Russian aircraft?

[maxham]

Comrades, right now, the US, EU, & Russia are known as the "3 musketeers" in the dominance of the world aviation sector.

Talking about Russian aircraft, I've heard lots of news that said Russian aircraft are overall better than US aircraft, because it's much more easier to maintain, more reliable, lower costs, thus the efficiency are comparable towards the US/EU aircraft. But besides that, what're the distinct advantages & also the disadvantages of Russian aircraft? (I even haven't ride a Russian aeroplane to this date)

[Dr Mindbender]

i dont know about Russian planes being better, the F-22 Raptor is supposedly able to pwn anything that flies because of its vector thrust engines.

That said, China is also supposedly working on some kick arse jets.

[Psy]

i dont know about Russian planes being better, the F-22 Raptor is supposedly able to pwn anything that flies because of its vector thrust engines.

The Su-30 also has vector thrust but is far more nimble and can out turn a F-22 easily (meaning it had better odds winning a dog fight). Then you have the Russian Ground Effect planes that are huge engineering feats that US military still can't see their tactical advantage (stable very heavy aircraft that skims over water with incredible lift capabilities) thus the US has no technical knowledge of how to build them.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The Su-30 also has vector thrust but is far more nimble and can out turn a F-22 easily (meaning it had better odds winning a dog fight).


Easily? Have you seen an F-22 move? It's literally getting to the point that the G-forces caused may necessitate the move to fighter without a pilot for the next generation.

Anyway, even if it could that's only regarding a fight using guns. Maybe that's how the Russians roll, but not a Raptor.

Russia had to suspend air operations during the Georgian war because they were getting picked out of the sky. The Russians sent their jets in without radar sights, long range missiles, or computers that could calcualte ground coordinates. You could have the most nimble jet in the world, but if your weapons systems are antiquated machinery good fuckin luck.

[Psy]

Easily? Have you seen an F-22 move? It's literally getting to the point that the G-forces caused may necessitate the move to fighter without a pilot for the next generation.

When your talking about dog fights with vector thrusts your either talking slower speeds in dog fights (focusing on manoeuvrability) or your talking about flips where the jet flips around while still moving in its original direction fires off a missile then continues to flip to face in the general direction it is moving to avoid slowing down to much, the G-force would be that of jet flipping as the jet would mostly still continuing on path dictated by its momentum (as the flip won't last long, just long enough to take a shot at a jet that was behind it).



Russia had to suspend air operations during the Georgian war because they were getting picked out of the sky. The Russians sent their jets in without radar sights, long range missiles, or computers that could calcualte ground coordinates. You could have the most nimble jet in the world, but if your weapons systems are antiquated machinery good fuckin luck.
No Russia never suspended air operations during the Georgian war, they suspended night missions as all the equipment were lacked upgrades as Russia never prepared for a major war with Georgia. Even Russian ground units stopped their advances before they lost day light as their equipment didn't have upgrades to let them operate well at night. Yet Russia has jets and ground units with those upgrades (and new units with those capabilities standard) in their Western front where Russian military planners thought their next major war would take place, not in some rural mountainous region.

[Guerrilla22]

It looks like they are going to hault or at least delay production of the F-22 due to budget constraints, they had a F-35 in the works as well.

[khad]

Russia had to suspend air operations during the Georgian war because they were getting picked out of the sky. The Russians sent their jets in without radar sights, long range missiles, or computers that could calcualte ground coordinates. You could have the most nimble jet in the world, but if your weapons systems are antiquated machinery good fuckin luck.
The North Caucasus military district is low priority. The ground forces didn't have a single piece of equipment that was post-1980. None of those Kontakt-V plates or Drozd ground ecms. A lot of units didn't even have body armor or helmets, and it was a looting bonanza when they reached Georgian army barracks. Soldiers were making off with 2, 3 sets of armor, PASGTs, bedrolls, etc all the way up to Georgian T-72s.

And yet good operational planning and maneuver compensated for these deficiencies. I think it's pretty damn impressive what the 58th Army, which was heavily loaded with light recon elements, was able to accomplish given their technotactical disadvantages. Throughout the entire campaign, Russian forces were also at a numerical disadvantage (only 15,000 troops deployed compared to the 30,000 in the Georgian army).

I think only a jingoistic American nationalist would turn his nose up and laugh. The Georgians definitely knew what was what.

[Guerrilla22]

Actually the Su-47 probaly will be the best jet, once they finish developing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-47

[Psy]

The North Caucasus military district is low priority. The ground forces didn't have a single piece of equipment that was post-1980. None of those Kontakt-V plates or Drozd ground ecms. A lot of units didn't even have body armor or helmets, and it was a looting bonanza when they reached Georgian army barracks. Soldiers were making off with 2, 3 sets of armor, PASGTs, bedrolls, etc all the way up to Georgian T-72s.

And yet good operational planning and maneuver compensated for these deficiencies. I think it's pretty damn impressive what the 58th Army, which was heavily loaded with light recon elements, was able to accomplish given their technotactical disadvantages. Throughout the entire campaign, Russian forces were also at a numerical disadvantage (only 15,000 troops deployed compared to the 30,000 in the Georgian army).

I think only a jingoistic American nationalist would turn his nose up and laugh. The Georgians definitely knew what was what.

That and the Georgian Army was totally unprepared for any serious counter attack, the Georgian Army had zero defences past S.Ossetia which is why militias from S.Ossetia was able to operate so deeply in Georgia independently from the Russian forces once the Russian's crushed the Georgina Army in and near S.Ossetia.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Oh please. The Russians had some terrain to deal with, boo hoo.

Claiming that Georgia had anything close to an advantage in that conflict is a joke. Their air defenses were the only thing that they did well during the entire conflict.

This is all just a bullshit discussion, and none of the jets we're talking about here are going to face off anytime soon. But I'd like to see it.


Even Russian ground units stopped their advances before they lost day light as their equipment didn't have upgrades to let them operate well at night. Yet Russia has jets and ground units with those upgrades (and new units with those capabilities standard) in their Western front where Russian military planners thought their next major war would take place, not in some rural mountainous region.


Damn, they might want to work out those logistical problems sometime soon. If the US can move a massive army half way around the world, not to mention stationing one of the worlds premier airforces off the coast of anywhere they want to via aircraft carriers, that says that Russia needs some improvement. Especially when they're sending men to die while better equipment is waiting for an attack from Lithuania.


I think only a jingoistic American nationalist would turn his nose up and laugh. The Georgians definitely knew what was what.

Oh puh-lease. The Russians have never built a premier weapons system that the Americans haven't outdone. Half of the reason is that Soviet strategy is bullshit, but how many T-72s and T-64s did Syria and Egypt outnumber Israel by?

1 M1a2 Abrams tank = 7 T-72's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrams_tank)

And that was at a range of less than 50 yards, so inferior optics are no excuse. And all the T-90 is is an upgraded T-80, which is an upgraded T-72. The F-15 dominated every Mig it ever faced off against (104-0 is the score I believe, though that may include a few old American hulks that were later picked out of the sky), so much so that Saddam burried or gave away his air force when the US came threatening.

And now we hear about how the Russians are designing weapons systems that are going to outdo the Americans in every way shape and form.

What a croc of shit. With the exception of the Ak-47 and 74, they ain't got shit on the Americans. All we hear from the Russian side is Bullshit so they can sell their crap to despots who don't like the US (as opposed to the US giving weapons away, but that's a different story).

I'm not a jingoist American nationalist. But our weapons kick ass, and Russian weapons systems don't have anything close to the track record of the US military.

[Psy]

Damn, they might want to work out those logistical problems sometime soon. If the US can move a massive army half way around the world, not to mention stationing one of the worlds premier airforces off the coast of anywhere they want to via aircraft carriers, that says that Russia needs some improvement. Especially when they're sending men to die while better equipment is waiting for an attack from Lithuania.

That still takes time, and the US logistic system is getting pwned in Afghanistan and Iraq were US troops have to blow up their own equipment because so they don't fall into insurgence hands because they have no rescue vehicle to drag transport disable vehicles back to base. Hell US troops don't even have enough flatbeds with ramps and winches to rescue disabled trucks, humvess and ambulances.

If the US can't deploy enough logistical capacity to Iraq and Afghanistan after years of conflict there why do you expect Russia to in a rural region when they are taken by surprise?



Oh puh-lease. The Russians have never built a premier weapons system that the Americans haven't outdone. Half of the reason is that Soviet strategy is bullshit,

I'm sorry when did Warsaw Pact forces directly engage NATO forces?



but how many T-72s and T-64s did Syria and Egypt outnumber Israel by?

1 M1a2 Abrams tank = 7 T-72's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrams_tank)

And that was at a range of less than 50 yards, so inferior optics are no excuse. And all the T-90 is is an upgraded T-80, which is an upgraded T-72. The F-15 dominated every Mig it ever faced off against (104-0 is the score I believe, though that may include a few old American hulks that were later picked out of the sky), so much so that Saddam burried or gave away his air force when the US came threatening.

That with crews not trained by the U.S.S.R and Iraqi generals didn't follow U.S.S.R military doctrine when it came to using said equipment. U.S.S.R doctrine for their tanks was to use their low profile to snipe enemy tanks from hull down positions camouflaged to hide them for enemy air power, for battles under 50 yards the doctrine was for tanks to support anti-tank squads and constant movement.

Same with MiGs those were not U.S.S.R pilots and not following U.S.S.R doctrines for air combat.



And now we hear about how the Russians are designing weapons systems that are going to outdo the Americans in every way shape and form.

What a croc of shit. With the exception of the Ak-47 and 74, they ain't got shit on the Americans. All we hear from the Russian side is Bullshit so they can sell their crap to despots who don't like the US (as opposed to the US giving weapons away, but that's a different story).

Russian weapons are actually well build since they were given top priority by the GOSPLAN. For example the Russian KPV/KPVT is the world's most powerful machine gun with its 14.5x144mm calibre rounds with the only draw back being it has so much recoil and weighs so much it can only be effectively used while mounted to a vehicle or trailer.

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm sorry when did Warsaw Pact forces directly engage NATO forces?


I think he means the occasions when the americans fought against countries with soviet made technology (vietnam, N.Korea etc).

That said i dont think its a reliable acid test cause i'm sure the Soviet Union never sold her neighbours her most up to date toys. I think the DPRK air force still has MiG 15's and MiG 21 fishbeds still in service.

[Psy]

I think he means the occasions when the americans fought against countries with soviet made technology (vietnam, N.Korea etc).

That said i dont think its a reliable acid test cause i'm sure the Soviet Union never sold her neighbours her most up to date toys. I think the DPRK air force still has MiG 15's and MiG 21 fishbeds still in service.
These countries were also not fighting with a complete complement of Soviet equipment using Soviet doctrines, for example the Iraqis were not using BMPs in mechanized waves where the BMPs covered each other, unloaded troops hull down then being in close coordination with infantry and ferrying ammo to the troops at the front so soviet troops can carry out the Soviet doctrine for grunts of shooting from the hip while on the moving from cover to cover to create a wall of lead while advancing that would keep the enemy pinned down and might give a few hits. Which we didn't see in the first Iraq war.

Lets not forget Russia is the leader in Thermobaric bombs and warheads, the largest makes even the US's MOAB look like a firecracker and is far more cost effective for its destructive force.

[ComradeOm]

Damn, they might want to work out those logistical problems sometime soon. If the US can move a massive army half way around the world, not to mention stationing one of the worlds premier airforces off the coast of anywhere they want to via aircraft carriers, that says that Russia needs some improvementWhen given 24 hrs notice? What an absurd comparison.

The problem was not logistics* but simple lack of stock in the region. This itself is no surprise given that the Russians, like any other nation in the world, have always prioritised their theatre commands

*Unless you seriously expect the Russians to be able to transfer entire army groups across thousands of kilometres in a matter of hours. To give an example, it took the US six months to assemble a fighting force for the Gulf War and approx half that for the much smaller invasion of Iraq in 2003


I'm not a jingoist American nationalist. But our weapons kick ass, and Russian weapons systems don't have anything close to the track record of the US military.No, you're just a chauvinist proud that the US of A builds the best damn weapons out there. Ye-hah!

[khad]

And that was at a range of less than 50 yards, so inferior optics are no excuse. And all the T-90 is is an upgraded T-80, which is an upgraded T-72. The F-15 dominated every Mig it ever faced off against (104-0 is the score I believe, though that may include a few old American hulks that were later picked out of the sky), so much so that Saddam burried or gave away his air force when the US came threatening.

And now we hear about how the Russians are designing weapons systems that are going to outdo the Americans in every way shape and form.

What a croc of shit. With the exception of the Ak-47 and 74, they ain't got shit on the Americans. All we hear from the Russian side is Bullshit so they can sell their crap to despots who don't like the US (as opposed to the US giving weapons away, but that's a different story).

I'm not a jingoist American nationalist. But our weapons kick ass, and Russian weapons systems don't have anything close to the track record of the US military.
Actually, you are full of shit. The M1 Abrams came to compete with the T-80 (an evolution of the T-64, NOT the T-72), which was at its introduction the most advanced MBT in the world. The two designs stayed relatively evenly matched until the mid-80s, when the M1s got upgraded with the 120mm smoothbores.

Futhermore, the USSR's export grade gear to the middle east was hardly up to par. The T-72s they exported did not even have composite armor (the T-64s were the first tanks in the world to have this, btw), laser rangefinders, and TU/Tungsten ammunition. Add to this incompetence with Iraqi/Syrian crews who didn't even zero their guns, and you have an overinflated picture of American/Israeli weapons systems.


Half of the reason is that Soviet strategy is bullshitIf you can't separate the technotactical from the operational/strategic, then you shouldn't even be talking about military affairs. Yes, Soviet operational theory was such bullshit that NATO desperately tried to emulate it with Airland battle in the 80s (though if you look at it the concept of deep operations in Airland is half-assed and incomplete) when they realized that attrition-style active defense wasn't going to cut it in a modern mechanized battlefield. (And they still weren't able to standardize sp artillery assets all the way down to regimental level.)

Even many American military planners gave the operational advantages to the Soviet Army, while having faith in their own technotactical advantages.


I think he means the occasions when the americans fought against countries with soviet made technology (vietnam, N.Korea etc).

That said i dont think its a reliable acid test cause i'm sure the Soviet Union never sold her neighbours her most up to date toys. I think the DPRK air force still has MiG 15's and MiG 21 fishbeds still in service.
I think the biggest counterargument to this is the final offensive of the Vietnam War, where the Soviet-equipped NVA smashed a South Vietnamese army that was on paper 4 times larger and had the benefit of many billions of dollars of US Aid. Good combined arms, operational mobility, and depth are classic hallmarks of Soviet operational art.


The problem was not logistics* but simple lack of stock in the region. This itself is no surprise given that the Russians, like any other nation in the world, have always prioritised their theatre commands
Obviously. I bet Abe Lincoln here didn't even know that not a single T-72 even entered Afghanistan.

It's that old jab against "Soviet logistics." If I had a dime for every time I've heard some knee-jerk Amurikan parrot that crap. First, the Russian army today is far less competent and organized than the Soviet army was, just looking at how soldiers in the Georgian campaign were equipped vs the Soviet Army in the past. Second, the Soviet army was the first army in the world to have a fully computerized logistical command operating on the Army and Front levels. Third, Western militaries have much to learn from Soviet logistics and engineering. The speed with which the Soviet army moved in Afghanistan, sometimes building roads right through the mountains as they advanced, is something that no military in the world today has the capability to do. I've heard even former western military engineers, who would otherwise scoff at the Soviet army, tip their hat to this accomplishment.

[Dr Mindbender]

to be fair, TCOAL does remind me of an obnoxious american child screaming out during an online game ''why do you guys even bother!? You suck!''

[khad]

to be fair, TCOAL does remind me of an obnoxious american child screaming out during an online game ''why do you guys even bother!? You suck!''
I think if you look at the USA's FCS (future combat systems) proposals one of the biggest vindications of Soviet design philosophy is the one for the next-generation American tank--40-45 ton weight profile, as few as 2 men in the crew, autoloader to save space, low and compact, etc. It also supposed to have a manless turret, further reducing profile and enhancing protection, which the Soviet Union was proposing since the late 80s for their next generation MBT to replace the T80s and T72s.

Just watch this Abe Lincoln guy come here and say that the Americans came up with all this shit first.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

That still takes time, and the US logistic system is getting pwned in Afghanistan and Iraq were US troops have to blow up their own equipment because so they don't fall into insurgence hands because they have no rescue vehicle to drag transport disable vehicles back to base. Hell US troops don't even have enough flatbeds with ramps and winches to rescue disabled trucks, humvess and ambulances.

Why the fuck would you want to repair a damaged tank? How are you going to get Congress to approve purchasing any new ones with that kind of attitude?

And what I meant by logistics is ability to move troops, food, and eqipment where it needs to be quickly. The fact that the US has been entrenched on the other side of the globe for going on a decade demonstrates that ability.


If the US can't deploy enough logistical capacity to Iraq and Afghanistan after years of conflict there why do you expect Russia to in a rural region when they are taken by surprise?

Enough logistical capacity? The question is regarding the numbers of troops, tanks, and choppers needed, not the methods of getting them there, though that is dependent on Russia.


I'm sorry when did Warsaw Pact forces directly engage NATO forces?

Never.


That with crews not trained by the U.S.S.R and Iraqi generals didn't follow U.S.S.R military doctrine when it came to using said equipment. U.S.S.R doctrine for their tanks was to use their low profile to snipe enemy tanks from hull down positions camouflaged to hide them for enemy air power, for battles under 50 yards the doctrine was for tanks to support anti-tank squads and constant movement.

That may be what Russian tactics dictate today, but it sure as hell wasn't what they advocated during most of the Soviet years. The Soviet strategy was, because they outnumbered NATO by something like 10,000+ tanks, to launch an onslaught head on.

The Syrians followed Soviet strategy in the Golan, which is why despite a huge numerical advantage they were stopped by the Israelis who deployed their few tanks in squadrons of 4 and picked them off as they came.


Same with MiGs those were not U.S.S.R pilots and not following U.S.S.R doctrines for air combat.

Over half of the kills of the F-15 were made by non-Americans.


Russian weapons are actually well build since they were given top priority by the GOSPLAN. For example the Russian KPV/KPVT is the world's most powerful machine gun with its 14.5x144mm calibre rounds with the only draw back being it has so much recoil and weighs so much it can only be effectively used while mounted to a vehicle or trailer.

Look, I'm not saying that Russian weapons are crap. They've had many innovative and, at times, have had the leading designs in many fields. But overall contemporary American weapons systems aren't going to be surpassed.

[Dr Mindbender]

Look, I'm not saying that Russian weapons are crap. They've had many innovative and, at times, have had the leading designs in many fields. But overall contemporary American weapons systems aren't going to be surpassed.

I've heard anecdotal evidence that on one occasion a kid in England picked up the radio chatter from an overflying B2 stealth bomber on his transciever radio (stealth my arse) and that the US army use sellotape to repair apache gunship rotor blades.

[khad]

That may be what Russian tactics dictate today, but it sure as hell wasn't what they advocated during most of the Soviet years. The Soviet strategy was, because they outnumbered NATO by something like 10,000+ tanks, to launch an onslaught head on.

The Syrians followed Soviet strategy in the Golan, which is why despite a huge numerical advantage they were stopped by the Israelis who deployed their few tanks in squadrons of 4 and picked them off as they came.

Strategy? It was a mockery of the Soviet school of warfare, which always prized operational flexibility. General DePuy, who was the the architect behind the transformation of the US Army in the 80s, cited the Soviet Army in WW2 as the premier example of freedom of operational maneuver. The Soviet Army was pioneering maneuver school warfare since the 1930s, though it was put on hold with Stalin's purges and then resumed in painful experience in WW2.

Military theorists have usually considered the US Army to be the premier example of attrition school warfare until the post-Vietnam reforms.

Don't even talk about this shit unless you can sort out these basic concepts.


Look, I'm not saying that Russian weapons are crap. They've had many innovative and, at times, have had the leading designs in many fields. But overall contemporary American weapons systems aren't going to be surpassed.Only after Gorbachev. Until then, the two countries matched each others' technologies tit-for-tat.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

When given 24 hrs notice? What an absurd comparison.

The problem was not logistics* but simple lack of stock in the region. This itself is no surprise given that the Russians, like any other nation in the world, have always prioritised their theatre commands

*Unless you seriously expect the Russians to be able to transfer entire army groups across thousands of kilometres in a matter of hours. To give an example, it took the US six months to assemble a fighting force for the Gulf War and approx half that for the much smaller invasion of Iraq in 2003

No, you're just a chauvinist proud that the US of A builds the best damn weapons out there. Ye-hah!

First of all, the US does. I'm not chauvinist (as if that has anything to do with the conversation at hand), it's the truth. With the possible exception of some assault rifles that would better fit a non-professional military (ie conscript), every weapons system the US has is the premier of any superpower.

Second of all, that's a completely different situation. The US obviously took its time, because it had to build the case for invasion, to get its forces in place. When Collin Powell made his speech at the UN the chips were already set in place.

A better example would be when the US was attacked on 9-11. Now, you have to remember that initially it was not as clear-cut as an attack from a foreign. However, within days special forces/CIA were on the ground inside Afghanistan and major airstrikes were begun a month later. Sure, that's a long time, but it's also on the other side of the Earth. Yet if that can be accomplished I'm supposed to believe that if a country that bordered the US attacked there wouldn't be a massive, immediate response?

As for transfering Army groups, yes. Why send your least developed forces into a warzone? Let alone airpower that lacks radar sights or long range missiles?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I think if you look at the USA's FCS (future combat systems) proposals one of the biggest vindications of Soviet design philosophy is the one for the next-generation American tank--40-45 ton weight profile, as few as 2 men in the crew, autoloader to save space, low and compact, etc. It also supposed to have a manless turret, further reducing profile and enhancing protection, which the Soviet Union was proposing since the late 80s for their next generation MBT to replace the T80s and T72s.

Just watch this Abe Lincoln guy come here and say that the Americans came up with all this shit first.

Not at all.

The Nazis gave us swept wings, better jets, rocket technology. And they gave the Soviets quite a lot as well. I'm not denying anything.

I will say the US will build a better tank. Though, with that said replacing the Abrams at this point is like talk about replacing the M16 for general infantry.

[khad]

As for transfering Army groups, yes. Why send your least developed forces into a warzone? Let alone airpower that lacks radar sights or long range missiles?
Look, it's clear you don't understand a thing. The troops stationed in the North Caucasus are lightly armed counterinsurgency forces. They don't need more to fight random gangs and chechen guerillas (which are no longer as heavily armed as they were in the 90s). In fact the war there has officially been declared over. They were moved into Georgia because that was all they had in the region, just as the USA didn't move its elite formations to clear the Japanese out of Alaska.

This is common sense in the military.

And for your edification, General Depuy on operational maneuver:


I want to make a point here. People talk a lot about attrition versus maneuver. This is not an intellectual choice. The same Generals who so brilliantly dashed across France were suddenly forced back into conducting attrition warfare. Nobody doubts that General George Patton preferred maneuver, but maneuver warfare is not a doctrinal choice; it is an earned benefit.

The efforts to break through and obtain operational maneuver in the Fall of 1944 at Arnhem, with the great air-ground operation called Market Garden, failed; the attacks through Huertgen and Aachen were bloody and indecisive, and the attack by the Third Army across the Saar bogged down. In a last operational effort in the middle of December--three months later--the German Army once more sought freedom of maneuver through the Ardennes.

The Germans enjoyed another tactical success. They penetrated about 75 miles to the west, but they never could turn north toward Liege and Antwerp, which were their operational objectives. They were stopped by the flexibility and mobility of the U.S. Army. That, by the way, was the first and only time in the history of the U.S. Army that it faced a breakthrough armored attack of the kind we have been preparing for in NATO for many years.

If the Germans had had a couple of second-echelon armies then like the Russians have today, the Battle of the Bulge might have turned out quite differently.

After that battle, the Allies gnawed their way through the remnants of the German Army, went to the Rhine and the Elbe, to Czechoslovakia, and to the end of the war. For the last two months of the war, they again had freedom of maneuver. That means they had a total of three and one-half months of freedom of operational maneuver out of 11 months of combat. They wanted it 100 percent of the time; they were able to achieve it less than 33 percent of the time.

After Stalingrad, the Russians developed the breakthrough operation into a brutal art. They broke through at Stalingrad, on the Don, the Donets, the Dneiper, the Vistuala, the Oder, and each time surged forward 100 miles or more.

The two Soviet army fronts, which we would call army groups, that were involved in the breakthrough on the Vistual were commanded by Georgi Zhukov and Ivan Koniev, the Ukranin and Byelorussian fronts. Those two fronts alone comprised 2,200,000 men, 7,000 tanks, and 46,000 artillery pieces, which in the breakthrough area amounted to 460 artillery tubes per kilometer of front. They broke through in a week, went on to the Oder at about 35 kilometers a day, and were stopped there on the last German defensive position in front of Berlin.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Actually, you are full of shit. The M1 Abrams came to compete with the T-80 (an evolution of the T-64, NOT the T-72), which was at its introduction the most advanced MBT in the world. The two designs stayed relatively evenly matched until the mid-80s, when the M1s got upgraded with the 120mm smoothbores.

You're right. I also forgot to mention that the T80 is powered by a turbine, which is interesting.

Now, if you don't mind me asking, why would they go back to a loud as hell diesel engine for the T90?


Futhermore, the USSR's export grade gear to the middle east was hardly up to par. The T-72s they exported did not even have composite armor (the T-64s were the first tanks in the world to have this, btw), laser rangefinders, and TU/Tungsten ammunition. Add to this incompetence with Iraqi/Syrian crews who didn't even zero their guns, and you have an overinflated picture of American/Israeli weapons systems.


Yes, Soviet operational theory was such bullshit that NATO desperately tried to emulate it with Airland battle in the 80s (though if you look at it the concept of deep operations in Airland is half-assed and incomplete) when they realized that attrition-style active defense wasn't going to cut it in a modern mechanized battlefield. (And they still weren't able to standardize sp artillery assets all the way down to regimental level.)

Even many American military planners gave the operational advantages to the Soviet Army, while having faith in their own technotactical advantages.

You have to admit it was much easier for the soviets to employ standardized equipment with the one-size-fits-all militaries of the Warsaw Pact. By comparison, NATO was extremely inefficient with it's "most important" member thousands of miles away from the battlefront.

But the technological edge was there, and by the 1980s everything in the US's arsenal was designed at stopping an advance of greatly numerically superior Soviet forces. That's quite a problem today, when the doctrine for flying Apaches calls for hovering and targeting a few dozens tanks at a time, a scenario that only occured in the Gulf War.


I think the biggest counterargument to this is the final offensive of the Vietnam War, where the Soviet-equipped NVA smashed a South Vietnamese army that was on paper 4 times larger and had the benefit of many billions of dollars of US Aid. Good combined arms, operational mobility, and depth are classic hallmarks of Soviet operational art.

Eh or it could be that the NVA had been fighting for decades and the South Vietnamese had been, eh, somewhat sheltered by foreign armies.


not a single T-72 even entered Afghanistan.

Well I hope so.

[ComradeOm]

First of all, the US does. I'm not chauvinist (as if that has anything to do with the conversation at hand), it's the truth. With the possible exception of some assault rifles that would better fit a non-professional military (ie conscript), every weapons system the US has is the premier of any superpowerNo, its your opinion and one that you are insisting that it is "the truth"


The US obviously took its time, because it had to build the case for invasion, to get its forces in placeWell, duh. I wasn't suggesting that the US command was sitting around scratching its arse. It took six months for the US "to get its forces in place" in the lead up to Desert Storm. That's what you'd call 'logistics'


A better example would be when the US was attacked on 9-11. Now, you have to remember that initially it was not as clear-cut as an attack from a foreign. However, within days special forces/CIA were on the ground inside Afghanistan and major airstrikes were begun a month later. Sure, that's a long time, but it's also on the other side of the Earth. Yet if that can be accomplished I'm supposed to believe that if a country that bordered the US attacked there wouldn't be a massive, immediate response?The first meaningful combat troops (ie, non Special Forces) did not begin to arrive in Afghanistan until mid-late November 2001 and the numbers remained small (less than 10,000 total) until late 2002. These are the figures that are relevant because we're not discussing dropping a few Spetsnaz in Georgia (you can be sure they were there) but the transfer of large numbers of planes, armoured vehicles, combat troops, and all the associated logistical baggage

So in Afghanistan it took the better part of a year (if not more) to assemble the same number of Russian troops (roughly) that were involved in Georgia. And you criticise Moscow for not being able to do this in less than 24 hrs?


As for transfering Army groups, yes. Why send your least developed forces into a warzone? Let alone airpower that lacks radar sights or long range missiles?The (very) obvious answer being that this was not a war of Russia's choosing and they had no choice but to fight with what assets were available in the theatre at the time. They could not ask the Georgians to suspend their attacks while Moscow spent a few days or a week transferring armies from across the country

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The (very) obvious answer being that this was not a war of Russia's choosing and they had no choice but to fight with what assets were available in the theatre at the time. They could not ask the Georgians to suspend their attacks while Moscow spent a few days or a week transferring armies from across the country

Yet Georgia didn't attack Russia, and it's not like Russia had a lot to fear other than political backlash. My point was that the Russians sent in troops and, most of all, jet aircraft into a warzone they weren't prepared for.

I never said it needed to be done in less than 24 hours. The US sure as hell couldn't do that in the hypothetical situation of some power invading at a weak point. But it also wouldn't send some half-cocked National Guard units in for the counterattack.

[khad]

You're right. I also forgot to mention that the T80 is powered by a turbine, which is interesting.

Now, if you don't mind me asking, why would they go back to a loud as hell diesel engine for the T90?
Because the facilities that produced the engines and the T-80 line were located in Ukraine. Small numbers of their T-80s have been updated to T-84s. Ukraine also has a prototype extra-long barrel 125mm "vitiaz" cannon that is supposedly comparable to the western 120mm.



You have to admit it was much easier for the soviets to employ standardized equipment with the one-size-fits-all militaries of the Warsaw Pact. By comparison, NATO was extremely inefficient with it's "most important" member thousands of miles away from the battlefront.Again, you are just trapped in terms of thinking technology. That's not all the military is about. Organization counts for a large part of doctrine. The US Army was constantly trying to slim down its divisions in the 80s in an attempt to get them to be more operationally flexible. More units means more freedom to move men around when you're talking about theater level movements. Part of the reason why the Battle of the Bulge didn't end in an encirclement-annihilation was because the US command didn't have any units to pull for a flank attack. Moving any division from the line would have left a huge gap. Had the units been smaller, additional divisions could have been pulled from inactive sectors without compromising the front line.

Another part of the 1980s reforms was pushing artillery assets down to regimental levels to enhance lower-level fire support. In Vietnam, the 105mm and above guns were deployed divisionally.

Another important part of doctrine is operational art, which I've explained previously.


But the technological edge was there, and by the 1980s everything in the US's arsenal was designed at stopping an advance of greatly numerically superior Soviet forces. That's quite a problem today, when the doctrine for flying Apaches calls for hovering and targeting a few dozens tanks at a time, a scenario that only occured in the Gulf War.Early 80s, I'd disagree. In Gorby-era I would agree.

The Soviets had real ground attack choppers first (the hind), and had they not collapsed they would have been fielding the Ka-50 by the early 90s. Weapons development between the two countries typically followed a pattern by which one country would lead for a few years, and then the other.


Eh or it could be that the NVA had been fighting for decades and the South Vietnamese had been, eh, somewhat sheltered by foreign armies.Yeah, the ARVN was so sheltered that a quarter million of them died. :rolleyes:


I never said it needed to be done in less than 24 hours. The US sure as hell couldn't do that in the hypothetical situation of some power invading at a weak point. But it also wouldn't send some half-cocked National Guard units in for the counterattack.Look at the American Civil War. There were plenty of low-priority sectors that had to make do with shit for men and gear. Also see the Seminole wars, where local militia and volunteers were humilated again and again and were so insubordinate that Zachary Taylor put them in front to catch the first bullets. Perhaps your perception is warped because the USA hasn't fought a major war on its territory for ages.

For some half cocked bottom of the barrel forces, what the 58th army did against a numerically and technologically superior army cannot be discounted.


The first meaningful combat troops (ie, non Special Forces) did not begin to arrive in Afghanistan until mid-late November 2001 and the numbers remained small (less than 10,000 total) until late 2002. These are the figures that are relevant because we're not discussing dropping a few Spetsnaz in Georgia (you can be sure they were there) but the transfer of large numbers of planes, armoured vehicles, combat troops, and all the associated logistical baggage

So in Afghanistan it took the better part of a year (if not more) to assemble the same number of Russian troops (roughly) that were involved in Georgia. And you criticise Moscow for not being able to do this in less than 24 hrs?
As I said before, no military today has the capability to push an entire field army through Afghan mountains on roads being built in a matter of weeks. Which is exactly what the Soviet Army did.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Because the facilities that produced the engines and the T-80 line were located in Ukraine. Small numbers of their T-80s have been updated to T-84s. Ukraine also has a prototype extra-long barrel 125mm "vitiaz" cannon that is supposedly comparable to the western 120mm.

That makes sense, I really didn't think it could be because of fuel efficiency :lol:


Again, you are just trapped in terms of thinking technology. That's not all the military is about. Organization counts for a large part of doctrine. The US Army was constantly trying to slim down its divisions in the 80s in an attempt to get them to be more operationally flexible. More units means more freedom to move men around when you're talking about theater level movements.

The US military in the 1980s was undergoing a massive, painful transformation from being a conscript army to a professional one.

And while that does mean more flexibility, it also entails more confusion, though not as much now with satellite technology.


The Soviets had real ground attack choppers first (the hind), and had they not collapsed they would have been fielding the Ka-50 by the early 90s. Weapons development between the two countries typically followed a pattern by which one country would lead for a few years, and then the other.

The Soviets really used the choppers well in Afghanistan, and I can't say that the Soviet military today would be on par with the US if history was radically different.

But the original point we were debating was that the Russians will be able to outdo the F-22, or even F-35 as a multi-role.

Honestly, honestly, can you see that happening?


Yeah, the ARVN was so sheltered that a quarter million of them died. :rolleyes:

You know what I meant. No more bombing runs on North Vietnam, no more thousands of Hueys blazing through the jungle just looking for a fight, and no more American infantry.

[Dr Mindbender]

But the original point we were debating was that the Russians will be able to outdo the F-22, or even F-35 as a multi-role.

Honestly, honestly, can you see that happening?
.

Probably not, but China might eventually, if their economy keeps going the way it is.

Its predicted that the US will pass the baton of the worlds 'top dog' to China around 2040.

[khad]

But the original point we were debating was that the Russians will be able to outdo the F-22, or even F-35 as a multi-role.
Hate to break it to you, but the PAK-FA prototype is flying this year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAK-FA

Had the USSR not collapsed they would have been fielding this many years ago. The USSR was already trying to develop a replacement for the Su-27 since the 80s, though because of the shit Russia went through this project only got off the ground in 2002.


The US military in the 1980s was undergoing a massive, painful transformation from being a conscript army to a professional one.Stop swallowing Pentagon propaganda. There is no fundamental difference in combat effectiveness between professionals and conscripts. The Germans laughed at the French when they told them this in prewar exercises. The French had professionals, and they weren't any more effective than the rest in maneuver warfare; quite the opposite in fact.

[ComradeOm]

Yet Georgia didn't attack RussiaGeorgia invaded South Ossetia and precipitated a war with Russia. Political concerns dictated that Moscow could not simply wait a week or two and then intervene


My point was that the Russians sent in troops and, most of all, jet aircraft into a warzone they weren't prepared for.And why did they do so? Because the majority of their best equipment was assigned to formations (Category A units in the old Soviet parlance) that were stationed thousands of kilometres away! Had there been a choice, or had this been an invasion planned in advance, then of course the correct equipment would have been made available. However when Georgia invaded S Ossetia it forced Moscow to make an immediate response utilising those assets available in the theatre

To quote Rumsfield, of all people, "You go to war with the army you have... not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time"


I never said it needed to be done in less than 24 hours. The US sure as hell couldn't do that in the hypothetical situation of some power invading at a weak point. But it also wouldn't send some half-cocked National Guard units in for the counterattack.Of course they would if the National Guard were all that was available in the theatre. Why is this so difficult a concept to grasp? If some army invaded Alaska (or started a shooting war right on the border of Alaska) would you be complaining that there were not several state of the art armoured divisions stationed there?

[Psy]

Why the fuck would you want to repair a damaged tank? How are you going to get Congress to approve purchasing any new ones with that kind of attitude?

So you suggest that advances should be stalled just so new equipment be brought in? Also new equipment puts more strain on supply lines, recuse vehicles means less tonnages has to be shipped to the front as more parts can salvaged from wrecks including enemy wrecks.



And what I meant by logistics is ability to move troops, food, and eqipment where it needs to be quickly. The fact that the US has been entrenched on the other side of the globe for going on a decade demonstrates that ability.

The US also has long vulnerable supply lines that are constantly under attack in Iraq and Afghanistan and heavy equipment are always in short supply.



Enough logistical capacity? The question is regarding the numbers of troops, tanks, and choppers needed, not the methods of getting them there, though that is dependent on Russia.

No the question is how how is disabled equipment going to be rescued from from the battlefield and how are they going to be repaired, also how is all equipment going to be serviced, how are you going to keep units supplied, how are bridges going to be repaired and new bridges built, how is fortifications going to built,ect.

If you don't have proper logistics numerical superiority is irrelevant as the troops won't have the means to fight for very long.





That may be what Russian tactics dictate today, but it sure as hell wasn't what they advocated during most of the Soviet years. The Soviet strategy was, because they outnumbered NATO by something like 10,000+ tanks, to launch an onslaught head on.

The soviet strategy was far from simply a tank rush.




The Syrians followed Soviet strategy in the Golan, which is why despite a huge numerical advantage they were stopped by the Israelis who deployed their few tanks in squadrons of 4 and picked them off as they came.

No the Syrains didn't as the Soviet strategy is more then throwing superior numbers at the enemy. The U.S.S.R leaned from WWII that numbers alone doesn't work.




Look, I'm not saying that Russian weapons are crap. They've had many innovative and, at times, have had the leading designs in many fields. But overall contemporary American weapons systems aren't going to be surpassed.

And where is the US's equivalent KPV/KPVT? Where is the US's equivalent of ground effect aircraft?

[Psy]

Yet Georgia didn't attack Russia, and it's not like Russia had a lot to fear other than political backlash. My point was that the Russians sent in troops and, most of all, jet aircraft into a warzone they weren't prepared for.

Russia had peace keepers under attack not counter-attacking would have made Russia look weak to the other imperialist powers thus wasn't a option to the Russian ruling class.

[khad]

The soviet strategy was far from simply a tank rush.

No the Syrains didn't as the Soviet strategy is more then throwing superior numbers at the enemy. The U.S.S.R leaned from WWII that numbers alone doesn't work.

There is a lot more to it, but force concentration is a rule of thumb in the initial breakthrough battle. The Germans at Kursk stacked local superiorities (along frontages of a few km) of 6:1 or even 10:1. People who like to cry about "superior numbers" just don't understand how war works.

That said, mass also needs maneuver to exploit the breakthrough, smashing up reinforcements, disrupting lines of supply and command, etc. This is something that the Soviets were very capable of doing, which the US army in the 80s noted was an advantage. American airland battle attempted to perform deep operations using airpower as the exploitation/pursuit component, which in my opinion, is incomplete because as even wars against third world countries have shown, airstrikes are hardly a sure bet.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Stop swallowing Pentagon propaganda. There is no fundamental difference in combat effectiveness between professionals and conscripts. The Germans laughed at the French when they told them this in prewar exercises. The French had professionals, and they weren't any more effective than the rest in maneuver warfare; quite the opposite in fact.

Except that the US military today is fundamentally different than it was during Vietnam. It's smaller, per capita, as well as better armed and equipped than it could be if conscription was used.

It also keeps political factors at bay.

The French suffered, in my opinion, chiefly from misunderstanding the role of the tank in the modern battlefied. They were using them as infantry support when the war began, instead of, basically, the other way around.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Georgia invaded South Ossetia and precipitated a war with Russia. Political concerns dictated that Moscow could not simply wait a week or two and then intervene

A week or two to deploy jet aircraft that would have been able to operate at night?


Of course they would if the National Guard were all that was available in the theatre. Why is this so difficult a concept to grasp? If some army invaded Alaska (or started a shooting war right on the border of Alaska) would you be complaining that there were not several state of the art armoured divisions stationed there?

All right, it's obviously a pretty bad analogy because of geography, but the US could have striking ability within a day or two at most. And yes, National Guard forces would have engaged and attempted to halt the invader (hence, National Guard), however launching an attack into foreign soil would have been beyond their scope.

I don't know how we've gotten off on this tangent about Russian ground forces doing a bad job in Georgia, though that could be more due to the Georgians. It was everyone else saying the 58th Army wasn't a top notch force, and I questioned them on that. And I concurred that, even in the US, or any other country of any size that spends trillions on its military, it would take days to be ready to push a sizable force out properly (whether or not Georgia is a sizable force is debatable).

All I've said is that more Russian jets were lost than should have been in a war that lasted days against an enemy with no real air power, and in a thread in which the OP opens up saying that Russia is moving to knock off America from being the Air Power of the day. Yes, I understand that the Georgians had newer SAM technology than had ever been used in the field, however Russia sent in fighters that didn't have long-range missiles, weren't equipped with radar sights, and didn't contain computers for calculating distance to ground. I'm wondering if the Georgians really needed the newer SAMs at all.

Now, let me say this was all brought up by the Russian media who saw this as the most disturbing part of the conflict.

It was at the point that Russia has to suspend air operations during the conflict due to their insufficient capabilities. And, exactly, how effective is a fighter from the 1980s if its weapons systems only allow it the close air support that was seen during the Vietnam era?

As another example, the US launches it's B-2s from Missouri and they're delivering their payload on the other side of the world within hours before returning. Obviously, they have to refuel in flight, but Russia would have simply needed to shift across it's own territory.

I'm really just wondering.

If Russia has some cutting edge, or, near cutting edge jets (obviously, I'm not refering to the prototype their releasing), then why didn't they use those in the conflict instead of the antiquated machinery that took disproportionate loss for a modern air force?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

And where is the US's equivalent KPV/KPVT? Where is the US's equivalent of ground effect aircraft?

I apologize, promise to answer everything when I have the time.

But I was just wondering about this.

First, the US 'equivalent'of the KPV is a bit hard to answer. For one, obviously the infantry weapon used to provide rapid-fire was the M60 and now, the SAW or whatever the fuck it's called.

But as for use on vehicles the standard would be the 50 cal or the 25mm, like what's on the Bradley.

As for anti-aircraft I'm not to sure about those weapons systems, but I do know the Navy has what's called Phalanx guns which basically spit out so much lead as to get in the way of incoming missiles. Whether they are actually effective in that capacity remains to be seen.

Also, the Army has the Vulcan M163, but I'm not too familiar with that piece if equipment.

I haven't heard of the US experimenting with ground effect or any inverse delta wings, which I'm pretty sure what causes that effect, though I could be wrong.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Probably not, but China might eventually, if their economy keeps going the way it is.

Its predicted that the US will pass the baton of the worlds 'top dog' to China around 2040.

Perhaps, anythings possible.

I don't think people will be flying the fighter jets in 2040, though.

[Psy]

I apologize, promise to answer everything when I have the time.

But I was just wondering about this.

First, the US 'equivalent'of the KPV is a bit hard to answer. For one, obviously the infantry weapon used to provide rapid-fire was the M60 and now, the SAW or whatever the fuck it's called.

Which would the US equivalent to the PK Machine Gun as even the Kord uses larger rounds. The KPV fires huge 14.5x144mm round that started life as a anti-tank rifle round back in WWII making the KPV very effective against light armour (like APCs) and the US doesn't really have a machine gun as effective against modern light armour as the KPV.



But as for use on vehicles the standard would be the 50 cal or the 25mm, like what's on the Bradley.

That is a auto-cannon not a machine gun like the KPV, heavy machine guns are much more effective for cover fire then auto-cannons as your talking 200 rounds per minute for 25mm auto-cannons compared to the 500 rounds per minute of the KPV. The machine gun on a Bradley is a wimpy 7.62mm compared to 14.5mm of the KPV. Also the KPV can be carried by infantry (2 people) and fired unmounted making it more flexible.



As for anti-aircraft I'm not to sure about those weapons systems, but I do know the Navy has what's called Phalanx guns which basically spit out so much lead as to get in the way of incoming missiles. Whether they are actually effective in that capacity remains to be seen.

Also, the Army has the Vulcan M163, but I'm not too familiar with that piece if equipment.

Russia has SAM/anti-air gun combos were the computer picks which weapon to fire based on distance to target.

[khad]

Except that the US military today is fundamentally different than it was during Vietnam. It's smaller, per capita, as well as better armed and equipped than it could be if conscription was used.

It also keeps political factors at bay.

In a real war, the professional soldiers get wiped out early on and all armies resort to conscription. Historically, professional elite soldiers have been beaten down and crushed by citizen soldiers and conscripts, starting from the Thebans burying the entire Spartan army at Leuctra in 371 BCE.


The French suffered, in my opinion, chiefly from misunderstanding the role of the tank in the modern battlefied. They were using them as infantry support when the war began, instead of, basically, the other way around.And yet NATO defense doctrine pre-Depuy had more in common with French attritional defense than anything in the maneuver school of warfare. There are serious gaps in your knowledge, and you let them slip with every post.

To answer your original question (again) the 5th generation Russian plane, the PAK-FA, is entering prototype testing this year. According to the design characteristics it seems quite comparable to the F-22, exceeding it in thrust and lift capabilities.

[makesi]

Looks like a victory for Khad on this thread.

[Guerrilla22]

The US is not nearly as strong as most Americans want to believe it is, especially not the uS government. They can brag about there superior technology all they want, but the fact is they're been matched and even outmatched by armies and groups over the years that haven't been even close to being as well eqipped, see Vietnam and Iraq.

I'd seriously would have loved to see the Marines go in and fight the insurgents in Fallujah with just ground troops. When they occupied the city initially, the insurgents forced them to withdraw. They were only able to retake the city after they surrounded it, and pulverized the city for several months with artillery and airstrikes. After that the heroic Marines went in and mopped up what was left and even then they had a difficut time doing so.

[ComradeOm]

A week or two to deploy jet aircraft that would have been able to operate at night?Fine then; Russia didn't even have a day or two. Georgian troops had entered Tskhinvali by 8:00 August 8 and Russian forces began moving through the Roki tunnel a mere six hours later. Six hours to redeploy significant aerial and armoured assets to a warzone thousands of kilometres away? You're having a laugh

[Killfacer]

Starscream would kick all their asses:

http://graysmatter.codivation.com/content/binary/starscream.jpg

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Looks like a victory for Khad on this thread.

I agree. He knows a lot more about the topic than I do, that's for sure.

[khad]

A few PAK-FA concept renders. I'm guessing that the prototype being tested later this year is going to look something like one of these.





http://englishrussia.com/images/su-stealth/1.jpg
http://media.englishrussia.com/su-stealth/1_001.jpg http://media.englishrussia.com/su-stealth/1_002.jpg
http://media.englishrussia.com/su-stealth/1_003.jpg
http://media.englishrussia.com/su-stealth/1_004.jpg
http://media.englishrussia.com/su-stealth/1_005.jpg
http://media.englishrussia.com/su-stealth/1_006.jpg




Also, the T-95 prototype has been spotted (2 decades after the project was announced). It's the first MBT to have a fully automated manless turret, and even under the tarp it looks damn low. They say that it will begin entering service next year.



http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t95.jpg

[Communist Theory]

All powers unto the motherland!!!

[Dr Mindbender]

A few PAK-FA concept renders. I'm guessing that the prototype being tested later this year is going to look something like one of these.

Also, the T-95 prototype has been spotted (2 decades after the project was announced). It's the first MBT to have a fully automated manless turret, and even under the tarp it looks damn low. They say that it will begin entering service next year.




Which one are they using though, the forward swept wings or the delta wing configuration?

I hope they use the delta wing, it reminds me of this old american concept from back when the F1-17A was only rumoured and not confirmed officially by the USAF.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YniKlbPh29k/SVs3sz-G49I/AAAAAAAAC6g/fasac1-FwsE/s400/F19_Stealth_Fighter_Artist_Impression.jpg

[ev]

I'd imagine both, couldn't it be like the F-111?

Change from forward swept wings to delta wings? - that would be interesting..

[piet11111]

i am really digging the S-300 the americans have nothing like it.