[martin14]

stratos stratos:

$1:

He just wants to see me on tank with ak-47 taking part in massacre.

I've noticed that, he and many other in the world seem to want to use other peoples money, other peoples property, other peoples lives to do things that they never have nor ever will be willing to do themselves. Then when they don't get there way they stomp their feet, call you names, put you down in anyway they can in the lame attempt to make themselves seem like they know what is best for you because, you know you're just so ignorant that you can not think for yourself.

That has to be the best definition of a hard assed lefty I have read for a long time.

Remember this at election time.

[bootlegga]

martin14 martin14:

I don't think we ever did, and I have spoken to people on both sides of the Curtain,
including ex-military on both sides.

The only thing that kept the Russians back were the nukes.

Then and now.

I don't know about that - NATO may have been outnumbered in many weapons categories for much of the Cold War, but ours were always of a far higher quality and our troops much better trained to use them.

While the Arab-Israeli conflicts weren't totally similar, they certainly showed how well equipped troops could take on larger numbers of conscripts armed with mediocre equipment. Desert Storm provided another example - that was very close to what NATO planners expected in Europe: air superiority allowing for high quality NATO forces to engage and destroy enemy poorly-trained conscipt forces.

Admittedly, Desert Storm was far more one-sided (especially the level of air superiority the Coalition enjoyed), but that was essentially the conflict the US had spent 40 years training for in Europe. Obviously, NATO airforces wouldn't have had such overwhelming air superiority, but they almost certainly would have had limited air superiority and that probably would have allowed NATO to stop the Warsaw Pact.

While a conventional war in Europe wouldn't have been a walk in the park, I think the West would have prevailed in a conventional conflict with the Warsaw Pact. Losses would have been horrendous, but we would have won in the end.

[Winnipegger]

bootlegga bootlegga:

NATO may have been outnumbered ... but ours were always of a far higher quality and our troops much better trained to use them.

Do not underestimate the enemy. Russians are far better than you give them credit. Aircraft for example: America assumed the U2 spy plane flew too high, until it was shot down. The SR-71 flew too fast, but very quickly Russia developed a missile to catch it. America bragged about multi-targetting of the F-14 Tomcat, without telling most people that was an attempt to catch up with Russian targetting systems. And the Russian fighter system could target across a hemisphere in front, while the F-14 could not see as high or low. And how do you think an F-15 Eagle would fare against a Flanker?

The F-22 Rapter was developed to catch up to and surpass the Flanker. Russia is now working on the T-50 to match the F-22.

Wikipedia Wikipedia:

The PAK FA, a fifth generation jet fighter, is intended to be the successor to the MiG-29 and Su-27 in the Russian inventory and serve as the basis of the Sukhoi/HAL FGFA being developed with India. The T-50 prototype performed its first flight 29 January 2010.

The Russian Defence Ministry will purchase the first 10 evaluation example aircraft after 2012 and then 60 production standard aircraft after 2016. The first batch of fighters will be delivered with current technology engines. The PAK-FA is expected to have a service life of about 30–35 years.

Again, don't underestimate them.

[bootlegga]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

bootlegga bootlegga:

NATO may have been outnumbered ... but ours were always of a far higher quality and our troops much better trained to use them.

Do not underestimate the enemy.

No offence, but that's what the talking heads said about Saddam in the run-up to Desert Storm. Reality is we would have likely won a conflict, but the cost would have been staggering - casualties could easily have been a million or more (assuming the conflict didn't go nuclear).

Stalin once quipped "Quantity has a quality all its own."

That's fine when the battle is a propaganda one and the battlefield is a parade square in Moscow. Had the battlefield been in Fulda Gap, the results would have been different.

After the Cold War, we saw just how poorly trained Warsaw Pact troops were and how poorly maintained/out of date many of their weapons systems were. Why?

Because they were more concerned with having large numbers of tanks, planes, ships, etc, to win on the propaganda front, not on a battlefield. That's largely because training costs a fortune (especially when a missile/smart bomb costs a million bucks), while parking them doesn't cost very much at all. Conversely, having lots of old fighters and tanks beefs up your numbers and makes you look that much tougher - but a Mig 17 or T-55 wouldn't have survived very long in a battlefield in the 1980s.

The lesson most nations learned from Desert Storm was that smaller, more professional armed forces are much more capable than larger conscript forces. That's why even China is moving away from that model and phasing out its decrepit 1950s era planes, tanks and ships.

[Winnipegger]

During the Korean war, kill ratio was in favour of American pilots. Unless they faced a "honcho" pilot, then it was in favour of the other side. Years after the war, Russia admitted the honchos were Russian pilots sent to get combat experience. And one Russian pilot defected with a MiG, then state-of-the-art. American engineers tore it apart and discovered it better than America's then front-line fighter.

During the Vietnam war, fighter kill ratio was 3:1 in favour of American planes. But that's when Vietnamese pilots flew them. I'm not sure, but I suspect the Russians did it again. Besides, the US air force did an analysis after the Vietnam war. Even with a 3:1 kill ratio, the Russian MiG cost 1/10 the price so in terms of dollars it was still in favour of the MiG. And MiG's 1 pilot instead of 2, so the pilot kill ratio was actually 3:2. That's why they built the F-16: to be America's cheap single-seat fighter.

And I've long heard the story about training. It's a common story among Canadian soldiers. But have you faced a unit of Russian soldiers? I suspect you'll find they aren't as poorly trained as you think.

One feature of Russian planes that Americans often overlook: they're designed for rugged combat conditions. Russian planes are designed to land on runways so rough that American planes never could. As a result, many Russian air stations the Americans thought abandoned were actually still in use. Remember Siberia has winters as severe as Canada. Anyone in Winnipeg knows what that does to roads. The same happens to runways, so they build planes to handle it. And that meant their jet engines were able to handle ingestion of debris more safely.

Their big heavy Mi-24 Hind helicopters were built with a titanium alloy "bath tub" around the pilot. As well as titanium shields over jet engine intakes. Attack helicopter and troop transport in one. Made their helicopters immune to small arms fire, only a missile or RPG could take it out. I guess a heavy machine gun could, if you hit just the right spot. Ukraine just found that out. But still damn tough.

[2Cdo]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

And I've long heard the story about training. It's a common story amoung Canadian soldiers. But have you faced a unit of Russian soldiers? I suspect you'll find they aren't as poorly trained as you think.

I have and they are poorly trained. Their NCO's are barely the equivalent of our privates.

As far as equipment goes, their ground equipment is about a generation or two behind the wests.

[Goober911]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

And I've long heard the story about training. It's a common story amoung Canadian soldiers. But have you faced a unit of Russian soldiers? I suspect you'll find they aren't as poorly trained as you think.

I have and they are poorly trained. Their NCO's are barely the equivalent of our privates.

As far as equipment goes, their ground equipment is about a generation or two behind the wests.

And they had A, B and C levels of Units- A being the better trained, first in, rest would be used as fodder.
Germans- Now who is going to teach that bunch about defensive operations. They cut their teeth in blood during WW2.
Below the mid level Officer level, no ability to think.
Troops were mainly conscripts.
Germany had bridges mined to delay or stop movement.
Autobahn- Developed to land aircraft on.
Yes the Russian would have made substantial inroads, just by superiority of numbers.
After that, chewed to pieces.
I loved the A 10 - It showed its versatility during Iraq War 1
Myself, the Russian would lose.
After the deployment of Nuke cruise missiles, and increases in troops and equipment, Russia was broken economically. Gorbachev when he took power realized this.
But the Russian saw no chance to win a quick war as they could not sustain a long one.

[bootlegga]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

During the Korean war, kill ratio was in favour of American pilots. Unless they faced a "honcho" pilot, then it was in favour of the other side. Years after the war, Russia admitted the honchos were Russian pilots sent to get combat experience. And one Russian pilot defected with a MiG, then state-of-the-art. American engineers tore it apart and discovered it better than America's then front-line fighter.

During the Vietnam war, fighter kill ratio was 3:1 in favour of American planes. But that's when Vietnamese pilots flew them. Im not sure, but I suspect the Russians did it again. Besides, the US air force did an analysis after the Vietnam war. Even with a 3:1 kill ratio, the Russian MiG cost 1/10 the price so in terms of dollars it was still in favour of the MiG. And MiG's 1 pilot instead of 2, so the pilot kill ratio was actually 3:2. That's why they built the F-16: to be America's cheap single-seat fighter.

Actually, 3.7 to 1 (the Vietnam kill ratio) was still in the US’ favour. It might not be as impressive as the 7 – 1 during the Korean conflict, but that was largely attributable to large numbers of skilled WW2 pilots re-upping and fighting against untrained NK/PLA pilots in that conflict.

A big factor in the low kill ratio was also the fact that the US Air Force’s prime interceptor – the Phantom (F-4) did not have a cannon, while its opponents did. At the time, it was thought that missile’s would completely replace cannon in air-to-air combat. Since then, every US fighter has come equipped with a cannon.

The kill ratio in the Vietnam conflict was 3.7 to 1 until the US Navy created its dissimilar air combat training program – popularly known as Top Gun. Then it shot up to 13 to 1.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=g28yvaf ... ct&f=false

What does that show? Training is paramount. You can have the best weapons platform in the world, but if the troops operating don’t know how to use it effectively, it might as well not be there.

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

And I've long heard the story about training. It's a common story amoung Canadian soldiers. But have you faced a unit of Russian soldiers? I suspect you'll find they aren't as poorly trained as you think.

Yes, they are poorly trained. Soviet era fighter pilots had only about half the air time Western pilots did. Soviet era ships sailed far less than their western counterparts.

Training matters on the battlefield – even more so on the 21st century battlefield.

Again, look at the Arab-Israeli conflicts. Both sides fielded roughly comparable equipment (in some cases, the Israelis fielded older equipment) and the Israelis trounced the Arabs over and over.

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

One feature of Russian planes that Americans often overlook: they're designed for rugged combat conditions. Russian planes are designed to land on runways so rought that American planes never could. As a result, many Russian air stations the Americans tought abandoned were actually still in use. Remember siberia has winters as severe as Canada. Anyone in Winnipeg knows what that does to roads. The same happens to runways, so they build planes to handle it. And that meant their jet engines were able to handle ingestion of debris more safey.

Their big heavy Mi-24 Hind helicopters were built with a titanium alloy "bath tub" around the pilot. As well as titanium shields over jet engine intakes. Attack helicopter and troop transport in one. Made their helicopters immune to small arms fire, only a missile or RPG could take it out. I guess a heavy machine gun could, if you hit just the right spot. Ukraine just found that out. But still damn tough.

One reason their equipment is more rugged is because the troops using it have little or no familiarity/experience with it and break it all the time. The Mi-24 might great against infantry/insurgents, but against fighters or even Apache helos, it loses EVERY time. The same could be said about the A-10 Warthog – it’s a deadly tank killer, but has no chance against a Su-27 or Mig-29.

FYI, the West does the same functions in two platforms – the Chinook and Apache – and both do the job better.

[Goober911]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

During the Korean war, kill ratio was in favour of American pilots. Unless they faced a "honcho" pilot, then it was in favour of the other side. Years after the war, Russia admitted the honchos were Russian pilots sent to get combat experience. And one Russian pilot defected with a MiG, then state-of-the-art. American engineers tore it apart and discovered it better than America's then front-line fighter.

During the Vietnam war, fighter kill ratio was 3:1 in favour of American planes. But that's when Vietnamese pilots flew them. Im not sure, but I suspect the Russians did it again. Besides, the US air force did an analysis after the Vietnam war. Even with a 3:1 kill ratio, the Russian MiG cost 1/10 the price so in terms of dollars it was still in favour of the MiG. And MiG's 1 pilot instead of 2, so the pilot kill ratio was actually 3:2. That's why they built the F-16: to be America's cheap single-seat fighter.

Actually, 3.7 to 1 (the Vietnam kill ratio) was still in the US’ favour. It might not be as impressive as the 7 – 1 during the Korean conflict, but that was largely attributable to large numbers of skilled WW2 pilots re-upping and fighting against untrained NK/PLA pilots in that conflict.

A big factor in the low kill ratio was also the fact that the US Air Force’s prime interceptor – the Phantom (F-4) did not have a cannon, while its opponents did. At the time, it was thought that missile’s would completely replace cannon in air-to-air combat. Since then, every US fighter has come equipped with a cannon.

The kill ratio in the Vietnam conflict was 3.7 to 1 until the US Navy created its dissimilar air combat training program – popularly known as Top Gun. Then it shot up to 13 to 1.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=g28yvaf ... ct&f=false

What does that show? Training is paramount. You can have the best weapons platform in the world, but if the troops operating don’t know how to use it effectively, it might as well not be there.

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

And I've long heard the story about training. It's a common story amoung Canadian soldiers. But have you faced a unit of Russian soldiers? I suspect you'll find they aren't as poorly trained as you think.

Yes, they are poorly trained. Soviet era fighter pilots had only about half the air time Western pilots did. Soviet era ships sailed far less than their western counterparts.

Training matters on the battlefield – even more so on the 21st century battlefield.

Again, look at the Arab-Israeli conflicts. Both sides fielded roughly comparable equipment (in some cases, the Israelis fielded older equipment) and the Israelis trounced the Arabs over and over.

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

One feature of Russian planes that Americans often overlook: they're designed for rugged combat conditions. Russian planes are designed to land on runways so rought that American planes never could. As a result, many Russian air stations the Americans tought abandoned were actually still in use. Remember siberia has winters as severe as Canada. Anyone in Winnipeg knows what that does to roads. The same happens to runways, so they build planes to handle it. And that meant their jet engines were able to handle ingestion of debris more safey.

Their big heavy Mi-24 Hind helicopters were built with a titanium alloy "bath tub" around the pilot. As well as titanium shields over jet engine intakes. Attack helicopter and troop transport in one. Made their helicopters immune to small arms fire, only a missile or RPG could take it out. I guess a heavy machine gun could, if you hit just the right spot. Ukraine just found that out. But still damn tough.

One reason their equipment is more rugged is because the troops using it have little or no familiarity/experience with it and break it all the time. The Mi-24 might great against infantry/insurgents, but against fighters or even Apache helos, it loses EVERY time. The same could be said about the A-10 Warthog – it’s a deadly tank killer, but has no chance against a Su-27 or Mig-29.

FYI, the West does the same functions in two platforms – the Chinook and Apache – and both do the job better.

The US lost the war after the Tet Offensive- VC were wiped out as they put everything into it, but the American at home saw it up close and personnel
This is another reason.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=vietname ... 23&bih=759
Here is another.
https://www.google.ca/#q=photo+of+girl+naplamed+running

[Winnipegger]

Well, I can only speculate about ground combat. I may be a computer software developer, but wanted to be an aerospace engineer since I was a pre-schooler. I read a lot about Russian space operations after the Soviet Union fell. Damn! They were farther ahead than anyone thought. Soviet ICBMs were thought to have primitive targeting, hardly able to hit anything. Then the west got details: they were almost as good as American missiles. Definitely good enough for the warheads they carried.

Then there's space stuff, my specialty. I never even heard about the Energia rocket until after the Soviet Union fell. It's first launch lifted a Soviet battle station: 88 metric tonnes, radar absorptive coating, painted black, didn't even use radio for communication, it used laser communication for complete stealth. Held 100 nuclear mines, a laser to defend against any anti-satellite weapon such as Brilliant Pebbles, and a cartridge of test targets for the laser. It even had a canister of special gas that would envelope the satellite, blocking any ground laser. But Mikhail Gorbachev was arguing with Regan to not launch orbital battle stations, he didn't want it. He attended the first launch of Energia, discovered what they were launching. The launch vehicle worked perfectly, but when the satellite battle station was supposed to use on-board thrusters to settle into orbit, it fired in the "wrong direction" causing it to de-orbit and safely crash in the ocean. And if you believe that was an accident, I have a bridge to sell in Brooklyn. It's not a good idea to disobey the Premier of the Soviet Union.

I talked to the lead engineer who developed the ion engine for NASA's Deep Space One. He told me NASA management had hired Russian engineers to teach them everything they knew about electric propulsion. He was glad I was interested in his work. NASA developed an ion engine with 3,000 second specific impulse. That's a rocket guy's way of saying fuel efficiency. Since rockets are limited by fuel, that's extremely important. Instead of an ion engine, another principle was Hall Effect. NASA thought the best you could achieve with that was 1,700 seconds, so they didn't waste their time. Turns out the Russians got that to work as well as NASA's best ion engine. And the Russians did it in the 1960s! Every Russian military satellite used Thruster Anode Layer Hall Thrusters for station keeping. And they developed a laboratory model of a big one, required a lot of electric power but specific impulse better than NASA's best.

Their rocket technology may not be as good with solid or cryogenic fuel, but they developed rocket engines that use storable propellants much farther than Americans. "Storable" means liquid at room temperature. There's a reason the Atlas V rocket uses a Russian engine, and the first stage of the Antares rocket was built in Ukraine. That launched the Cygnus cargo ship to the International Space Station.

You can pound your chest and say "we're great!". And I don't know about ground troops. But their aerospace is second to none. They did fall behind in electronics and radar during the cold war. Since the Soviet Union fell, they caught up.

Ps. bootlegga said the Mi-24 is great against infantry/insurgents. That's the point. That's who they face.

[Jabberwalker]

Yes. Beware of hubris. Underestimating one's enemies is a sure path to disaster.

[andyt]

PostFactum PostFactum:

He just wants to see me on tank with ak-47 taking part in massacre.

I couldn't for the longest time figure out why you want to continually distort what I've said. I think i get it now: you feel bad because you're not doing anything to help. Well, not to worry, other Ukrainians have stepped up, the Ukrainian army is finally confronting the insurgents. Good for them. You don't have to do anything. Unless you get drafted.

Turns out the insurgency is actually far less pervasive than the media led me to believe. A reporter for the Vancouver Sun, who is in East Ukraine writes that the insurgents do not control the region, not even Donetsk. So who knows, maybe all is not lost there. But if Ukraine had continued to stand by and do nothing, it would be lost, just handed to Putin on a silver platter.

Good to see that not all pro-West Ukrainian people are the same as you and have a million excuses why doing nothing is the way to go. You may want to accuse your fellow Ukrainians that are stepping up of wanting a massacre, not just me.

The West can't support you if you just stand there helpless. And despite the saber rattlers here, the west isn't crazy enough to go to war with Russia. And just rattling sabers without actually being willing to pull them out just makes you look weak.

[Goober911]

Deleted-Rude-Ignorant- Deleted by myself.

[andyt]

He sure did, over and over.

It's good to see that Ukraine has soldiers willing to step up instead of moaning about the enemy having intelligence. I sure hope you're not representative of Canadian soldiers if we're ever in the same situation, or we'd be fucked. "We can't act, the enemy has intelligence" HOly shit.

[Jabberwalker]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

And I've long heard the story about training. It's a common story amoung Canadian soldiers. But have you faced a unit of Russian soldiers? I suspect you'll find they aren't as poorly trained as you think.

I have and they are poorly trained. Their NCO's are barely the equivalent of our privates.
quote]

This old Canadian military philosophy whereby Privates are trained-up to take over from Corporals, Corporals trained to take over from Sargents, Sargents from officers goes straight back to Sir Arthur Currie, himslf. It was a peculaiarly Canadian innovation (the British DID NOT like to have their class barriers crossed like that) and it has been a guiding philosohy ever since. I suspect that's how we get so much from our usually little forces .. this kind of cross-trained flexibility.