hype job.

 

I do believe that's still happening

 

As far as tech int is concerned, its not all "bunk". You would be a fool to think so.

Weapon technical superiority still lies in the hands of the west, but belief that it its all "bunk" means people get their arses smacked and then cry when their have overstepped or overextended. Don't forget, this isn't some tin pot Iraq or Iran we are talking about here, where combined arms and mutual support was often literally just a pipedream.

There is a reason why we didn't go and **** about over Damascus a couple of years ago.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Stagler

[John Kettler]

Wicky,

 

Once again I see you've gone directly for my testicles, for which you seem to have an unhealthy attraction! Yet again, you have gone where you know perfectly well I can't. Indeed, am explicitly forbidden to go. Since I've made this plain many times, and have asked you to refrain, in manners ranging from gently kind to fairly confrontational, to stop doing it, then this can't be accidental but deliberate on your part. By doing so you have revealed to everyone here three things: 1) your counterargument is so weak that you have to attack me, not the case I made in this Forum regarding the T-14 Armata; 2) you are deliberately baiting me, which is in the self-evident and forbidden under the Forum Rules, in the hope that I'll slip and get myself suspended or maybe even banned, and 3) your behavior toward me is ungentlemanly and boorish; that you in no way fight fair and that you perversely delight in hurting someone whom you have been told several times is seriously injured and that your attacks cause him great stress which is detrimental to his recovery. This is yet another effort to smear me, and a pretty desperate one at that. But since you brought up a forbidden subject, you may wish to consider this: The alphabet soup agencies are thoroughly familiar with everything I've written, all under my own name, else they wouldn't be doing their jobs. Yet the article with which you seek to slam me was written in 2002, as a duly credentialed reporter for a magazine, a cutting edge periodical with global circulation, and several of the efforts to bring me back in have occurred since the article which so inflames you was published. I simply looked at the claims that were made regarding certain imagery that was presented, then gave a highly informed view of what was shown to the attendees of the conference I was covering. I shall be fascinated to see whether you next argue that the military-intelligence community of this country is composed of incompetent dolts who don't know enough to screen against some nut job! Why, then, would they be interested in recruiting me, particularly considering that is but one of many hot topics I've written about? Finally, so there is absolutely no doubt in your, or anyone else's mind, on my position regarding the vicious attacks against me:

 

STOP ACTING LIKE A CHURLISH GIT AND BACK OFF!!!  Leave me in peace.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited May 11, 2015 by John Kettler

[Thewood1]

John, you have brought those things upon yourself.  All those things you posted have come back to haunt you.  You set yourself up for this kind of stuff.  You can't undo the internet and really wished you could think before you post.

[agusto]

@John:

 

The fact that you react the way you do to people revealing your "unconventional" views is one of the reasons they keep doing it. The other reason is to reduce the weight of your arguement by attacking your credibility in general (which is in no way ungentlemanly or boorish as you called it but a legitimate arguemental tactic).

 

Wicky,

 that you in no way fight fair and that you perversely delight in hurting someone whom you have been told several times is seriously injured and that your attacks cause him great stress which is detrimental to his recovery.

 

 

Trying to invoke pitty in order to keep people from legitimately attacking your credibility is usually an ineffective tactic and, given that this is arguement on the internet, quite pathetic and disproportional.

Edited May 11, 2015 by agusto

[John Kettler]

Stagler,

 

In the future, would you please not use an animated GIF which is so strobe-like? It not only pulls my eyes off the rest of what's in my FOV, but it hurts my brain, as does anything flashing at that rate. Am under doctor's orders to avoid strobes and such. Thanks!

 

Nidan1,

 

While it's known that the Pentagon, MoD and other militaries can and do use an inflated threat to justify and expand their defense budgets, the assessing of threats is far more complicated and nuanced than you might believe. By no means are all of those involved willing to sign up for the 10-foot tall opponent model. State is notorious for its resistance to anything and everything which would negatively impact diplomatic efforts. Nations often prefer not to have to deal with external threats because the desire is to shrink expenditures or fund social programs. The very way intelligence organizations perceive things differs, as often do the perceptual lenses through which information is first viewed, then interpreted. Is the source of the alarming report credible? Is there supporting evidence? What, if any, material in the literature of Country X supports the notion such a weapon is desirable? Does Country X have the Science & Technology base to build it? The materials? The manufacturing technology and skilled labor force? The oft staggering amounts of money?

 

There can be real value in understating a threat, if by doing so it prevents the exposure of a vulnerability which might otherwise jeopardize a program. I myself once investigated ECM issues regarding vulnerability of a certain US fighter radar. I got full cooperation from the owning service and was praised for my work by my managers, but when I raised the same issues regarding the missile, which my firm built and was an important product of the firm and vital to its user, not only did I get zero cooperation from the owning service, but I got called into my boss's office and was pointedly told "Neither we nor the Customer desire that you continue this line of inquiry." Just like that, my investigation was ended and I was assigned to something else? Why? I had uncovered a weapon program killing vulnerability! Later, there was apparently a crash get well program.

 

Likewise, the contractually approved threat was sometimes decades behind the real one, such that the far term threat projected threat weapon was, in fact, operational and had been for a very long time! We dealt with that problem by evaluating these so-called excursions to the baseline threat. While one set of officials reviewed our addressing the official threat, another set would come in, look at our excursion analyses, say little or nothing and go back home and feed our discoveries into developing a response to the true threat as fielded, and also what we saw coming. In 1980, the US had no real solution to the AS-4/KITCHEN supersonic cruise missile, a carrier eater in service since 1962! And it wasn't the nastiest weapon the Russians had, either, for carrier busting. Worse, in that same 1980s timeframe, we became aware the Russians were hard at work on an integrated anticarrier ballistic missile strike system, the Chinese version, thanks to lots of suddenly unemployed when Russia imploded Russian scientists and engineers, of which is the very scary DF-21.  

 

Within the US Intelligence Community there are terrible internecine wars waged over mere sentences in the N.I.E. (National Intelligence Estimate) and S.N.I.E. (Special National Intelligence Estimate). Here is an example in which the usually internal war was protractedly fought between the White House and multiple members of the Intelligence Community.Likewise, there was a whole different set of conflicts which arose over what to show and what to talk about when it came to inclusion in SOVIET MILITARY POWER. Each edition was chockfull of exactly the kinds of things I kept in my locked safe, in an entire complex protected by 10' high Cyclone fences, barded wire, armed guards and guard dogs. The struggle between agencies over the release of a SECRET/NOFORN/WNINTEL painting of the TYPHOON SSBN is just such a case in point. The very image itself, you see, revealed a great deal to the Russians about our level of understanding regarding the pride and joy of the Red Navy, a truly terrifying weapon so huge it was as long as the Washington Monument is tall and which could smite the US while securely ensconced in Russian waters.

 

The Missile Gap initially wasn't the product of deliberate deception as it was of very loud and public statements by Nikita Khrushchev that the Russians were "turning out missiles like sausages," coupled with an acute lack of US intelligence means to determine otherwise. The US was already running scared because Russia got the Bomb so suddenly, then followed up with the outright traumatic Sputnik satellite. It was Khrushchev who created the specter of mass produced ICBMs, and it was he who said before the world "We will bury you." This is why the US embarked on a truly massive ICBM and. later, complementary SLBM program. As a presidential candidate, John F. Kennedy knew there was no Missile Gap, for he had been briefed to that effect. It was a cynical and effective political move on his part to invoke it. 

 

Turning now to lower level matters, western analysts ands military officials should've seen the ATGM threat (see Wikis for listed weapons) coming. The AT-1 SNAPPER/3M6 Shmel first saw combat in the 1967 War, and the AT-3 SAGGER/9M14 Malyutka in Vietnam in 1972. In the latter case, not only did it take a significant toll, but it caused enough problems that the South Vietnamese military came up with the very tactics which ultimately defeated the SAGGER after the IDF's 190th Armored Brigade got savaged by it and massed RPGs during the Yom Kippur War while attacking as pure armor. Also, the Israelis attacking the crossings of the Suez Canal not only ran into these weapons, but at twice the expected quantity. Why? The Egyptians had stripped out the AT weapons of the next Army planned to cross ass the second echelon, in what proved to be a very effective defense of the all-important bridgehead! The fundamental problem with Arab armor lay not with the weapons, but with those manning and commanding them. Where these were were available, the Arabs could and did fight effectively, as seen in some IS-3M engagements vs IDF M48s, which had much better fire control, ROF and far better trained crews. You may also wish to note that whereas the IDF routinely up gunned and made other changes to captured T-54s and T-55s, it did nothing of the sort to captured T-62s and was happy to take all it could get. The Syrians mounted such a determined armored attack on the IDF opposing their assault into Israel there that the Israelis barely held. The desert, generally speaking, is on the flat side, so the squat vertical profiles of the tanks Russia supplied do apply to their usefulness there.

 

As for the MiG-25 FOXBAT, the US fundamentally misunderstood the aircraft, drew false conclusions about its speed based on runaway engines on untouchable recce variants used in the Middle East, and because mirror imaging was used, thought it was built the way we'd build a fighter. Which is why we built the revolutionary F-15 Eagle. The MiG-25 wasn't a fighter but a strategic interceptor designed to go out, find and kill the never built fleet of SAC B-70 high altitude supersonic strategic bombers. I read the two inch thick SECRET/NOFORN/WNINTEL technical exploitation of LT Belenko's FOXBAT, and it was one traumatic shock after another for those involved. Why? The US experts found the US not only got practically everything wrong regarding the plane, but it found the Russians had wholly unknown radar frequencies and even an additional fire control radar installed. The presumed lightweight structure was mostly steel, resulting in the discovery that this brick was propelled by engines of simply astounding thrust. 

 

panzersaukrautwerfer,

 

As I've said again and again, in oft excruciating detail, with full advantage of the pertinent threat assessments and US live fire tests, even the best of our 105 mm ammo couldn't defeat the frontline Russian tanks of 1985 in a frontal engagement at reasonable tactical distances, which I believe were 2000 meters. Your point about the unintended rough parity or even superiority of their tanks over ours at various times is well taken. They have consistently sought to overmatch what we had in gun power, as seen in the 90 mm of the M48 vs the 100 mm of the T-55, the 115 mm of the T-62 vs the 105 on up gunned M48s and standard M60, then onwards.

 

Thewood1,

 

It is very easy to take something some one has said, utterly deprive it of context, then use it attack someone absolutely known not to be allowed to defend himself regarding same and indeed explicitly prohibited from even mentioning the prohibited topic with which he is being so brutally cudgeled. It is dirty pool of the worst sort to do so. It is also true, though, that I've made my share of mistakes over the years, the product of memory and health issues, not, as is frequently asserted, deliberate efforts on my part to misinform and deceive. Have I taken controversial positions and said unpopular things elsewhere and here?  Sure, but I'm going about my lawful occasions here--while being subjected to all manner of nastiness, much of it strictly verboten under the Forum Rules. If you won't stand up for me as a fellow human being, then maybe you should stand up for the principles involved!

 

sburke,

 

The kind of money I was talking about was in 1989 dollars, not today's sad versions, and I honestly don't know what a typical Project budget was. It depended very much on the Project, staffing, duration, level and difficulty of effort, together with the even more vital issue of where the money to execute it was sourced. It was one thing if it came from the company itself, and quite another, and highly favored by management, if it could be done under reimbursable RDT&E or if the government funded it through, say, DARPA, Pentagon and service intel agencies or the CIA. A $250,00 budget in 1989 is almost half a million now ($467,000). IOW, not chicken feed! to give you a calibration point, as an MTS II, I was then making ~$40K/yr, plus benefits.

 

agusto,

 

It is very much a smear effort, and there are clearly defined rules regarding what constitutes permitted and accepted behavior here under the Forum Rules. Not only have I repeated called my attackers on their ongoing, deliberate violations of same, but so have other Members! This isn't one of those unfettered, anything is permitted Wild West boards, and were it, you would find me eminently capable of ripping my current persecutors to shreds. But as things stand, not only am I de facto muzzled, bound hand and foot, but am being subjected to ground and pound while being kicked in the head! If that constitutes your idea of a fair and reasoned debate, then perhaps it's time for you to reassess the very concept. I've been subjected to far nastier attacks than those here in other online locales, but there I was able to hit back--to such effect my attackers were never heard from again.

 

Those attacking me haven't done what I've done when it comes to threat assessment and military analysis. Since they can't gainsay me in that arena; can't challenge my track record of demonstrated excellence and expertise, they instead elect to walk the coward's path and seek to defeat my case here by injecting wholly extraneous matters from elsewhere into this discussion. They can't win their arguments directly, so they escalate laterally, go after me personally and do so, time and again, for years in some cases, in direct violation of not just the Forum Rules everyone here agreed to, but of simple human decency. If you wish to condone such things, be it on your head, then. Say the wrong thing, and you could just as easily find yourself their target. I'm not the only one ever to be assailed by them.  

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited May 11, 2015 by John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

As I've said again and again, in oft excruciating detail, with full advantage of the pertinent threat assessments and US live fire tests, even the best of our 105 mm ammo couldn't defeat the frontline Russian tanks of 1985 in a frontal engagement at reasonable tactical distances, which I believe were 2000 meters. Your point about the unintended rough parity or even superiority of their tanks over ours at various times is well taken. They have consistently sought to overmatch what we had in gun power, as seen in the 90 mm of the M48 vs the 100 mm of the T-55, the 115 mm of the T-62 vs the 105 on up gunned M48s and standard M60, then onwards.

 

One of the things that always struck me as odd was the insistence on using 2000 meters as a baseline for tank engagement.  The average tank vs tank fight in World War Two over literally the same terrain was something like 800 meters.  And the sightlines had not changed, although better optics and sensors allowed for an increased ability to acquire within that window, but speaking outside of the desert, your 2 KM ranges are limited.  And at closer ranges a lot of those 105 MM rounds were if not highly lethal, at least stood a decent chance at doing some damage.

 

Also given the reality that mover vs not mover engagements usually favor the not mover in terms of detection, it was likely you could have mitigated some of the armor with simply opening fire at closer ranges, or doing other nastiness to funnel the enemy (as Soviet optical/sensor systems of the day, and Russian systems of today are pretty far behind western systems).

 

115 mm is terribad though.  T-62 remains of all the Soviet era tanks, the consummate lemon by most accounts.  They're either not better enough to justify ditching T-55s, or were quickly surpassed anyway.  

[slysniper]

Oh my, John has now activated the button which forces him to try and show his intelligence, even though he has to admit his present mental state is nothing as compared to when he was healthy.

 

I am a simple man, John.

 

So let me put it this way to you.

 

This thread was about the Parade, It was you spouting off about the T-14 being Junk and acting all knowledgeable about it that forced me to call your statement into question.

 

Until someone can show some real data as to it not performing to its design intent, you have nothing to say.

 

I have a hard time believing this tank will not meet two of its most basic design concepts.

 

First, being able to punch through a M1 from the front. (Really, would any effort by any country not be to achieve that as a new minimum for their next line of tank.) So when you prove that it cannot do that, then I will agree it is junk.

 

Second , it provides added protection for the crew. Tank design is always a factor of trade offs. So it appears that maybe removing the crew from the turret has allowed them to decide placing heavy armor there is not needed. If the enemy round beats the other anti systems  the turret gets hit (so what) if the crew survives maybe they have achieved their goal.

 

Because really, tell me any modern tank that is going to be worth much once the turret is hit and penetrated.

 

So it appears to me, with all that armor cut out of the turret design. It has allowed for armor to be placed overhead and under the crew compartment. Now the question I have, is it enough to protect them from overhead attacking ordinance. If it is, then I say it is a great design concept, if it does nothing to help. Then junk it is. But again til someone can show what this machine really does I just don't want to hear it.

 

But if it meets a few of its basic design concepts I don't think I would be mocking it. Meeting just those two concepts  would put it much higher on the list of the next generation weapon.

 

 

 

Plus, really, the next conflict is not going to be decided by steel thickness and penetration of rounds. Its all about technology and speed. The next era of world troubles and conflict might come when someone gets their hand on the quantum computer chip. There is a race on now for who can design and get the programming for it first. It all will come down to who gets it first. Ultimate power leads to what???? Likely not a good thing. So go web search for that and put your mental powers there. Because it is coming and its not to far off in the future.

[LukeFF]

Panzers on Mars by John Kettler: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/marte/esp_marte_2.htm

 

Not surprisingly the alphabet soup agencies ignored your bizzare attempts to contact them about the threat from Panzers on Mars... 

 

...and don't forget about the underslung Panther turrets!

[John Kettler]

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

 

I believe you may find this Master's Thesis helpful. It analyzes the results of rigorous, multiyear study of how comparable several defined AOs, to include the Fulda Gap, matched or didn't match what various US Army training areas provided in terms of intervisibility from planned firing positions against a defined attacking armor array, which is moving at a Russian doctrinal rate of advance and in the appropriate tactical formation. From it, there emerges the figure of 2200 meters for average open fire range in the Fulda Gap, so rounding it to 2000 is both reasonable and conservative. See particularly pages 27-30. Should also point out the study is geared toward ATGM engagements where SACLOS ATGM guidance issues and large TOFs relative to very quick tank gun engagements before the foe could get to the next masking terrain feature were big factors. Also, in that General Gorman armor/antiarmor study I provided a link to, there is a plot of US 105 mm gun accuracy vs that of the T-62 at various ranges. Believe that'll also provide some worthwhile insights. They had the gun power, but our superior optics allowed us to shoot them before they could get to 1500 meters and engage us tank for tank. Before they got there, all they could do is engage us by platoon volley out to 2000 meters and company volley out to 2500 meters. Not good vs static, thoroughly trained, to include extensive live fire vs their Russian counterparts meager 3 rds/yr, and highly motivated defenders firing from successive hull down fighting positions!

 

COMPARISON OF TEST SITE AND OVERSEAS DEPLOYMENTYMENT SITE INTERVISIBILITY CHARACTERISTICS by David A. Wood December 1987, Nava Postgraduate School, Monterey, California

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a193529.pdf

 

slysniper,

 

I was talking about the parade, specifically the differences between what the Russians said the T-14 Armata was about and what it could do, what we saw before the parade and what was actually paraded. Nowhere have I ever said the tank was junk. Far from it. Instead, over a period of many weeks, I have pointed out all sorts of perfectly legitimate reasons why this tank might be anything but a rousing success, as have quite a few other Forumites. I've also said it might work exactly as advertised but was in no way sanguine this would be the case. Russian tank development history is on my side here, as is comparable western tank experience. Such a take is shared by others here as well.

 

I have no issue with creating an armored citadel for the crew; for making crew survival paramount. That's understandable and laudable. It is the exact same design priority as in the Abrams, for which considerable combat has shown does indeed provide terrific crew survival. The MBT-70 had an armored citadel, with, working from memory here, the very heavily protected turret module housing everyone, including the despun driver, and the hull being far less well protected. There have also been concepts in which only the crew capsule was armored, with pretty much everything else consisting of relatively light, therefore cheap, structure. As for the 2A82 gun and associated ammo, I don't know enough about its capabilities vs the far less well understood armor on the M1A2 SEP V2 or the M1A2 SEP V3 of CMBS. All I have said is that it's going to increase the effective engagement range vs an Abrams, but by some undefined amount, which would be based on not just a reported 20% increase in MV vs the current 125 mm guns, but the much more powerful ammunition only the 2A82 can use, thanks to a much bigger autoloader carousel. Again, that's not calling it useless vs the Abrams. I have also observed, as have others, including Steve, that any gun power advantage, were it to exist, would be vitiated by the continuing marked gap in sensor performance between Russia and the US, among other NATO members, such as Germany. I do wonder, though, where the "good enough" crossover point, the 80% solution, lies for thermals, as a function of engagement range. This is especially apposite with Constellation in the game for the Russians. IOW, if I know where my guys are but fire on that presumable hostile something I initially detect and is in range of my gun, then maybe I don't need the "can image a gnat, at night, through fog, smoke and other obscurants and determine not only the gnat's sex but the size of its genitalia" thermal sight. Seems to me the FCS should fit the tactical requirements of the anticipated AO. What Russia has to deal with is, generally speaking, far less demanding than what the US does, where its tanks have to be able to fight effectively anywhere in the world, including open desert with enormous LOS distances.

 

I firmly believe that Putin has not only gambled and gambled big on the T-14 Armata, but he has shown the world something not even close to what was balllyhooed by the MoD, the manufacturer and Russian media. Chinese military intelligence and many other nations' intelligence organizations are perfectly capable of looking at a host of factors in evaluating the T-14, and I guarantee you that Tank Bondo™ business I saw and reported isn't going to intimidate, still less scare, any of them. As I said, he would've been far better off parading the big, menacing, real, and provocative beast we saw than that very plastic looking thing which was trundled through Red Square almost as an afterthought. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited May 11, 2015 by John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Since it's been argued by slysniper what I wrote wasn't about the Victory Parade, this one assuredly is. It's the directive from Stalin himself prescribing and describing the complete who, what, where, when and why of the first Victory Parade. Quite an interesting and short read.

 

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2015/05/victory-parade.html

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[Alexey K]

Cute.  Please point to the countries forced into NATO at gunpoint, or annexed into a western county post 1900 or so?  Or the fact that generally historical malfeasance is something the West looks down on (see Germany) while it's something that Russia still holds up as national epic heroism.  

 

I mean it's worse than Japan in terms of being unapologetic for historical crimes and ills.  And that's saying something/likely indicative of why Russia has no friends that are not totalitarian crapholes.  

 

We can dwell into discussion about western military activity, but this will take us nowhere. Simple fact is that you and I view things very differently and can't agree on that matter.

 

So, let's put it that way: in Russia many people (me included) see many of recent western military campaigns as unlawful acts of agression against sovereign countries. So lectures from western countries (or western citizens) about respecting international law is not something Russians like to hear. 

 

P.S. BTW, that's have nothing to do with military parades

[Kieme(ITA)]

Could you name some (if not all) of those sovereign countries please? I am a bit lost.

[agusto]

Just keep calm and ignore posts like the one made by Wicky, John. It is the best thing you can do.

 

 

 

So, let's put it that way: in Russia many people (me included) see many of recent western military campaigns as unlawful acts of agression against sovereign countries. So lectures from western countries (or western citizens) about respecting international law is not something Russians like to hear. 

 

P.S. BTW, that's have nothing to do with military parades

 

 

Let' s assume for a moment "the Wests" recent military campaigns were as unlawful as you say; would that make Russias unlawful military campaigns more legitimate? One injustice does not justify another. Furthermore it is not reasonable to generalize and blame all of the Wests citiziens for those military campaigns you claim to be unlawful, in fact many countries of the western hemisphere and most european countries havent actively engaged in warfare since 1945. I have never personally broken international law or participated in a military campaign, nor has the country i was born in since 1945, nor is my country a member of NATO. According to you reasoning, i would still be to blame for things i had absolutely no influence on at all, which is at least absurd if not offensive.

 

Another interesting question is the on of the lawfulness of military campaigns. Who is the one to judge? The UN, of which Russia is a member? I think that law is a collection of well defined practices to which people or countries submit to either due to be beeing forced to or due to recognizing the authority of the organisation that publishes the laws. While the UN may be recognized by most countries on earth (193) as authority regarding international law, it lacks the means to enforce it, which usually makes its judgement nothing more than and academic exercise. Practically there is no international system of the classical trias politica type, which makes it even more important for states and their leaders to act responsibly and morally without beeing forced to by a third party. The fact that there is no institution that forces Russia or any other country to restrain itself from making war at will ist not a green light for invading your neighbours at will.

[Stagler]

Could you name some (if not all) of those sovereign countries please? I am a bit lost.

 

I think hes on about Afghan and Iraq, these are the main ones that old Uncle P likes to bring up when he needs to rustle up some justification.

[agusto]

I think hes on about Afghan and Iraq, these are the main ones that old Uncle P likes to bring up when he needs to rustle up some justification.

 

Actually the war Afgahnistan was legitimized by both the UN Security Counsil (Resolution 1368 was accepted unanimously by all members of the counsil, including Russia) and NATO. Iraq is more problemtic regarding international law IMO.

[slysniper]

And this thread is just a fine example of how wars are started. Because its amazing how different views can turn into a pissing match in no time.

Do you really think the world can ever avoid conflicts as long as men will continue to act like men.

[Sgt Joch]

Actually the war Afgahnistan was legitimized by both the UN Security Counsil (Resolution 1368 was accepted unanimously by all members of the counsil, including Russia) and NATO. Iraq is more problemtic regarding international law IMO.

 

Kosovo was problematic as well.

[antaress73]

Slysniper: Able to punch through an m1A2's frontal armor RELIABLY at 2000 meters. Current russian gun and ammo in the game can already achieve that under certain conditions (30-40% of the time, odds are better the closer you get).

Lets get back to a more technical and neutral subject please.

Edited May 11, 2015 by antaress73

[LukeFF]

So, let's put it that way: in Russia many people (me included) see many of recent western military campaigns as unlawful acts of aggression against sovereign countries. So lectures from western countries (or western citizens) about respecting international law is not something Russians like to hear. 

 

So, with some sort of tortured logic, that makes it alright for Russia to violate Ukraine's sovereignty? 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

Just keep calm and ignore posts like the one made by Wicky, John. It is the best thing you can do.

 

Pretty much.  I can accept you wrote an article about tanks on mar/moon/whatever or believe the USN got in a fight with aliens.  That's something I think is loco but that's your bag.  Most of your posts on here are a bit out there but they're at least somewhat grounded in what's discussed on the board.  I can accept the out there though because I'm either not forced to read it, or it might be topical and worth talking about.

 

Either way though reacting to folks bringing in the more Art Bell parts of your beliefs is not going to help anything because it'll just encourage them to do it more.  So please do calm down and stick to the more interesting stuff discussed here.  It'll be best for all parties. 

 

Re: 105 MM

 

Again it was not optimal, but the lack of efficiency at long range is often cited by Soviet Power Supreme fanboys as an example of how NATO would have sat weeping powerless before STRONG MEN OF SOVIET MIGHT RODE ASTRIDE COMRADE TANK while ignoring historically, on the offensive especially given similar sensor capability the defender still tended to inflict heavier losses regardless of armor/weapon imbalance (see the fairly strong performance of Allied armor in the west against German armor when on the defense for a pretty good historical example).  Longer engagement ranges would be preferred as that best leverages the sensor gap between west and east, and gives the western unit more time to shift battle positions to receive the next wave.  But I still feel it is incorrect to simply state the 105 MM was useless against Russian armor without a very big * and some footnotes to clarify it wasn't good where we wanted it to be good, but would still murder comrade tankist at closer ranges.

 

The 105 was not perfect, or even really good at all post 1972 or so, but it was suboptimal vs totally useless.  

 

Re: "Just War"

 

Afghanistan is pretty cut and dry, UN approved high fives all around, following some pretty unambiguous casus belli.  Here's where Stagler consumes so many hats from his high horse after my textual resounding body blows of great strength he becomes known as "The defeated pig dog horse rider hat eater"

 

I do not support the fact we went to war in Iraqi in the first place.  I did support it when it kicked off because I was an idiot 19 year old and I believed the case that got pitched to the UN.  I was already in ROTC when it kicked off, but darn it didn't I believe there was a world that needed bombing sometime.

 

I think many of the posters on here were equally dumb, jingoistic and willing to believe war fixed things when they were that age, or they're dishonest enough about it now to pretend they wouldn't have lept on the warwagon willingly themselves had roles been reversed.  

 

As I continued in my college education it became apparent that a lot of the reasons to go to war were wrong (for a variety of reasons outside this discussion).  At that point I believed we had a need to do whatever we could do to restore Iraq to some level of normalcy, and counter the people who were sawing heads off because allah told them it was a swell thing to do to murder his creations for an imperfect understanding of him.  So I came to believe going to war was wrong, but finishing it was right.

 

Having gone to Iraq twice, and leaving just a few steps above Kurtz in my feelings towards the locals, my opinions are somewhat interestingly colored.  At the same time it's noteworthy that the Iraq war 2004-2010 was fought at great expense to give the Iraqis the government they voted for, the infrastructure they needed, and the security they wanted.  And on departing in 2010 broadly speaking that had occurred, although the fact the Shia leadership decided Iran knew best in running a country rather dismantled it in short order.

 

Kosovo's objection has more to do with who's friends with who.  The behavior of the Serbian military pretty much 1993-1999 is on the road to terrible, and we're ready to remember the agony of sad that the Serbs went through during the bombing, but not the well filled ditches the Serbs left from Croatia, through Bosnia, and beyond.  All the Serbs had to do is stop shooting civilians, and there wouldn't have been much of a leg to stand on.

 

As the case is the region is a lot more stable today, and there's a marked downtick in violence.  And Kosovo isn't a US territory so there you go.  

 

This runs a pretty good contrast where Russia's current military acts have been to carve off choice parts of its neighbors, or trying to kill its way out of an insurgency in Chechnya.  Granted Chechnya is nominally Russian and honestly while I can object to the methods, whatever get your hands all bloody life goes on elsewhere but where I object is when we start finding Russian troops where they do not belong, and there's a long history of that in the last hundred years resulting in significant swaths of Eastern Europe getting a one way ticket to rapey-steal anything worth stealing-install the resident pet stalinist as leader town.  

 

While there's a history of western military adventurism, in the last few decades its been the White Man's Burden madness, or the silliness with pretending somehow putting Americans/Brits/French people on the ground will return the region to stability (with some imperfect success).  Russians show up, it's generally to take anything that isn't nailed down, and failing that, take what the things are nailed to.

 

 

 

So, let's put it that way: in Russia many people (me included) see many of recent western military campaigns as unlawful acts of aggression against sovereign countries. So lectures from western countries (or western citizens) about respecting international law is not something Russians like to hear. 

 

 It's pretty standard Russologic.  Your country did a bad thing/something we did not like, which means our thing of equal or often more dubious morality is okay!  Rather than addressing the topic at hand it's pretty classic misdirection because bluntly if we're going to talk about Russian/Soviet actions, it's going to be a pretty lopsided fight in favor of anyone who doesn't find red especially fabulous.  Effectively he wants the discussion to migrate to a medium in which he can talk a lot about Iraq, or the like, while avoiding talking about the fact the Russians are currently facilitating an entirely illegal war in the hopes of carving off parts of a country they already more or less stole land from, or the fact that when the west shows up, hungry people come looking for food and comfort, but when Russia shows up, they send their daughters, and more attractive livestock as far away as they can.

[Nidan1]

Pretty much.  I can accept you wrote an article about tanks on mar/moon/whatever or believe the USN got in a fight with aliens.  That's something I think is loco but that's your bag.  Most of your posts on here are a bit out there but they're at least somewhat grounded in what's discussed on the board.  I can accept the out there though because I'm either not forced to read it, or it might be topical and worth talking about.

 

Either way though reacting to folks bringing in the more Art Bell parts of your beliefs is not going to help anything because it'll just encourage them to do it more.  So please do calm down and stick to the more interesting stuff discussed here.  It'll be best for all parties. 

 

Re: 105 MM

 

Again it was not optimal, but the lack of efficiency at long range is often cited by Soviet Power Supreme fanboys as an example of how NATO would have sat weeping powerless before STRONG MEN OF SOVIET MIGHT RODE ASTRIDE COMRADE TANK while ignoring historically, on the offensive especially given similar sensor capability the defender still tended to inflict heavier losses regardless of armor/weapon imbalance (see the fairly strong performance of Allied armor in the west against German armor when on the defense for a pretty good historical example).  Longer engagement ranges would be preferred as that best leverages the sensor gap between west and east, and gives the western unit more time to shift battle positions to receive the next wave.  But I still feel it is incorrect to simply state the 105 MM was useless against Russian armor without a very big * and some footnotes to clarify it wasn't good where we wanted it to be good, but would still murder comrade tankist at closer ranges.

 

The 105 was not perfect, or even really good at all post 1972 or so, but it was suboptimal vs totally useless.  

 

Re: "Just War"

 

Afghanistan is pretty cut and dry, UN approved high fives all around, following some pretty unambiguous casus belli.  Here's where Stagler consumes so many hats from his high horse after my textual resounding body blows of great strength he becomes known as "The defeated pig dog horse rider hat eater"

 

I do not support the fact we went to war in Iraqi in the first place.  I did support it when it kicked off because I was an idiot 19 year old and I believed the case that got pitched to the UN.  I was already in ROTC when it kicked off, but darn it didn't I believe there was a world that needed bombing sometime.

 

I think many of the posters on here were equally dumb, jingoistic and willing to believe war fixed things when they were that age, or they're dishonest enough about it now to pretend they wouldn't have lept on the warwagon willingly themselves had roles been reversed.  

 

As I continued in my college education it became apparent that a lot of the reasons to go to war were wrong (for a variety of reasons outside this discussion).  At that point I believed we had a need to do whatever we could do to restore Iraq to some level of normalcy, and counter the people who were sawing heads off because allah told them it was a swell thing to do to murder his creations for an imperfect understanding of him.  So I came to believe going to war was wrong, but finishing it was right.

 

Having gone to Iraq twice, and leaving just a few steps above Kurtz in my feelings towards the locals, my opinions are somewhat interestingly colored.  At the same time it's noteworthy that the Iraq war 2004-2010 was fought at great expense to give the Iraqis the government they voted for, the infrastructure they needed, and the security they wanted.  And on departing in 2010 broadly speaking that had occurred, although the fact the Shia leadership decided Iran knew best in running a country rather dismantled it in short order.

 

Kosovo's objection has more to do with who's friends with who.  The behavior of the Serbian military pretty much 1993-1999 is on the road to terrible, and we're ready to remember the agony of sad that the Serbs went through during the bombing, but not the well filled ditches the Serbs left from Croatia, through Bosnia, and beyond.  All the Serbs had to do is stop shooting civilians, and there wouldn't have been much of a leg to stand on.

 

As the case is the region is a lot more stable today, and there's a marked downtick in violence.  And Kosovo isn't a US territory so there you go.  

 

This runs a pretty good contrast where Russia's current military acts have been to carve off choice parts of its neighbors, or trying to kill its way out of an insurgency in Chechnya.  Granted Chechnya is nominally Russian and honestly while I can object to the methods, whatever get your hands all bloody life goes on elsewhere but where I object is when we start finding Russian troops where they do not belong, and there's a long history of that in the last hundred years resulting in significant swaths of Eastern Europe getting a one way ticket to rapey-steal anything worth stealing-install the resident pet stalinist as leader town.  

 

While there's a history of western military adventurism, in the last few decades its been the White Man's Burden madness, or the silliness with pretending somehow putting Americans/Brits/French people on the ground will return the region to stability (with some imperfect success).  Russians show up, it's generally to take anything that isn't nailed down, and failing that, take what the things are nailed to.

 

 

 It's pretty standard Russologic.  Your country did a bad thing/something we did not like, which means our thing of equal or often more dubious morality is okay!  Rather than addressing the topic at hand it's pretty classic misdirection because bluntly if we're going to talk about Russian/Soviet actions, it's going to be a pretty lopsided fight in favor of anyone who doesn't find red especially fabulous.  Effectively he wants the discussion to migrate to a medium in which he can talk a lot about Iraq, or the like, while avoiding talking about the fact the Russians are currently facilitating an entirely illegal war in the hopes of carving off parts of a country they already more or less stole land from, or the fact that when the west shows up, hungry people come looking for food and comfort, but when Russia shows up, they send their daughters, and more attractive livestock as far away as they can.

Trying to match Kettler post for post, is a difficult thing. At times he is very rational and puts forward arguments that are both relevant and interesting. In mind mind he is somewhat of an enigma, claiming to have problems which effect his ability to think and read, but yet is capable of posting enormous rambling items, with numerous links and expert use of the coding of the forum.

Someone else is doing this or he really has no cranial difficulties and uses it as a defense against some of the severe and maybe mean spirited criticism he receives here. I am sometimes intrigued by what he posts, and I am often at odds with his viewpoints, but I can never match him for pure ability to frame any argument, back it up with dozens of internet links, and make claims that sometimes are totally unverifiable. Still, he is an interesting character and adds a lot of flair to otherwise dull exchanges on military and game related matters.

 

 

You seem like an intelligent guy with a lot of in the first hand field experience with the goings on in the post cold war realm of the military. You at least also take the time to propose your point of view with no apologies, and no concern for the sensibilities of other posters. Which I am sure will rile some folks up, but is often needed for an honest discussion of things that have nothing to do with the game. The Admin folks have been fairly benevolent in allowing discussions not directly related to game play to go on, especially in the Black Sea Forum. Once an East vs West argument reaches critical mass, I'm sure they will step in a lock things up.

 

Who do you dislike (I won't say hate, too strong a word at this point) more, the Iraqis or the Russians? I'm may be one of the ones who thought that going to war in Iraq would turn out to be a good thing. I also believe that war used as a political tool is usually the cause of problems later on. Maybe if we had crushed Sadaam Husein in 1991 when we had sufficient power on the ground to enforce a surrender we could have avoided 2003. If warfare is used one side or the other must totally impose their will upon the other. The last time this happened was in 1945, look how nice the Japanese and Germans have been since then. Especially in the light of how horrible they were prior. Mutually Assured Destruction changed the ground rules of warfare we could kill each other with glee as long as it didnt get to the point where one side would drop the bomb. The age of total conventional war was ove, and all of the unresolved conflicts that we have had since have come full circle in the behavior of the Russians in the current Ukraine situation. IMO of course.

[agusto]

I do not support the fact we went to war in Iraqi in the first place.  I did support it when it kicked off because I was an idiot 19 year old and I believed the case that got pitched to the UN.  I was already in ROTC when it kicked off, but darn it didn't I believe there was a world that needed bombing sometime.

 

I think many of the posters on here were equally dumb, jingoistic and willing to believe war fixed things when they were that age, or they're dishonest enough about it now to pretend they wouldn't have lept on the warwagon willingly themselves had roles been reversed.  

 

When i was that age i was equally naive, but i was at the other end of the specturm, more like the hippie-kinda guy. I simply found it very difficult to understand that it is so difficult for some people to get along with one another peacefully. Most unfortunately though there are destructive people on this world who cant be reasoned with, and some of them are in leadership positions. And most unfortunately, these extremists who are in leadership positions did not get there by magic, they got there by the help of many voluntary followers who are part of a system that is not only is harmful to themselves but also (or usually mostly) to others. ISIS in Iraq and Syria is a prime example of an organisation that can only be met with force. The Taliban in Afgahnistan were also pretty much in the category of people that should be met with force IMO.

[SgtHatred]

Wicky,

 

Once again I see you've gone directly for my testicles, for which you seem to have an unhealthy attraction! Yet again, you have gone where you know perfectly well I can't. Indeed, am explicitly forbidden to go. Since I've made this plain many times, and have asked you to refrain, in manners ranging from gently kind to fairly confrontational, to stop doing it, then this can't be accidental but deliberate on your part. By doing so you have revealed to everyone here three things: 1) your counterargument is so weak that you have to attack me, not the case I made in this Forum regarding the T-14 Armata; 2) you are deliberately baiting me, which is in the self-evident and forbidden under the Forum Rules, in the hope that I'll slip and get myself suspended or maybe even banned, and 3) your behavior toward me is ungentlemanly and boorish; that you in no way fight fair and that you perversely delight in hurting someone whom you have been told several times is seriously injured and that your attacks cause him great stress which is detrimental to his recovery. This is yet another effort to smear me, and a pretty desperate one at that. But since you brought up a forbidden subject, you may wish to consider this: The alphabet soup agencies are thoroughly familiar with everything I've written, all under my own name, else they wouldn't be doing their jobs. Yet the article with which you seek to slam me was written in 2002, as a duly credentialed reporter for a magazine, a cutting edge periodical with global circulation, and several of the efforts to bring me back in have occurred since the article which so inflames you was published. I simply looked at the claims that were made regarding certain imagery that was presented, then gave a highly informed view of what was shown to the attendees of the conference I was covering. I shall be fascinated to see whether you next argue that the military-intelligence community of this country is composed of incompetent dolts who don't know enough to screen against some nut job! Why, then, would they be interested in recruiting me, particularly considering that is but one of many hot topics I've written about? Finally, so there is absolutely no doubt in your, or anyone else's mind, on my position regarding the vicious attacks against me:

 

STOP ACTING LIKE A CHURLISH GIT AND BACK OFF!!!  Leave me in peace.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

 

 

It's perfectly legitimate for someone to point out that you are literally insane to contest an argument of yours.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

If we're going by the reputation I've acquired, all Russians are worse than Hitler, and even an ounce of Russian blood should condemn you to being eaten by a starved and enraged Micheal Moore.  

 

If I'm done being sarcastic:

 

It's really two different flavors of annoyed.  Here's the quick rundown:

 

 

1. Collectively the west is stupid for believing in "nation building."  I hold nations/nation-states are things that must grow organically.  When we go in and try to impose what works for the west on a society, it almost always will fail simply because it's a foreign influence.  When we go into a country and try to restore order the parties we usually work with are not the proverbial founding fathers we think we're working with, it's the folks who see us as a means to an end.  Sometimes that's an okay end, we've really found someone who wants to make crapistan a better place, and we've got the money to do that, but a lot of time it's marginal powers who see us as a way to bypass the major players, or folks just looking to scam as many millions as they can in reconstruction projects.

 

If Iraq 2003 really was a problem, I'd have simply done an Army level raid.  We announce we're going in, we're going to break everything worth breaking, destroy sites we view as a threat, blow up the crossed sabers monument in Baghdad to show we can do whatever we want, and we're going to leave and let Saddam deal with the mess.  And we're leaving crates of AKs and RPG-7s in select locations as parting gifts.  We firmly establish why we're going in, why we'll come back to burn the village down again, and then leave the country alone.

 

This open ended commitment to make a country work better because somehow by being 'merica just does not work.  The post World War Two occupations succeeded not because of us, but because we were able to enable the folks who were willing to comply with our standards (no more Hitler, no more big military, no more goosestepping!) with resources, but effectively the Germans and the Japanese rebuilt their countries because they wanted to rebuild them, and recognized they if they did not play nicely they'd get bombed all over again.

 

It's not the most polite way to go about it, but looking at the "progress" the billions of dollars spent on Iraq and Afghanistan it bears questioning if we're just better off focusing on stopping folks from doing things they shouldn't do, and letting nations build themselves (and offering voluntary incentives, if you're willing to turn over Saddam's head on a platter, we'll  chip in a few billion to refurb that oil refinery you really need working again).

 

My frustration with Iraqis came from the fact they kept indulging in very self destructive choices for short term gain.  In the wider view it makes sense as given Iraq from the 1980's on, anything long term rarely panned out, but grabbing the money and running was highly successful in the short term.   But in terms of rebuilding, it meant you'd at risk and expense install a generator to provide power for the local community, and then six hours later it's been stripped down to pieces and is being sent up to Turkey to be sold as scrap as the pennies on the hundreds of dollars of investment in the generator is worth more to someone than having reliable electricity.  And then the local community basically just sitting and watching it happen because maybe they can steal the wires the guy didn't take and sell those!

 

George Orwell's essay "Shooting an Elephant" is strongly illustrative of the feelings of being in Iraq, in terms of having all the power to murder the heck out of everything, but being ultimately unable to change the behavior of the locals, or address the underlying problems in their community.

 

And onto shooting Russians:

 

2. Prior to the Ukrainian mess, I did not especially have positive impressions of Russia, but I held them on par with the French in many ways.  Fiercely proud, very capable of doing things I found silly, and easily offended when I made fun of said silly things.  On the other hand while I found things like their treatment of homosexuals offensive, or their belligerent posturing to be bothersome, it was still done well within their own space, and it did not strongly intersect with the rest of the world at large.  I even referred to them as "ultra-Ukraine" on a few occasions as a way of explaining how the US viewed Russia on a whole, something marginally related to our foreign policy, with fairly minimal trade or cultural links.  Basically something to be occasionally mocked for hating gay people, while at the same time, their president acted in a way that'd be considered flamboyant in some parts of San Francisco, but not much else.

 

The crossing into the Ukraine was a line for me, because its very much your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins. Russia can do whatever it wants to itself, but by god invading the Ukraine because it decides it isn't especially in favor of a government that increasingly is not representative of the national will (which then shoots down a bunch of folks in the street) is well beyond what is within the "right" of Russia to do.  Then toss in the unambiguous lies and denials, and the whole polite men pile of feces, and it's enough to turn "lol Russia" to "please go find a spike to sit and spin on" levels of distaste.  And it's a shameful pattern of behavior reaching back through Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yalta, Poland, Latvia, Finland, etc, etc, etc.  If Russia was content to play by civilized rules, and use economic/diplomatic channels to express its distaste, that's fine.  That's its right to not do business with folks it disagrees with.  That's its right to not engage with a new government.  And even if the Ukraine had been oppressing Russians, going before the UN and making the case for it would be a logical next step.

 

But nope!  It's time for polite men, invasions, and then trying to provoke a war with the Ukraine.  

 

All of which gets to the point where needless to say, I have a very low opinion of the Russian government, its supporters, and its policies.

 

re: Kettler

 

Look, yeah pointing out that some of his stuff is nuts is a bit of stating the barn is red.  But what does it accomplish?  We all know he's a bit off his rocker, but occasionally he posts something interesting, or at least on topic.  You don't have to read or respond to him, I don't read everything he writes obviously, but generally he's politely a bit nuts.  If you don't like what he writes, ignore it, if you're like me and at least skim it, respond to the stuff that's more or less on topic if you'd like, but you're no worse the wear for him chugging along and Kettlering it up.  Posting that he's a bit nutter doesn't make him less nutter, and we've all agreed tanks in space and the USN-Alien-Vampire war is loony.  Do we need to talk about it more than that.? 

 

Addendum:

 

 

 

When i was that age i was equally naive, but i was at the other end of the specturm, more like the hippie-kinda guy.

 

I think everyone at age 19 is a little dumb.  It's one reason now than I'm older I'm glad the younger population does not vote (or throws the vote effectively away).  Looking back on college I can see a lot of head against wall level stupid beliefs in both my peers of the day, and myself from all ends of the political spectrum.  

Edited May 11, 2015 by panzersaurkrautwerfer