Syria: Plenty of Nuthin'

[John Kettler]

Peter Cairns,

Not only was your remark nasty and uncalled for, but it looks like it's skating into precisely the kind of territory that gets people banned. If you doubt this, I invite you to recheck the Forum rules.

Regards,

John Kettler

[akd]

Originally posted by Miska:

Based on website warfare.ru (i dont know how reliable it is) the new russian T-95 remains in development

due to financial restrictions here is the story

A new new Main Battle Tank, which was initially planned to enter service in 1994, remains in development due to financial restrictions. It is under development at the Uralvagonzavod Plant in Nizhniy Tagil [Potkin's bureau] which was responsible for all recent Russian tanks apart from the T-80. "URALVAGONZAVOD" (Ural Carriage-Building Plant) in Nizhny Tagil has manufactured a variety of products, ranging from universal type 8-axle rail cars and tanks of the highest quality to the T-34 tanks which had no rivals in World War II.

State acceptance trials of the new tank started at the Kubinka Proving Ground in August or September of 1998. Very little information is publicly available concerning this vehicle, including the official designation, which is apparently still designated under the developmental "ob'ekt" nomenclature. It is suggested that this new tank will weigh about 50 tons, though with a lower silhouette than other recent Russian tanks. The primary armament is reportedly a 152mm smoothbore gun / ATGM launcher with an ammunition load of at least 40 rounds, which may be placed in an unmanned gun pod on top of the hull to lower the silhouette and increase survivability. The new design also places far greater emphasis on crew protection than in previous Russian tank designs through a unitary armored pod inside the hull.

This new tank is apparently in competition with the T-80UM2 "Black Eagle" modification, and may remain unable to secure production funding due to its higherr cost and the potential for upgrading the existing T-80 inventory to the "Black Eagle" standard.

-----------------------------------------

So maybe the Omsk factory has still hope.

And yes i was registered when i bought my first Combat Mission game (a bundlepack actually)

and now i read about this new game and i wait it very excited

Since the warfare.ru page on the Black Eagle references the Sauron's Creations website (linked above), I suspect the other developmental tank information is from there as well (and certainly appears to be simply reworded). I believe that information is 7-8 years old now.

[Bigduke6]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

This could mean that the third company, Soltam (Israeli), winning the contract by default! This does not mean it is the best system, just the one that might be selected.

A cynic might suspect the Israelis were just better at concealing their bribes than the South Africans and the Swedes, and a real cynic might suspect some one important in the Indian Ministry of Justice had a vested interest in the Israelis winning the bid.

But that would assume Indians and Israels NEVER engage in shady business practices, and innocent until proven guilty dontcha know!

I tell ya, it's a jungle out there!

[Bigduke6]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

These things are for export only because to all intents and purposes the Russian armed forces are bankrupt.

Not so. The Russian army was bankrupt. Now it is financed by the largest energy-exporting economy in the world.

The Russian army will field its first T-90 battalion (31 vehicles) this year. If you believe the advertising, the vehicle can punch a hole in the front of any tank in the world at normal combat ranges, and what's more, it can shoot down helicopters. It weighs 46 tons, meaning you can get a pair of them easily, and just maybe three, into an An-124. Also, which is not unimportant, the vehicle's small size allows it to go through any rail tunnel in Europe or Asia.

During a dog and pony show in Nizhny Taigil, the vehicle showed off a really cool automatic chaff dispenser that fires in the direction of the threat, if the tank gets painted by a laser.

Besides the T-90s the army is getting 125 new-generation BMPTs, 139 older tanks refurbished with modern fire control and night vision, 125 SP artillery pieces, and 52 attack helicopters supposedly equivalent to Comanche.

Here's a link where you can look at the BMPT. It looks pretty cool, a pair of 30mm cannon, T-72 chassis, a pair of 30mm automatic grenade launchers is standard. You can fit it with Sturm-S missiles which are thermo-barbaric and work out to five kilometers.

http://lenta.ru/news/2005/03/15/terminator/

Tu-160 - in very rough terms the Russian B-1, will be fielded in large quantities (like, several squadrons) this year, with something like 50 aircraft operational before summer. This is a high-speed penetration bomber carrying a dozen cruise missiles; it is just as spiffy a maritime strike aircraft as it is a strategic penetration aircraft.

The first Su-27 - an aircraft capable of taking on everything except F-22, and beating most of them - were operational at the end of 2005. 11 aircraft, the Russian air force is buying more now.

In all the Russian air force is getting 104 new aircraft this year.

According to the Russian budget, this year they are getting 237 billion rubles, as opposed to last year's 187 billion rubles. That's a 22 per cent increase in defense spending in one year.

Oh, I forget, the Russians are dead, the Americans won the Cold War and they took their marbles and went home, sorry.

[Peter Cairns]

Bigduke6,

Sorry Duke little of that will wash.

The US has more or less given up on the B-1 in favour of the B-2 and is looking at designs for the B-3. As the tu-160 wasn't actually in the class of the B-1 that puts them three generations behind.

The Soviets have been making great claims for there tanks for a generation and every time they are fielded they turn out to be a generation behind, and the fact that it can go through every rail tunnel that would be sealed by a TLAM long before it reached it is hardly an advantage.

The SU-27 is a good palne, in terms of a stright dogfight it can give an F-15 a run for it's money, but the avionics suite is at less a decade behind, and it will never match an F-22, even wth vectored thrust and a new Radar.

As to the quantities you quote at this rate it will be a decade before they can field a Division with a tank to match the Leopard 2, so I doubt the Germans are worried.

Finally just as you should take some of the claims for performance with a pinch of salt, you should bury the claims of budget and production in the stuff.

In the last decade virtually no Russian defence ministry claim or announcement of futurer aquisition numbers has ever been met. The last I heard the newest Su-27's the Russian airforce go were the refurbished development aircraft from the order from the Indian Airforce.

The Russians make some good stuff and alot of countries will buy it as add on's and upgrades, but they really are a spent force for at least another ten years.

Peter.

[Peter Cairns]

John,

I am not the first or the last person on this forum to think you are the king of the conspiracy theory, and making a joke about it, is just that, a joke.....

Get a life.

Hell if I took the hump every time someone made a joke about me being Scottish, i'd have left years ago.....

Peter

[Bigduke6]

Peter,

Well, the money exists, it's budgeted, and the Russian military is talking like the equipment will be delivered. It's all over the news including the government-controlled television, so I would be willing to be what they say will be fielded, will be.

Russia's pretty rich these days, what with high prices for energy and all. The Iraq war is great for their national budget.

The report is production and fielding of new equipment will accelerate over the rest of the decade, for instance, they'll field 30 T-90s this year and 150 next year.

But I'm sure you're right, Russia is down for the count and will never get up, Putin is perfectly happy to give the U.S. unilateral military superiority wherever and whenever Washington wants it. Doubtless the guys in the Kremlin are such democrats, they'll forsake a millenium of building the military at the expense of the rest of the society, and concentrate on consumer goods and light manufactures. I'm sure they're so intimidate by Stealth technology all their scientists have thrown up their hands and are now trying to get jobs with Nintendo.

And all these reports over the last six months about the Russian army rearming, that's just Kremlin propaganda, they Russians are now peaceful and ride around in VW microbuses painted with flowers.

Of course, not a piece of Russian news has carried a hint of those assumptions. Not a single Russian political figure has said anything to that effect. And as we all know the Russians never could make weapons, don't make weapons, and do not intend to make weapons in the future.

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke,

I agree with Peter. The same PR people are running the Russian military show that were running the Soviet military show. The claims made of Soviet weaponry were greatly overstated. Depending on who you ask, at the time the West either knew this or didn't. Defense contractors and hawks did not have an incentive to disprove the Soviet hype, therefore they were unified with the ones that did believe it.

I remember hearing from a M60 tanker stationed in Germany in the early 1970s saying that they were petrified of the T-72. But then they saw what happened in the Middle East and figured that perhaps the Soviet equipment was not all that it was cracked up to be and the Western stuff was.

Another example is the air war against Iraq. They had a lot of top of the line Soviet aircraft with well trained pilots. Not a single one accomplished anything. Ground forces are a well known story so I won't repeat it. Anyway, the upshot of GW1 was the West finally figuring out that they had a huge qualitative edge over Soviet equipment (and trainig too).

I also believe that the Russians have a VERY strong incentive to over state the performance of the things they make. First, the previous generation of stuff everybody now has is so CLEARLY outclassed that they have, in theory, a lot of potential customers for arms sales. Second, they clearly have a lot of competition with China for those sales. Third, the potential customers have seen what happens to expensive stuff that can't go toe to toe with the West's current assets (not to mention future ones) and obviously aren't interested in anything that isn't touted to match or beat them. Forth, if Russia can't overcome these things then they won't make the sale. No sale, no money for the equipment, training, and support. In short, Russia has every incentive to bend the truth, even if it is to the breaking point.

So, while I do believe that the new stuff the Russians are fielding now are better than the stuff before, I don't put much faith in their claims of greatness. In fact, I tend to doubt them. Why? Because I am pro-American and anti-Russian? No, because history has shown that the American version of equipment performance is much closer to the truth than the Soviet/Russian claims are. It's not even a close comparison.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke,

I for one don't think Russia is down for the count in that they won't try to be top dog again. I just don't think they'll pull it off. China on the other hand...

Also, how much of that defense spending was to cover inflation? Last time I checked Russia was still running double digit inflation. So that 22% increase might be more like 10%. Obviously it still proves your point that they are increasing military spending, just not to the extent the figures you used would indicate.

Steve

[Bigduke6]

I'm not saying the T-90's a world-beater, I'm just passing along what the Russians are saying.

They have a pretty good record of building decent tanks for not too many resources. Just the thing for a big war.

The fact remains: Russia is now beginning to field equipment developed after the break-up of the Soviet Union, and designed to fight the present U.S. military. They didn't have their act together enough to give the stuff to units 2-3 years ago, and now they do.

You guys watch. Russia is not one of those places that likes small defence budgets, and little bitty military that can defend the homeland and nothing else. They have a deep scientific base and the present goon squad in charge has every inclination to fund a high-class military force.

After all, the U.S. doesn't border China. Russia does.

[Peter Cairns]

Bigduke,

Decent doesn't beat good, and as Steve says if the opposition has good, who wants to buy average. So the Russians have to exaggerate just to sell. The US has had far more competition and openness, so it is harder to get away with bogus claims, although that doesn't stop them trying.

Oil or not right now Russian is still in a mess and struggling to feed itself. Anyone who would pour money in to new weapons when he has a conscript army living on watery soup, is an idiot, and Putin may be many things but he's not that.

Ever with $75 a barrell it will still take a decade for Russia to stablises and another after that if ever to be a player again.

What has developed is this second tear of powers who can't stand up to the US alone, but who by cooperating can go there own way, Russia, China, India and Iran, have over the last decade formed a loose arms buying and making bloc that is an interesting alternative for those who either through choice or wealth don't buy US.

Peter.

[Saviola]

I would rather fight 100,000 Arabs than 100 N. Koreans as well in a conventional war

It’s never gonna happen, “100,000 Arabs” will never give you that conventional war. It’s wishful thinking. The Arabs will give you 20,000 insurgents in a deadly rebellious war after laying low as you invade, declare “mission accomplished” and occupy.

Then they will run circles around you, shooting down four of your choppers and crews in less than two weeks, engross themselves in your so called democratic process while contemporaneously conducting a fierce war of attrition against your soldiers. They’ll engulf you in a tribal miasma, you’ll need 10 naturalized ambassador Khalilzads (an Afghan Sunni) to field your way through.

They will thank you for coming to them so they can kill you, for they lost the capability to come to you for that same purpose. They will further thank you for giving them a tangible opportunity to form religious governments and create Islamic states never afforded them under dictators you instated in the past. They will be grateful to the US for granting them that which it abhors and invaded to prevent in the first place.

Until BFC gives us civilians and a Lebanese Ho Chi Minh trail with wildcard neighboring intervention, no matter how massaged this asymmetrical proposition is, it remains a case of we get everything and the Syrians the shaft.

Since Iran has a quasi defense treaty with Syria, we demand the simulation of a seaborne arms supply bridge to Lebanese militias allied with Syria who’ll intervene. We demand the introduction of the 3 Iranian submarines to interdict any interception of suspected supply ships.

Ask everyone on this forum, they’ll pay for civilians and neighboring intervention, we’ll reward BFC for a wider scope, we have money. No one can put a price on fun that’s full of civilians, mayhem and porous borders. Give the wargaming public the grandiose fun it demands.

If you build it, we will pay.

[akd]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Bigduke,

Decent doesn't beat good, and as Steve says if the opposition has good, who wants to buy average. So the Russians have to exaggerate just to sell. The US has had far more competition and openness, so it is harder to get away with bogus claims, although that doesn't stop them trying.

Unlike the Cold War, Russia now must compete side-by-side with the West in many of the same markets for their exports. Consequently, if their claims were false (or more false than the rest), they would be incapable of competing. That's not to say they don't often lose out to U.S./Euro contractors during competitions, but they don't always, and they certainly wouldn't be capable of entering an open competition if they were making false or exaggerated claims about their products.

What has developed is this second tear of powers who can't stand up to the US alone, but who by cooperating can go there own way, Russia, China, India and Iran, have over the last decade formed a loose arms buying and making bloc that is an interesting alternative for those who either through choice or wealth don't buy US.

I would not include India in this cooperative "arms buying and making bloc." India certainly buys a great deal of Russian arms, but they also buy Western arms, often intergrating the two. And in India, Russia now competes head to head with the U.S. and Europe:

Indian air force to acquire 126 jets

By Lieven

February 7, 2005 - The Indian Air Force has received a green light from their government to purchase 126 multi-role aircraft. They are now requesting information from four countries, the United States, France, Sweden and Russia.

Once all information has been received requests for proposals (RFPs) will be subimtted. Once those have been studied and technical evaluation has been carried out, commercial negotiations will start.

All the aircraft will be acquired from a single manufacturer. Whether it will be a single or twin engine jet is still an open question.

Dassault Aviation (France) and Lockheed Martin (USA) have long been considered frontrunners to upgrade the Indian air force. In addition to the Lockheed F-16 and Dassault Mirage 2000-5, New Delhi is also eyeing the Swedish-made Gripen fighter and the Russian MiG 29 M2.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has about 1,500 aircraft, but they lost a number jets, particularly Russian-made MiG-21s, which have been nicknamed "flying coffins" in India.

India's aging fleet of MiG-21s, dating back from the 60s and nicknamed "flying coffins" in India, is currently the backbone of its fighter inventory, which also includes other MiG aircraft. Its 1,500-plane air force also has French Mirage and Anglo-French Jaguar planes.

Obviously, by acquiring the new aircraft, they can get rid of some of their oldest machines.

There is no determined timeframe for the acquisitions but air chief marshal S.P. Tyagi wants them as soon as possible.

Consideration of Lockheed Martin would have been unthinkable just four years ago, when the United States maintained military sanctions against New Delhi following India's May 1998 nuclear tests. But sanctions were phased out starting in late 2001, and bilateral ties have since flourished

Aero India 2005, a five-day international aerospace and defence exposition, will start Feb 9 at the Yelahanka Indian Air Force (IAF) base. Billed as one of the largest air shows in South Asia, the fifth edition of the aero show will see global aerospace and aviation firms to showcase their aircraft, hi-tech products and technologies hopeing for lucrative deals and collaborative ventures with their Indian counterparts.

Boeing demoes its F15-E Strike Eagle alongside Russia's Sukhois, MiG-29 and MiG-21 jets and Dassault's Mirage 2000. Lockheed Martin is surprisingly enough not showcasing its F-16 Fighting Falcon.

However, the Indian air force did get the chance in October last year to go head-to-head with RSAF F-16s during a joint exercise at Gwalior.

"F-16 is one of the aircrafts we are looking at along with three other aircrafts of similar capabilities. We are not only considering their multi-role combat capabilities but also air superiority," Tyagi said on the sidelines of an international aerospace seminar being held as part of the Aero India event.

The air chief also said India's home-grown Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), whose development has been delayed by a decade due to US sanctions and technical difficulties, would also be flying with the IAF soon.

Last year, New Delhi decided to buy 66-advanced jet trainers from Britain in a deal worth more than a billion dollars which had been under negotiation since the 1980s.

AFV competitions and contracts for BMP-3s in the traditinally Western-supplied UAE, Kuwait and South Korea would be another example. Sorry, but it is not, nor could it be, business as usual in the Russian arms industry.

Part of such success -- limited, but nonetheless crucial to the survival of the Russian military industry -- stems from the fact that even in these difficult times, some of Russia's military factories and its covert cities, once the sites of ultra-secret projects, are still operational and continue to work on essentially the same projects as before the demise of the Soviet Union: the development of military technologies that are on par or better than those available in the West. Since the American military will be fighting its future wars against armies possessing Russian weapons -- or derivatives thereof -- Washington should pay closer attention to what is happening across the wide spaces of the Russian Federation for three reasons.

One is the simple fact that weapons export is one of the best ways for Russia to earn much-needed hard currency. Already, Russia is the second-largest worldwide exporter of military technology after the United States. As reported in various magazines, journals and periodicals, at present, Russia's modern military technology is more likely to be exported than supplied to its own armies due to the existing financial constraints and limitations of Russia's armed forces. This has implications for America's future combat operations since practically all insurgent, guerrilla, breakaway or terrorist armed formations across the globe -- the very formations that the United States will most likely face in its future wars -- are fielded with Russian weapons or its derivatives. Even if the Russian government exercises control over the sale and export of its military technologies, given the present derelict state of its military and lack of proper checks and balances, its state-of-the-art technology might end up in the wrong hands.

The second reason has to do with Russia's growing assertiveness in its "near abroad," or the states of the former Soviet Union. Russia considers these states in its rightful economic, political and military sphere of influence, and has acted accordingly in some of the U.S.S.R.'s former republics, such as Georgia and Armenia. This justification is particularly applied to oil- and natural gas-rich Central Asian states. Already, Russia is slowly growing weary of the American military presence in that region, and is seeking to bolster its own presence there through closer contacts and military bases. In order for Russia to fully exercise its influence, it would have to field a viable, high-tech military force that is capable of projecting its strength if the need for that arises. Given the developing competition between the United States and Russia for Central Asia, the Russian military will have to field the above-described technologies in order to truly protect and exercise its sphere of influence.

The third reason has to do with Russia's current military doctrine, which adheres to the concept of multipolarity. The articles of the doctrine state Russia's conviction that the social progress, stability and international security can only be accomplished in a multipolar world. The doctrine further states that the Russian Federation will work towards the establishment of such a world with all the means at its disposal. Russia cannot be one of the potential powers in this multipolar scenario if its military lacks advanced technologies and if it cannot be considered a state-of-the-art military force on par with U.S. and Western armies. Therefore, it is to be expected that Russia will attempt to field its armies with the country's best military achievements.

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_printable&report_id=187&language_id=1

[ January 21, 2006, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: akd ]

[Peter Cairns]

Over and above performance and price, there is technology transfer and politics.

In some cases such as India the Russian through necessity have been willing to give up more know the US ever would. Hell the Uk is upset about the lack of transfer in the JSF and it's paying 10% of the development.

The LCA did suffer because of sanctions but that actually worked in Russias favour. There is little doubt that the F-16 in it's latest guise is better than a Mig-27, or even a Mig-35, but if you can buy three Migs for the same price and money is tight and the Mig will do, then you buy the mig.

The India airforce can get by with Mig-35's because they are cheap and good enough. They will more than match current Pakistani F-16's and the SU-27 will take care of the latest model, which as Pakistan doesn't have F-15's is all they need.

The best Russian weapons can't go head to head with the best western ones, but that's often not what a country needs. Iraq's Mig-29's were no match for the USAF, but more than capable of seeing off Irans aging F-5's.

It's the same with some of there successful SAM sales, they aren't up to US standards but far cheaper and often more than enough to deal with the air threat they face.

If you are facing a third rate threat, why waste money of a first class defence when a second class one is good enough and far cheaper.

The fighters and tanks China has sold Pakistan are well suited to a war with Indian, given Pakistans budget, but they wouldn't last ten minutes against the US.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

It all comes down to how much muscle you can afford for the buck, who you think you will most likely use it against, and how soon. The Soviet legacy technology is relatively inexpensive compared to the US and other Western stuff. If you think you'll be going up against 3rd rate stuff then buying 2nd rate makes perfect sense as long as 1st rate doesn't show up at some point.

As for the evaluation process, forgetting the budget and likekly enemy aspects, it is really tough to evaluate some of this stuff. The fancy gizmos on the battlefield today can not have their tires kicked and pronounced fit. How is an evaluation team going to know if a particular counter measure will work when going up against a M1A2 in combat situations unless they have an M1A2 and simulate a combat situation with a tank crew trained to US standards? How is the evaluation team going to be able to account for an enemy with better communications, air supremacy, and other factors when evaluating what a tank can do?

The truth of the matter is that when a country buys a high tech piece of equipment it must make some leaps of faith. The problemm is that the stuff being churned out of Russia and China right now are more or less pure faith since none of this stuff has seen combat. On the other hand, all generations of the M1 Abrams have seen combat, and all have lived up to (and often exceeded) their billing. The various repackaged T-72s people were sold that claimed to have the ability to go up against the M1A1 didn't, and so I would expect some amount of skepticism of Russian claims.

Hey, who knows... maybe the T-90 fully loaded is a tough nut to crack. It very well might be. But based on past matchups, I would have to bet that it isn't. Even the Soviet tanks of WWII weren't very good in many ways, and on a tank by tank basis often inferior. But in some ways they were good and en mas they were unstopable. The problem with today's battlefield is that the US is very capable of stoping anything that is massed. In fact, that is exactly what the US wants the enemy to do. So one of the two major reasons for prior Soviet armor success is neutralized. It remains to be seen if the balance of features is good enough to make up for it. As I have said, I see many reasons to suspect it isn't, though only real combat can tell for sure.

I talked about a couple of specific counter technologies the Chinese and Russians have with an Army Colonel friend of mine (retired, now in private sector weapons development). I asked him for his opinion of how effective they would be in real combat situations. One highly touted system he flat out said was not an issue since all current US vehicles already have an effective counter-counter installed (and it is simiple, so I don't doubt him). On another one he said in theory yes, in reality no. "I can't say any more about that" (which means I'm getting the tip of a classified iceberg). So on and so forth. The stuff he was really woried about was not flashing lights or laser doohickies, but better enemy ATGMs and even the current low quality stuff in the field. That's the stuff that is hard to beat and it's the stuff that keeps people up late at night worrying about. At least for now.

Steve

[ January 21, 2006, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Bigduke6]

Well we won't know the answer for sure until the U.S. tries out all its spiffy war toys against a major opponent, will we? (I'll agree with Steve T-90 almost for sure isn't as good as Nizhniy Taigil advertises it to be.)

The way I see it, the U.S. has beaten up on 3rd to 5th rate opponents armed with Soviet-era equipment. Maybe that is proof of absolute miltary superiority for ever and ever, against all opponents at all times in all environments. Then again, maybe not.

I think the British example could be illustrative. By the latter half of the 19th century they were a certifiable superpower, able to project force in a way no country ever had. The sun never sets, one-quarter of the earth's surface painted British red, that sort of thing. The British had arguably the best infantry on the planet, unquestionably the best NCOs, brave and well-dressed officers, and together that lot won dozens of foreign wars throughout the 19th century, in all sorts of exotic places supposedly beyond the logisitics of the day.

Pick a country, the British were probably there, and they always won eventually. Read the government decision-making minutes from the period, and you see the question is never "can Britain win?" It is only "Do we want to commit the resources to this particular conflict?"

This warm fuzzy state of feeling superior lasted until 1899, when the British army came up against the Boers, an opponent who was fairly well-armed, but much more importantly possessed of enough brains and education to figure out ways to fight the British on advantageous terms. And they did, and a right nasty modern war resulted, with concentration camps and barbed wire and insurgents.

I point this out not to prove the bigger they are the harder they fall, of course the British eventually "won". (Although a state run by the Boers came into being by 1910, so even that's arguable.) It might be worth bearing in mind that only a few years later, hundreds of thousands of British men died in Europe, in large part because their military leaders failed to learn a basic lesson from the Boer war: Men with rifles in trenches can stop pretty much any infantry attack, as long as they have bullets.

The thing is, it was really popular in the liberal side of British thinking of the day, even as the Boer War was in progress, to hearken back to the Roman Empire, and to argue that the British Empire could not last forever, others never did. Kipling's Recessional is sort of the anthem for this warning.

http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Poetry/Anthology/Kipling/Recessional.htm

The conservatives, Churchill among them, called people complaining about the failures of the Boer War "croakers" and "screamers," and unpatriotic and un-British besides. Kipling's poem made them sort of nervous, apparently.

I wonder how many members of the U.S. administration have read that particular bit of Kipling? Active duty military? Not to imply any one of them could be poorly-read, just that the poem warns the faithful not to forget the Almighty, you would think a message like that would be right up their street.

Oh wait, I forgot, Kipling isn't PC, no need to learn from that kind of history.

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke,

The way I see it, the U.S. has beaten up on 3rd to 5th rate opponents armed with Soviet-era equipment. Maybe that is proof of absolute miltary superiority for ever and ever, against all opponents at all times in all environments. Then again, maybe not.

Oh, I would say definitely not. As I've said many times, over and over again, the US is facing an uphill competition battle with China and perhaps even Russia. However, when compared with the latter I am less sure. The US largely beat out the Soviets by outspending them. The US can outspend Russia now and well into the future. But China... no such luck there.

What I am saying is that today, not 10 years from now, I don't see any evidence to suggest that US military technology is at risk of being overmatched by anybody. Even if the T-90 is a superior tank to the M1A2, clearly its small numbers indicate that in a realistic confrontation sceanrio they wouldn't make a hill of beans difference for Russia. Maybe in 10 years, but not in the near future. Then again, it is clear the US military industrial complex isn't resting on its arse, and neither is Congress' willingness to spend gobs of money the taxpayers don't have. So I don't see the fundamental equation with Russia changing any time soon. Again, China is a different story.

They say there are two constants in life -> death and taxes. There is a third -> all empires will eventually fall. What you wrote about the British Empire is an example of that. America will lose its position as top dog sooner rather than later as well. But its time is not yet here. Marketing hype out of Russia isn't enough to change that.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

On problem for anyone buying Russian tanks, is that they have evolved from cold war designs which from the T-55 on were designed for fast offenseive action.

That means of the three basic factors, Firepower. Mobility and protection, protection came last. The Russians took the view that the best protection was not to get hit, so they went for rapid massed armour that would concentrate and overwhelm a defender,

This can be seen in their emphasis on low profile big gunned tanks, where rate of fire and hitting power was of more importance than range or accuracy. In a Cold war scenario the Russians expected tank engagements to be closer to 1,000m than 2,000m. and ven spoke of under 500m in the Assault.

However the problem for the likes of Iraq, was that they were defending, not attacking, and were trying to hold possitions with an offensive tank design designed for short range, against a heavier armoured attacker with a longer range gun.

It's a bit like a soviet SMG squad with PPsh-41's trying to attack a .50 cal 300 yards away over open ground. Good as the PPsh wa,s it's just the wrong weapon for the job.

Peter.

[TufenHuden]

T-72's-vs-M1A1 in 1st Gulf-no match-Why?

Soviets sold Iraq waterdowned versions and

not good ammo-plus T-72-couldn't fire and move.

M1A1-can fire and move-had advanced Chamblum

armor-plus had those Silver-bullet rnds.

Unranuim rnds(Nuke tipped)-they go thru-

metal like hot knife thru butter-seen quite

a few-T-72/62/55/54/59's that where

vurtually melted-and holes in sloped turrets.

I do understand that T-80 can fire a similar

rnd-Silver bullet and Ruskies are the only

one as far as I know that has type rnd-2nd

to USA.Super Tungsten-I would call it.

I also seen allot intacted T-72's-Iraqis

training was pretty bad and taking care of there

equipment was a joke.(They retreated of course)

M1A2/Challenger-2E/Leperad-2/Markev-3

are probly best tanks-firepower/protection/

fire control-and have the best trained crews.

But some soviet-tanks have changed-Reactive

armor/radar scrambling-due to what happened

to there hardware 1st gulf war.

T-90 might give M1A2/Challenger-2E etc

a fight or the Blackeagle tank.

Recently a report did come out that a M1A2

was taken out by it's side in Iraq-hole no

bigger then a pencil-but took it out.

Maybe Ruskies have found there silver bullet.

Not to descredit my ArmedForces-I'm pro USA-

but not to take Ruskie too lightly-

Germans learned in WW-II-even there stuff was

better-they still didn't win the war.

And M1A2 does guzzle allot gas what gas-turbine

engine-just some little things that can add up.

Aircraft-if the soviets had the cash-Su-37

could probly give the F-22 a run for it's money.

Maybe even stealth?We can

only guess-hope we don't find out the hard way...

[ January 22, 2006, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: TufenHuden ]

[John Kettler]

As I've been repeatedly at pains to point out, the U.S. has never had to fight a properly trained and motivated force possessing what in Cold War days for sure were the Soviet only version weaponry, as opposed to the spavined monkey model export stuff (see Suvorov's INSIDE THE SOVIET ARMY for the numerous and vital differences). Even so, I've shown that it was monkey model gear which was found to be capable of blowing through a vanilla M-1 frontally, leading to the crash development and fielding of not just the M1A1HA but to the wholesale reassessment and replacement of practically every U.S. armor and antiarmor system.

There's nothing magic about DU for the T-90 either, for it can just as easily be put in 100mm (T-54/55), 115mm (T-62) and 125mm (T-80) formats (ditto ATGs of those calibers), turning even "joke" tanks into something scary, especially when paired with radically upgraded modern fire control systems. Similarly, gun launched ATGMs exist for the self same calibers.

Personally, and from the perspective of someone who for eleven years made his living monitoring, predicting and understanding Soviet military developments, I think it's insane to conclude that repeated victories against generally ill trained, poorly motivated and led forces, often semistarved and thirsty, often bombed for weeks, and armed with decades old, poorly maintained monkey model gear, constitute valid predictors of future military success.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ January 23, 2006, 02:34 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[TufenHuden]

Kinda my piont-one example is the Germans

in WW-II using Blitzgrieg tatics-Polish/

France/Holland-etc-the aircraft the germans

went against would be WW-1 maybe post after-

but where no match.(BF-109)

When the Germans went against the UK-in

the Blitz-Spitfire/Hurricain where a match...

England won the standoff with Axis(including

some good outthinking from Churchill to

make Hitler mad and do stupid things(Bombing

Berlin itself)...

Well I was corrected on the T-80-issue with

DU's(USSR)in which I've heard T-80 and above cold

only fire that type of rnd but know if any

Tank can fire that type of rnd then who hits who 1st with-good fire control system will win

the battle....

[Screamineagle Bob]

A couple of years ago, I was in Plans & Ops for the 101st ABN. We played out a North Korean battle plan, just for fun! The North Koreans have perfected the reverse slope tactics to a science. They rely heavily upon massive artillery barrages to soften fronts, then send waves of infantry. Seems familar, eh? They have 152mm artlillery like we have convience stores, one on every block, and plan arty strikes on grid squares not specific targets.

Any conflict with NK will be a real fight!

[Peter Cairns]

John'

Why would you put a DU warhead in an ATGM, they don't work by Kinetic energy, you'd end up with a slower less manouverable missile( if it flew at all) which would just hit with a dulll thud.

Peter.

[Cogust]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

John'

Why would you put a DU warhead in an ATGM, they don't work by Kinetic energy, you'd end up with a slower less manouverable missile( if it flew at all) which would just hit with a dulll thud.

Peter.

He was talking about ATGs (antitank guns) and not ATGMs when he was mentioning the DU rounds, he only said that the Russian tanks has gun launched ATGMs available to them in addition to the DU rounds.

[John Kettler]

Peter Cairns,

You apparently misunderstood what I was saying. I merely listed the whole family of gun launched ATGMs for the sake of thoroughness.

Cogust,

Your interpretation of what I was trying to convey is spot on.

Troops,

The whole supposedly new vexed combined issue of upgraded modern fire control, DU ammo and ERA was something we were very concerned with back during my Hughes days (left 1984), so much so that our nightmare scenario consisted of a lead wave of ERA equipped T-55s with improved fire control and DU spearheading the attack behind a blanket of advanced obscurants, and behind them came the good armor, also festooned with ERA. Back then, ERA had already shown it could defeat TOW type weapons, long range firing positions along the Inter-German Border were few and far between, hence readily identifiable and targetable by arty and MRL fire, and we lived or died on generating enough attrition from long range shots to buy the time for the main forces, including REFORGER in the larger scheme of things, to deploy.

With the long shots rendered problematic

as described above, and even normal engagement ranges of 1000-1500 meters cut significantly by obscurants, we were facing a severe target servicing problem, compounded by the emasculation of the vital TOW, and slightly less important Dragon and LAW systems, not to mention that a knife fight favored the Soviets, whose tanks were optimized for relatively close engagement ranges and would've had considerable general and local tank superiority.

It was right around then that some bright people realized that ERA was also a threat to KE projectiles. Remember, too, that most of our force then was M60s of several stripes, not even vanilla M1s. Let's just say that, having seen what the Soviets had available back in the mid 80s, I'm delighted we didn't have to fight them.

Regards,

John Kettler