Peter Cairns Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Posted this in shockforce but thought I'd put it here too! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34131573 Peter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) I'm trying to recall something a US commander in Iraq said. Something along the lines of - 'One year of active combat for a vehicle is like six years of peacetime service'. Vehicles in combat simply get worn out, break, and need to be replaced/rebuilt. Happened with the Marine Corps LAV-25, happened with the Ukrainian BTR-70, I can imagine it goes double for most-all of Assad's armor assets. Edited September 2, 2015 by MikeyD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Peter Cairns, I can hear the sounds of chops being licked in the Intelligence Community at the thought of grabbing one (more likely bribing someone to get it). These sounds are especially loud from NGIC. You haven't lived until you've read a technical exploitation report! The one for Russian defector Viktor Belenko's MiG-25 FOXBAT was 2+ inches thick and full of grog goodness in every paragraph. Absolutely hated having to return it. Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) It's not that special or game changing , thales french optics , a btr frame and maybe new ammo for the gun. Its a nice weapon system but nothing to write home about. Its not 1980 anymore guys. More like 1913 with nukes, which should worry us more Edited September 9, 2015 by antaress73 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Numbers matter in a civil war/counter insurgency. 10,000 Russian soldiers armed with nothing more than AKs would have vastly more impact on the situation than a modest number of AFVs and aircraft. Unless, of course, the intended purpose of the force is not to change the overall course of the war. There is some speculation that the new beefed up Russian presence is more political than military. Which puts that into the off-topic side of things, therefore I'm going to lock this thread before it goes down the political route.Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts