Kids with cancer in Ukraine shelter in hospital basements, hoping to evacuate.
— NBC News (@NBCNews) March 1, 2022
If the interruption of their treatment continues, "our patients, they will die,” says a doctor from the basement of a Kyiv children’s hospital. https://t.co/NnirYkiu1W
Ukraine invaded by Putin
68,246 Views |
1093 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by HuMcK
BUBear24 said:
Russia now assaulting one of the main active nuclear facilities that powers 1/4 of Ukraine… if that thing goes south.. I'm not sure now what happens next.
Fog of war + media hype = hard to know what headlines & tweets to believe. But anyway...
#Ukraine tells IAEA that fire at site of #Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant has not affected “essential” equipment, plant personnel taking mitigatory actions.
— IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency (@iaeaorg) March 4, 2022
WESTERN NUCLEAR EXPERTS CONDEMN UKRAINE FOR CAUSING PANIC AND MISLEADING PEOPLE
— First Squawk (@FirstSquawk) March 4, 2022
Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
That last comment is correct. The sole reason Apache and A-10s were developed were specifically for Soviet armor because of that. 1 Apache is designed to eliminate 10-12 tanks. We knew between Europe and US forces there we'd never have the same amount as Russia. It's kind of ironic that people within the military had to fight tooth and nail the last few years to keep some bean counter higher ups from completely dismantling the A10 program the last 5-10 years.
And this isn't a comment towards you. But I still don't buy Putins BS comment about having Ukraine attacked because of nato at his doorstep. WERE ALREADY THERE. We have 2 countries sharing a border with Russia since 2004 in nato. I really think this is his swan song. He's 70 and trying to find his legacy. He wants statues built of him conquering like Peter and Catherine the Great.
Tanks are fish in a barrel without air superiority.Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
A-10 was obsolete decades ago.....requires uncontested air superiority to survive .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
That last comment is correct. The sole reason Apache and A-10s were developed were specifically for Soviet armor because of that. 1 Apache is designed to eliminate 10-12 tanks. We knew between Europe and US forces there we'd never have the same amount as Russia. It's kind of ironic that people within the military had to fight tooth and nail the last few years to keep some bean counter higher ups from completely dismantling the A10 program the last 5-10 years.
And this isn't a comment towards you. But I still don't buy Putins BS comment about having Ukraine attacked because of nato at his doorstep. WERE ALREADY THERE. We have 2 countries sharing a border with Russia since 2004 in nato. I really think this is his swan song. He's 70 and trying to find his legacy. He wants statues built of him conquering like Peter and Catherine the Great.
Apache helicopters , while lethal to ground targets, are exceptionally vulnerable to other aircraft . Again, requiring uncontested air superiority.
Such air superiority would not be immediately available in Europe .
I am no fan of Putin...the ******* has long deserved assassination . However in eastern Europe ...he holds the best cards.
Canada2017 said:A-10 was obsolete decades ago.....requires uncontested air superiority to survive .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
That last comment is correct. The sole reason Apache and A-10s were developed were specifically for Soviet armor because of that. 1 Apache is designed to eliminate 10-12 tanks. We knew between Europe and US forces there we'd never have the same amount as Russia. It's kind of ironic that people within the military had to fight tooth and nail the last few years to keep some bean counter higher ups from completely dismantling the A10 program the last 5-10 years.
And this isn't a comment towards you. But I still don't buy Putins BS comment about having Ukraine attacked because of nato at his doorstep. WERE ALREADY THERE. We have 2 countries sharing a border with Russia since 2004 in nato. I really think this is his swan song. He's 70 and trying to find his legacy. He wants statues built of him conquering like Peter and Catherine the Great.
Apache helicopters , while lethal to ground targets, are exceptionally vulnerable to other aircraft . Again, requiring uncontested air superiority.
Such air superiority would not be immediately available in Europe .
I am no fan of Putin...the ******* has long deserved assassination . However in eastern Europe ...he holds the best cards.
Do you think the US is the only western country with an airforce superior to Russia? Europe, if they unleash their collective strength with Us support, could wipe out Russia in a conventional war. Air superiority is there in less than an hour.
Right now...the US could not achieve air superiority over Ukraine . Possibly we could over time with the aid of France and Great Britain . Anyone's guess what they would do if it all hits the fan .Canon said:Canada2017 said:A-10 was obsolete decades ago.....requires uncontested air superiority to survive .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
That last comment is correct. The sole reason Apache and A-10s were developed were specifically for Soviet armor because of that. 1 Apache is designed to eliminate 10-12 tanks. We knew between Europe and US forces there we'd never have the same amount as Russia. It's kind of ironic that people within the military had to fight tooth and nail the last few years to keep some bean counter higher ups from completely dismantling the A10 program the last 5-10 years.
And this isn't a comment towards you. But I still don't buy Putins BS comment about having Ukraine attacked because of nato at his doorstep. WERE ALREADY THERE. We have 2 countries sharing a border with Russia since 2004 in nato. I really think this is his swan song. He's 70 and trying to find his legacy. He wants statues built of him conquering like Peter and Catherine the Great.
Apache helicopters , while lethal to ground targets, are exceptionally vulnerable to other aircraft . Again, requiring uncontested air superiority.
Such air superiority would not be immediately available in Europe .
I am no fan of Putin...the ******* has long deserved assassination . However in eastern Europe ...he holds the best cards.
Do you think the US is the only western country with an airforce superior to Russia? Europe, if they unleash their collective strength with Us support, could wipe out Russia in a conventional war. Air superiority is there in less than an hour.
In exchange we run the real risk of nuclear war.
'Nuclear war'.....just a phrase to most people. As they have never seen the ( decades old ) above ground H-bomb test films. Most folks think in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
Well guys, those bombs were mere fire crackers compared to what the US and Russia employ today .
90% of the US could be wiped out ( if the winds were 'right' ) by about 80 H- bombs . And the Russians possess THOUSANDS of such weapons...as do we.
Sorry folks, but we need to grow up and face the facts.
Walk away from this stage play .
Canada2017 said:Right now...the US could not achieve air superiority over Ukraine . Possibly we could over time with the aid of France and Great Britain . Anyone's guess what they would do if it all hits the fan .Canon said:Canada2017 said:A-10 was obsolete decades ago.....requires uncontested air superiority to survive .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
That last comment is correct. The sole reason Apache and A-10s were developed were specifically for Soviet armor because of that. 1 Apache is designed to eliminate 10-12 tanks. We knew between Europe and US forces there we'd never have the same amount as Russia. It's kind of ironic that people within the military had to fight tooth and nail the last few years to keep some bean counter higher ups from completely dismantling the A10 program the last 5-10 years.
And this isn't a comment towards you. But I still don't buy Putins BS comment about having Ukraine attacked because of nato at his doorstep. WERE ALREADY THERE. We have 2 countries sharing a border with Russia since 2004 in nato. I really think this is his swan song. He's 70 and trying to find his legacy. He wants statues built of him conquering like Peter and Catherine the Great.
Apache helicopters , while lethal to ground targets, are exceptionally vulnerable to other aircraft . Again, requiring uncontested air superiority.
Such air superiority would not be immediately available in Europe .
I am no fan of Putin...the ******* has long deserved assassination . However in eastern Europe ...he holds the best cards.
Do you think the US is the only western country with an airforce superior to Russia? Europe, if they unleash their collective strength with Us support, could wipe out Russia in a conventional war. Air superiority is there in less than an hour.
In exchange we run the real risk of nuclear war.
'Nuclear war'.....just a phrase to most people. As they have never seen the ( decades old ) above ground H-bomb test films. Most folks think in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
Well folks, those bombs were mere fire crackers compared to what the US and Russia employ today .
90% of the US could be wiped out ( if the winds were 'right' ) by about 80 H- bombs . And the Russians possess THOUSANDS of such weapons...as do we.
Sorry folks, but we need to grow up and face the facts.
Walk away from this stage play .
It's a bluff. He won't start a nuclear war over Ukraine and his brass won't let him.
That's exactly what most people thought prior to Putin's invasion of Ukraine .Canon said:Canada2017 said:Right now...the US could not achieve air superiority over Ukraine . Possibly we could over time with the aid of France and Great Britain . Anyone's guess what they would do if it all hits the fan .Canon said:Canada2017 said:A-10 was obsolete decades ago.....requires uncontested air superiority to survive .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
That last comment is correct. The sole reason Apache and A-10s were developed were specifically for Soviet armor because of that. 1 Apache is designed to eliminate 10-12 tanks. We knew between Europe and US forces there we'd never have the same amount as Russia. It's kind of ironic that people within the military had to fight tooth and nail the last few years to keep some bean counter higher ups from completely dismantling the A10 program the last 5-10 years.
And this isn't a comment towards you. But I still don't buy Putins BS comment about having Ukraine attacked because of nato at his doorstep. WERE ALREADY THERE. We have 2 countries sharing a border with Russia since 2004 in nato. I really think this is his swan song. He's 70 and trying to find his legacy. He wants statues built of him conquering like Peter and Catherine the Great.
Apache helicopters , while lethal to ground targets, are exceptionally vulnerable to other aircraft . Again, requiring uncontested air superiority.
Such air superiority would not be immediately available in Europe .
I am no fan of Putin...the ******* has long deserved assassination . However in eastern Europe ...he holds the best cards.
Do you think the US is the only western country with an airforce superior to Russia? Europe, if they unleash their collective strength with Us support, could wipe out Russia in a conventional war. Air superiority is there in less than an hour.
In exchange we run the real risk of nuclear war.
'Nuclear war'.....just a phrase to most people. As they have never seen the ( decades old ) above ground H-bomb test films. Most folks think in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
Well folks, those bombs were mere fire crackers compared to what the US and Russia employ today .
90% of the US could be wiped out ( if the winds were 'right' ) by about 80 H- bombs . And the Russians possess THOUSANDS of such weapons...as do we.
Sorry folks, but we need to grow up and face the facts.
Walk away from this stage play .
It's a bluff. He won't start a nuclear war over Ukraine and his brass won't let him.
The massing of his forces was all a 'bluff'....till it wasn't.
Canada2017 said:Right now...the US could not achieve air superiority over Ukraine . Possibly we could over time with the aid of France and Great Britain . Anyone's guess what they would do if it all hits the fan .Canon said:Canada2017 said:A-10 was obsolete decades ago.....requires uncontested air superiority to survive .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
That last comment is correct. The sole reason Apache and A-10s were developed were specifically for Soviet armor because of that. 1 Apache is designed to eliminate 10-12 tanks. We knew between Europe and US forces there we'd never have the same amount as Russia. It's kind of ironic that people within the military had to fight tooth and nail the last few years to keep some bean counter higher ups from completely dismantling the A10 program the last 5-10 years.
And this isn't a comment towards you. But I still don't buy Putins BS comment about having Ukraine attacked because of nato at his doorstep. WERE ALREADY THERE. We have 2 countries sharing a border with Russia since 2004 in nato. I really think this is his swan song. He's 70 and trying to find his legacy. He wants statues built of him conquering like Peter and Catherine the Great.
Apache helicopters , while lethal to ground targets, are exceptionally vulnerable to other aircraft . Again, requiring uncontested air superiority.
Such air superiority would not be immediately available in Europe .
I am no fan of Putin...the ******* has long deserved assassination . However in eastern Europe ...he holds the best cards.
Do you think the US is the only western country with an airforce superior to Russia? Europe, if they unleash their collective strength with Us support, could wipe out Russia in a conventional war. Air superiority is there in less than an hour.
In exchange we run the real risk of nuclear war.
'Nuclear war'.....just a phrase to most people. As they have never seen the ( decades old ) above ground H-bomb test films. Most folks think in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
Well guys, those bombs were mere fire crackers compared to what the US and Russia employ today .
90% of the US could be wiped out ( if the winds were 'right' ) by about 80 H- bombs . And the Russians possess THOUSANDS of such weapons...as do we.
Sorry folks, but we need to grow up and face the facts.
Walk away from this stage play .
It's so funny you keep saying we can't achieve air superiority over Ukraine when Russia hasn't even been able to do that against Soviet era migs and weaponry..
Canada2017 said:That's exactly what most people thought prior to Putin's invasion of Ukraine .Canon said:Canada2017 said:Right now...the US could not achieve air superiority over Ukraine . Possibly we could over time with the aid of France and Great Britain . Anyone's guess what they would do if it all hits the fan .Canon said:Canada2017 said:A-10 was obsolete decades ago.....requires uncontested air superiority to survive .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
That last comment is correct. The sole reason Apache and A-10s were developed were specifically for Soviet armor because of that. 1 Apache is designed to eliminate 10-12 tanks. We knew between Europe and US forces there we'd never have the same amount as Russia. It's kind of ironic that people within the military had to fight tooth and nail the last few years to keep some bean counter higher ups from completely dismantling the A10 program the last 5-10 years.
And this isn't a comment towards you. But I still don't buy Putins BS comment about having Ukraine attacked because of nato at his doorstep. WERE ALREADY THERE. We have 2 countries sharing a border with Russia since 2004 in nato. I really think this is his swan song. He's 70 and trying to find his legacy. He wants statues built of him conquering like Peter and Catherine the Great.
Apache helicopters , while lethal to ground targets, are exceptionally vulnerable to other aircraft . Again, requiring uncontested air superiority.
Such air superiority would not be immediately available in Europe .
I am no fan of Putin...the ******* has long deserved assassination . However in eastern Europe ...he holds the best cards.
Do you think the US is the only western country with an airforce superior to Russia? Europe, if they unleash their collective strength with Us support, could wipe out Russia in a conventional war. Air superiority is there in less than an hour.
In exchange we run the real risk of nuclear war.
'Nuclear war'.....just a phrase to most people. As they have never seen the ( decades old ) above ground H-bomb test films. Most folks think in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
Well folks, those bombs were mere fire crackers compared to what the US and Russia employ today .
90% of the US could be wiped out ( if the winds were 'right' ) by about 80 H- bombs . And the Russians possess THOUSANDS of such weapons...as do we.
Sorry folks, but we need to grow up and face the facts.
Walk away from this stage play .
It's a bluff. He won't start a nuclear war over Ukraine and his brass won't let him.
The massing of his forces was all a 'bluff'....till it wasn't.
Invading a neighbor you already invaded, when a weakling president is in power, is NOT nuclear war.
Exactly what in the hell are you referring to ?BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Right now...the US could not achieve air superiority over Ukraine . Possibly we could over time with the aid of France and Great Britain . Anyone's guess what they would do if it all hits the fan .Canon said:Canada2017 said:A-10 was obsolete decades ago.....requires uncontested air superiority to survive .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
That last comment is correct. The sole reason Apache and A-10s were developed were specifically for Soviet armor because of that. 1 Apache is designed to eliminate 10-12 tanks. We knew between Europe and US forces there we'd never have the same amount as Russia. It's kind of ironic that people within the military had to fight tooth and nail the last few years to keep some bean counter higher ups from completely dismantling the A10 program the last 5-10 years.
And this isn't a comment towards you. But I still don't buy Putins BS comment about having Ukraine attacked because of nato at his doorstep. WERE ALREADY THERE. We have 2 countries sharing a border with Russia since 2004 in nato. I really think this is his swan song. He's 70 and trying to find his legacy. He wants statues built of him conquering like Peter and Catherine the Great.
Apache helicopters , while lethal to ground targets, are exceptionally vulnerable to other aircraft . Again, requiring uncontested air superiority.
Such air superiority would not be immediately available in Europe .
I am no fan of Putin...the ******* has long deserved assassination . However in eastern Europe ...he holds the best cards.
Do you think the US is the only western country with an airforce superior to Russia? Europe, if they unleash their collective strength with Us support, could wipe out Russia in a conventional war. Air superiority is there in less than an hour.
In exchange we run the real risk of nuclear war.
'Nuclear war'.....just a phrase to most people. As they have never seen the ( decades old ) above ground H-bomb test films. Most folks think in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
Well guys, those bombs were mere fire crackers compared to what the US and Russia employ today .
90% of the US could be wiped out ( if the winds were 'right' ) by about 80 H- bombs . And the Russians possess THOUSANDS of such weapons...as do we.
Sorry folks, but we need to grow up and face the facts.
Walk away from this stage play .
It's so funny you keep saying we can't achieve air superiority over Ukraine when Russia hasn't even been able to do that against Soviet era migs and weaponry..
Come on guy...you are smarter than this .Canon said:Canada2017 said:That's exactly what most people thought prior to Putin's invasion of Ukraine .Canon said:Canada2017 said:Right now...the US could not achieve air superiority over Ukraine . Possibly we could over time with the aid of France and Great Britain . Anyone's guess what they would do if it all hits the fan .Canon said:Canada2017 said:A-10 was obsolete decades ago.....requires uncontested air superiority to survive .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
That last comment is correct. The sole reason Apache and A-10s were developed were specifically for Soviet armor because of that. 1 Apache is designed to eliminate 10-12 tanks. We knew between Europe and US forces there we'd never have the same amount as Russia. It's kind of ironic that people within the military had to fight tooth and nail the last few years to keep some bean counter higher ups from completely dismantling the A10 program the last 5-10 years.
And this isn't a comment towards you. But I still don't buy Putins BS comment about having Ukraine attacked because of nato at his doorstep. WERE ALREADY THERE. We have 2 countries sharing a border with Russia since 2004 in nato. I really think this is his swan song. He's 70 and trying to find his legacy. He wants statues built of him conquering like Peter and Catherine the Great.
Apache helicopters , while lethal to ground targets, are exceptionally vulnerable to other aircraft . Again, requiring uncontested air superiority.
Such air superiority would not be immediately available in Europe .
I am no fan of Putin...the ******* has long deserved assassination . However in eastern Europe ...he holds the best cards.
Do you think the US is the only western country with an airforce superior to Russia? Europe, if they unleash their collective strength with Us support, could wipe out Russia in a conventional war. Air superiority is there in less than an hour.
In exchange we run the real risk of nuclear war.
'Nuclear war'.....just a phrase to most people. As they have never seen the ( decades old ) above ground H-bomb test films. Most folks think in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
Well folks, those bombs were mere fire crackers compared to what the US and Russia employ today .
90% of the US could be wiped out ( if the winds were 'right' ) by about 80 H- bombs . And the Russians possess THOUSANDS of such weapons...as do we.
Sorry folks, but we need to grow up and face the facts.
Walk away from this stage play .
It's a bluff. He won't start a nuclear war over Ukraine and his brass won't let him.
The massing of his forces was all a 'bluff'....till it wasn't.
Invading a neighbor you already invaded, when a weakling president is in power, is NOT nuclear war.
Connect the dots.
Canada2017 said:Come on guy...you are smarter than this .Canon said:Canada2017 said:That's exactly what most people thought prior to Putin's invasion of Ukraine .Canon said:Canada2017 said:Right now...the US could not achieve air superiority over Ukraine . Possibly we could over time with the aid of France and Great Britain . Anyone's guess what they would do if it all hits the fan .Canon said:Canada2017 said:A-10 was obsolete decades ago.....requires uncontested air superiority to survive .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
That last comment is correct. The sole reason Apache and A-10s were developed were specifically for Soviet armor because of that. 1 Apache is designed to eliminate 10-12 tanks. We knew between Europe and US forces there we'd never have the same amount as Russia. It's kind of ironic that people within the military had to fight tooth and nail the last few years to keep some bean counter higher ups from completely dismantling the A10 program the last 5-10 years.
And this isn't a comment towards you. But I still don't buy Putins BS comment about having Ukraine attacked because of nato at his doorstep. WERE ALREADY THERE. We have 2 countries sharing a border with Russia since 2004 in nato. I really think this is his swan song. He's 70 and trying to find his legacy. He wants statues built of him conquering like Peter and Catherine the Great.
Apache helicopters , while lethal to ground targets, are exceptionally vulnerable to other aircraft . Again, requiring uncontested air superiority.
Such air superiority would not be immediately available in Europe .
I am no fan of Putin...the ******* has long deserved assassination . However in eastern Europe ...he holds the best cards.
Do you think the US is the only western country with an airforce superior to Russia? Europe, if they unleash their collective strength with Us support, could wipe out Russia in a conventional war. Air superiority is there in less than an hour.
In exchange we run the real risk of nuclear war.
'Nuclear war'.....just a phrase to most people. As they have never seen the ( decades old ) above ground H-bomb test films. Most folks think in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
Well folks, those bombs were mere fire crackers compared to what the US and Russia employ today .
90% of the US could be wiped out ( if the winds were 'right' ) by about 80 H- bombs . And the Russians possess THOUSANDS of such weapons...as do we.
Sorry folks, but we need to grow up and face the facts.
Walk away from this stage play .
It's a bluff. He won't start a nuclear war over Ukraine and his brass won't let him.
The massing of his forces was all a 'bluff'....till it wasn't.
Invading a neighbor you already invaded, when a weakling president is in power, is NOT nuclear war.
Connect the dots.
I have. Putin's not going to end life on earth over Ukraine. His generals won't let him. Step back from the cliff. We aren't all going to die.
the little people of stone'enge.Canada2017 said:Exactly what in the hell are you referring to ?BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Right now...the US could not achieve air superiority over Ukraine . Possibly we could over time with the aid of France and Great Britain . Anyone's guess what they would do if it all hits the fan .Canon said:Canada2017 said:A-10 was obsolete decades ago.....requires uncontested air superiority to survive .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
That last comment is correct. The sole reason Apache and A-10s were developed were specifically for Soviet armor because of that. 1 Apache is designed to eliminate 10-12 tanks. We knew between Europe and US forces there we'd never have the same amount as Russia. It's kind of ironic that people within the military had to fight tooth and nail the last few years to keep some bean counter higher ups from completely dismantling the A10 program the last 5-10 years.
And this isn't a comment towards you. But I still don't buy Putins BS comment about having Ukraine attacked because of nato at his doorstep. WERE ALREADY THERE. We have 2 countries sharing a border with Russia since 2004 in nato. I really think this is his swan song. He's 70 and trying to find his legacy. He wants statues built of him conquering like Peter and Catherine the Great.
Apache helicopters , while lethal to ground targets, are exceptionally vulnerable to other aircraft . Again, requiring uncontested air superiority.
Such air superiority would not be immediately available in Europe .
I am no fan of Putin...the ******* has long deserved assassination . However in eastern Europe ...he holds the best cards.
Do you think the US is the only western country with an airforce superior to Russia? Europe, if they unleash their collective strength with Us support, could wipe out Russia in a conventional war. Air superiority is there in less than an hour.
In exchange we run the real risk of nuclear war.
'Nuclear war'.....just a phrase to most people. As they have never seen the ( decades old ) above ground H-bomb test films. Most folks think in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
Well guys, those bombs were mere fire crackers compared to what the US and Russia employ today .
90% of the US could be wiped out ( if the winds were 'right' ) by about 80 H- bombs . And the Russians possess THOUSANDS of such weapons...as do we.
Sorry folks, but we need to grow up and face the facts.
Walk away from this stage play .
It's so funny you keep saying we can't achieve air superiority over Ukraine when Russia hasn't even been able to do that against Soviet era migs and weaponry..
- nigel
{ sipping coffee }
Go Bears!
you keep commenting on Russia having air superiority and they don't have it against the Ukrainians but you think they'll have it over us. It's just such a strange take.Canada2017 said:Exactly what in the hell are you referring to ?BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Right now...the US could not achieve air superiority over Ukraine . Possibly we could over time with the aid of France and Great Britain . Anyone's guess what they would do if it all hits the fan .Canon said:Canada2017 said:A-10 was obsolete decades ago.....requires uncontested air superiority to survive .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
That last comment is correct. The sole reason Apache and A-10s were developed were specifically for Soviet armor because of that. 1 Apache is designed to eliminate 10-12 tanks. We knew between Europe and US forces there we'd never have the same amount as Russia. It's kind of ironic that people within the military had to fight tooth and nail the last few years to keep some bean counter higher ups from completely dismantling the A10 program the last 5-10 years.
And this isn't a comment towards you. But I still don't buy Putins BS comment about having Ukraine attacked because of nato at his doorstep. WERE ALREADY THERE. We have 2 countries sharing a border with Russia since 2004 in nato. I really think this is his swan song. He's 70 and trying to find his legacy. He wants statues built of him conquering like Peter and Catherine the Great.
Apache helicopters , while lethal to ground targets, are exceptionally vulnerable to other aircraft . Again, requiring uncontested air superiority.
Such air superiority would not be immediately available in Europe .
I am no fan of Putin...the ******* has long deserved assassination . However in eastern Europe ...he holds the best cards.
Do you think the US is the only western country with an airforce superior to Russia? Europe, if they unleash their collective strength with Us support, could wipe out Russia in a conventional war. Air superiority is there in less than an hour.
In exchange we run the real risk of nuclear war.
'Nuclear war'.....just a phrase to most people. As they have never seen the ( decades old ) above ground H-bomb test films. Most folks think in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
Well guys, those bombs were mere fire crackers compared to what the US and Russia employ today .
90% of the US could be wiped out ( if the winds were 'right' ) by about 80 H- bombs . And the Russians possess THOUSANDS of such weapons...as do we.
Sorry folks, but we need to grow up and face the facts.
Walk away from this stage play .
It's so funny you keep saying we can't achieve air superiority over Ukraine when Russia hasn't even been able to do that against Soviet era migs and weaponry..
Putin knows he has to win in Ukraine to politically and physically survive .Period . Read his statements over the years....other than his own life ....nothing matters to him other than Russian 'greatness' .Canon said:Canada2017 said:Come on guy...you are smarter than this .Canon said:Canada2017 said:That's exactly what most people thought prior to Putin's invasion of Ukraine .Canon said:Canada2017 said:Right now...the US could not achieve air superiority over Ukraine . Possibly we could over time with the aid of France and Great Britain . Anyone's guess what they would do if it all hits the fan .Canon said:Canada2017 said:A-10 was obsolete decades ago.....requires uncontested air superiority to survive .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
That last comment is correct. The sole reason Apache and A-10s were developed were specifically for Soviet armor because of that. 1 Apache is designed to eliminate 10-12 tanks. We knew between Europe and US forces there we'd never have the same amount as Russia. It's kind of ironic that people within the military had to fight tooth and nail the last few years to keep some bean counter higher ups from completely dismantling the A10 program the last 5-10 years.
And this isn't a comment towards you. But I still don't buy Putins BS comment about having Ukraine attacked because of nato at his doorstep. WERE ALREADY THERE. We have 2 countries sharing a border with Russia since 2004 in nato. I really think this is his swan song. He's 70 and trying to find his legacy. He wants statues built of him conquering like Peter and Catherine the Great.
Apache helicopters , while lethal to ground targets, are exceptionally vulnerable to other aircraft . Again, requiring uncontested air superiority.
Such air superiority would not be immediately available in Europe .
I am no fan of Putin...the ******* has long deserved assassination . However in eastern Europe ...he holds the best cards.
Do you think the US is the only western country with an airforce superior to Russia? Europe, if they unleash their collective strength with Us support, could wipe out Russia in a conventional war. Air superiority is there in less than an hour.
In exchange we run the real risk of nuclear war.
'Nuclear war'.....just a phrase to most people. As they have never seen the ( decades old ) above ground H-bomb test films. Most folks think in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
Well folks, those bombs were mere fire crackers compared to what the US and Russia employ today .
90% of the US could be wiped out ( if the winds were 'right' ) by about 80 H- bombs . And the Russians possess THOUSANDS of such weapons...as do we.
Sorry folks, but we need to grow up and face the facts.
Walk away from this stage play .
It's a bluff. He won't start a nuclear war over Ukraine and his brass won't let him.
The massing of his forces was all a 'bluff'....till it wasn't.
Invading a neighbor you already invaded, when a weakling president is in power, is NOT nuclear war.
Connect the dots.
I have. Putin's not going to end life on earth over Ukraine. His generals won't let him. Step back from the cliff. We aren't all going to die.
In addition ....Risking nuclear war over Ukraine is absurd....as Ukraine has NEVER been in the strategic interests of the United States.
And its not now.
Step away from a video game mentality ...........thousands have already died.
Dude...what planet do you live on ?BUBear24 said:you keep commenting on Russia having air superiority and they don't have it against the Ukrainians but you think they'll have it over us.Canada2017 said:Exactly what in the hell are you referring to ?BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Right now...the US could not achieve air superiority over Ukraine . Possibly we could over time with the aid of France and Great Britain . Anyone's guess what they would do if it all hits the fan .Canon said:Canada2017 said:A-10 was obsolete decades ago.....requires uncontested air superiority to survive .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
That last comment is correct. The sole reason Apache and A-10s were developed were specifically for Soviet armor because of that. 1 Apache is designed to eliminate 10-12 tanks. We knew between Europe and US forces there we'd never have the same amount as Russia. It's kind of ironic that people within the military had to fight tooth and nail the last few years to keep some bean counter higher ups from completely dismantling the A10 program the last 5-10 years.
And this isn't a comment towards you. But I still don't buy Putins BS comment about having Ukraine attacked because of nato at his doorstep. WERE ALREADY THERE. We have 2 countries sharing a border with Russia since 2004 in nato. I really think this is his swan song. He's 70 and trying to find his legacy. He wants statues built of him conquering like Peter and Catherine the Great.
Apache helicopters , while lethal to ground targets, are exceptionally vulnerable to other aircraft . Again, requiring uncontested air superiority.
Such air superiority would not be immediately available in Europe .
I am no fan of Putin...the ******* has long deserved assassination . However in eastern Europe ...he holds the best cards.
Do you think the US is the only western country with an airforce superior to Russia? Europe, if they unleash their collective strength with Us support, could wipe out Russia in a conventional war. Air superiority is there in less than an hour.
In exchange we run the real risk of nuclear war.
'Nuclear war'.....just a phrase to most people. As they have never seen the ( decades old ) above ground H-bomb test films. Most folks think in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
Well guys, those bombs were mere fire crackers compared to what the US and Russia employ today .
90% of the US could be wiped out ( if the winds were 'right' ) by about 80 H- bombs . And the Russians possess THOUSANDS of such weapons...as do we.
Sorry folks, but we need to grow up and face the facts.
Walk away from this stage play .
It's so funny you keep saying we can't achieve air superiority over Ukraine when Russia hasn't even been able to do that against Soviet era migs and weaponry..
Of course the Russians have air superiority over Ukraine .
Canada2017 said:Dude...what planet do you live on ?BUBear24 said:you keep commenting on Russia having air superiority and they don't have it against the Ukrainians but you think they'll have it over us.Canada2017 said:Exactly what in the hell are you referring to ?BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Right now...the US could not achieve air superiority over Ukraine . Possibly we could over time with the aid of France and Great Britain . Anyone's guess what they would do if it all hits the fan .Canon said:Canada2017 said:A-10 was obsolete decades ago.....requires uncontested air superiority to survive .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
That last comment is correct. The sole reason Apache and A-10s were developed were specifically for Soviet armor because of that. 1 Apache is designed to eliminate 10-12 tanks. We knew between Europe and US forces there we'd never have the same amount as Russia. It's kind of ironic that people within the military had to fight tooth and nail the last few years to keep some bean counter higher ups from completely dismantling the A10 program the last 5-10 years.
And this isn't a comment towards you. But I still don't buy Putins BS comment about having Ukraine attacked because of nato at his doorstep. WERE ALREADY THERE. We have 2 countries sharing a border with Russia since 2004 in nato. I really think this is his swan song. He's 70 and trying to find his legacy. He wants statues built of him conquering like Peter and Catherine the Great.
Apache helicopters , while lethal to ground targets, are exceptionally vulnerable to other aircraft . Again, requiring uncontested air superiority.
Such air superiority would not be immediately available in Europe .
I am no fan of Putin...the ******* has long deserved assassination . However in eastern Europe ...he holds the best cards.
Do you think the US is the only western country with an airforce superior to Russia? Europe, if they unleash their collective strength with Us support, could wipe out Russia in a conventional war. Air superiority is there in less than an hour.
In exchange we run the real risk of nuclear war.
'Nuclear war'.....just a phrase to most people. As they have never seen the ( decades old ) above ground H-bomb test films. Most folks think in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
Well guys, those bombs were mere fire crackers compared to what the US and Russia employ today .
90% of the US could be wiped out ( if the winds were 'right' ) by about 80 H- bombs . And the Russians possess THOUSANDS of such weapons...as do we.
Sorry folks, but we need to grow up and face the facts.
Walk away from this stage play .
It's so funny you keep saying we can't achieve air superiority over Ukraine when Russia hasn't even been able to do that against Soviet era migs and weaponry..
Of course the Russians have air superiority over Ukraine .
Every military expert would disagree with that statement. They definitely have the advantage but they don't have the definition of air superiority in anyway like we did in Iraq.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-doesnt-russia-have-air-superiority-over-ukraine-200965
Canada2017 said:Putin knows he has to win in Ukraine to politically and physically survive .Period . Read his statements over the years....other than his own life ....nothing matters to him other than Russian 'greatness' .Canon said:Canada2017 said:Come on guy...you are smarter than this .Canon said:Canada2017 said:That's exactly what most people thought prior to Putin's invasion of Ukraine .Canon said:Canada2017 said:Right now...the US could not achieve air superiority over Ukraine . Possibly we could over time with the aid of France and Great Britain . Anyone's guess what they would do if it all hits the fan .Canon said:Canada2017 said:A-10 was obsolete decades ago.....requires uncontested air superiority to survive .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
That last comment is correct. The sole reason Apache and A-10s were developed were specifically for Soviet armor because of that. 1 Apache is designed to eliminate 10-12 tanks. We knew between Europe and US forces there we'd never have the same amount as Russia. It's kind of ironic that people within the military had to fight tooth and nail the last few years to keep some bean counter higher ups from completely dismantling the A10 program the last 5-10 years.
And this isn't a comment towards you. But I still don't buy Putins BS comment about having Ukraine attacked because of nato at his doorstep. WERE ALREADY THERE. We have 2 countries sharing a border with Russia since 2004 in nato. I really think this is his swan song. He's 70 and trying to find his legacy. He wants statues built of him conquering like Peter and Catherine the Great.
Apache helicopters , while lethal to ground targets, are exceptionally vulnerable to other aircraft . Again, requiring uncontested air superiority.
Such air superiority would not be immediately available in Europe .
I am no fan of Putin...the ******* has long deserved assassination . However in eastern Europe ...he holds the best cards.
Do you think the US is the only western country with an airforce superior to Russia? Europe, if they unleash their collective strength with Us support, could wipe out Russia in a conventional war. Air superiority is there in less than an hour.
In exchange we run the real risk of nuclear war.
'Nuclear war'.....just a phrase to most people. As they have never seen the ( decades old ) above ground H-bomb test films. Most folks think in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
Well folks, those bombs were mere fire crackers compared to what the US and Russia employ today .
90% of the US could be wiped out ( if the winds were 'right' ) by about 80 H- bombs . And the Russians possess THOUSANDS of such weapons...as do we.
Sorry folks, but we need to grow up and face the facts.
Walk away from this stage play .
It's a bluff. He won't start a nuclear war over Ukraine and his brass won't let him.
The massing of his forces was all a 'bluff'....till it wasn't.
Invading a neighbor you already invaded, when a weakling president is in power, is NOT nuclear war.
Connect the dots.
I have. Putin's not going to end life on earth over Ukraine. His generals won't let him. Step back from the cliff. We aren't all going to die.
In addition ....Risking nuclear war over Ukraine is absurd....as Ukraine has NEVER been in the strategic interests of the United States.
And its not now.
Step away from a video game mentality ...........thousands have already died.
What video game? The one where Europe steps in to support another European country? The one where Russian aggression is met with a European enforced no fly zone, European arms and American weapons shipped in for Ukrainians to use? That one?
That's not a video game. That's called foreign policy and it's never without limited risk. The end of the world is not on the table here. It never was.
Give me a break.BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Dude...what planet do you live on ?BUBear24 said:you keep commenting on Russia having air superiority and they don't have it against the Ukrainians but you think they'll have it over us.Canada2017 said:Exactly what in the hell are you referring to ?BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Right now...the US could not achieve air superiority over Ukraine . Possibly we could over time with the aid of France and Great Britain . Anyone's guess what they would do if it all hits the fan .Canon said:Canada2017 said:A-10 was obsolete decades ago.....requires uncontested air superiority to survive .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
That last comment is correct. The sole reason Apache and A-10s were developed were specifically for Soviet armor because of that. 1 Apache is designed to eliminate 10-12 tanks. We knew between Europe and US forces there we'd never have the same amount as Russia. It's kind of ironic that people within the military had to fight tooth and nail the last few years to keep some bean counter higher ups from completely dismantling the A10 program the last 5-10 years.
And this isn't a comment towards you. But I still don't buy Putins BS comment about having Ukraine attacked because of nato at his doorstep. WERE ALREADY THERE. We have 2 countries sharing a border with Russia since 2004 in nato. I really think this is his swan song. He's 70 and trying to find his legacy. He wants statues built of him conquering like Peter and Catherine the Great.
Apache helicopters , while lethal to ground targets, are exceptionally vulnerable to other aircraft . Again, requiring uncontested air superiority.
Such air superiority would not be immediately available in Europe .
I am no fan of Putin...the ******* has long deserved assassination . However in eastern Europe ...he holds the best cards.
Do you think the US is the only western country with an airforce superior to Russia? Europe, if they unleash their collective strength with Us support, could wipe out Russia in a conventional war. Air superiority is there in less than an hour.
In exchange we run the real risk of nuclear war.
'Nuclear war'.....just a phrase to most people. As they have never seen the ( decades old ) above ground H-bomb test films. Most folks think in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
Well guys, those bombs were mere fire crackers compared to what the US and Russia employ today .
90% of the US could be wiped out ( if the winds were 'right' ) by about 80 H- bombs . And the Russians possess THOUSANDS of such weapons...as do we.
Sorry folks, but we need to grow up and face the facts.
Walk away from this stage play .
It's so funny you keep saying we can't achieve air superiority over Ukraine when Russia hasn't even been able to do that against Soviet era migs and weaponry..
Of course the Russians have air superiority over Ukraine .
Every military expert would disagree with that statement. They definitely have the advantage but they don't have the definition of air superiority in anyway like we did in Iraq.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-doesnt-russia-have-air-superiority-over-ukraine-200965
Why do you think the Ukrainians are begging NATO to establish a no fly zone ?
Why do you think that 40 mile long Russian tank column wasn't blown to hell ?
Really believe the Russian army would be advancing so rapidly without air superiority ?
Canada2017 said:Give me a break.BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Dude...what planet do you live on ?BUBear24 said:you keep commenting on Russia having air superiority and they don't have it against the Ukrainians but you think they'll have it over us.Canada2017 said:Exactly what in the hell are you referring to ?BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Right now...the US could not achieve air superiority over Ukraine . Possibly we could over time with the aid of France and Great Britain . Anyone's guess what they would do if it all hits the fan .Canon said:Canada2017 said:A-10 was obsolete decades ago.....requires uncontested air superiority to survive .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
That last comment is correct. The sole reason Apache and A-10s were developed were specifically for Soviet armor because of that. 1 Apache is designed to eliminate 10-12 tanks. We knew between Europe and US forces there we'd never have the same amount as Russia. It's kind of ironic that people within the military had to fight tooth and nail the last few years to keep some bean counter higher ups from completely dismantling the A10 program the last 5-10 years.
And this isn't a comment towards you. But I still don't buy Putins BS comment about having Ukraine attacked because of nato at his doorstep. WERE ALREADY THERE. We have 2 countries sharing a border with Russia since 2004 in nato. I really think this is his swan song. He's 70 and trying to find his legacy. He wants statues built of him conquering like Peter and Catherine the Great.
Apache helicopters , while lethal to ground targets, are exceptionally vulnerable to other aircraft . Again, requiring uncontested air superiority.
Such air superiority would not be immediately available in Europe .
I am no fan of Putin...the ******* has long deserved assassination . However in eastern Europe ...he holds the best cards.
Do you think the US is the only western country with an airforce superior to Russia? Europe, if they unleash their collective strength with Us support, could wipe out Russia in a conventional war. Air superiority is there in less than an hour.
In exchange we run the real risk of nuclear war.
'Nuclear war'.....just a phrase to most people. As they have never seen the ( decades old ) above ground H-bomb test films. Most folks think in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
Well guys, those bombs were mere fire crackers compared to what the US and Russia employ today .
90% of the US could be wiped out ( if the winds were 'right' ) by about 80 H- bombs . And the Russians possess THOUSANDS of such weapons...as do we.
Sorry folks, but we need to grow up and face the facts.
Walk away from this stage play .
It's so funny you keep saying we can't achieve air superiority over Ukraine when Russia hasn't even been able to do that against Soviet era migs and weaponry..
Of course the Russians have air superiority over Ukraine .
Every military expert would disagree with that statement. They definitely have the advantage but they don't have the definition of air superiority in anyway like we did in Iraq.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-doesnt-russia-have-air-superiority-over-ukraine-200965
Why do you think the Ukrainians are begging NATO to establish a no fly zone ?
Why do you think that 40 mile long Russian tank column wasn't blown to hell ?
Really believe the Russian army would be advancing so rapidly without air superiority ?
Rapidly? That 40 mile column is taking daily hits from Ukrainians on the ground because they have no fuel lol. I respect you so at this point you and I have our disagreement here, no reason to keep pushing through this one. I guess we'll both be waiting to see what happens next couple days/weeks. Enjoy your day.
But instead, he will be put in history next to Ivan the Terrible, but for a different kind of terrible. Maybe he will be put next to Biden the Terrible.BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:Saddam Hussein was widely criticized within the Muslim world for allowing the US army to slowly build up ( took several months ) without opposition until ....finally ....it was ready to attack .timetraveler said:You say Putin isn't an idiot but he'd start a war with 30 countries because of a buildup? A war that he admitted he can't win with or without nukes? Sounds like something an idiot would do to me.Canada2017 said:Putin has this battle all but won . Ukraine is on the verge of collapse .BUBear24 said:Canada2017 said:A. Link to this report of 90,000 troops please.BUBear24 said:just fyi it got reported today with the additions we have 90K in troops in Europe right now.Canada2017 said:Exactly how are you going to get fully battle ready divisions shipped across the Atlantic in 2-3 weeks ? The buildup prior to Desert Storm took MONTHS .nein51 said:Canada2017 said:
Meanwhile the full weight of the Russian military is being brought to bear.
We would crush them in 2-3 weeks. I don't want war. I don't want Americans dying for what amounts to a spat between former partners…but we would destroy their entire fighting force the way we did with Iraq and it wouldn't take much longer either.
How many divisions do you think we even have ? Going to strip every soldier out of South Korea ? Even then......the most we could muster is 7 divisions . Even then they would be horribly outnumbered .
Really believe the massive Russian submarine fleet will just sit idly by while all our troop transports sail to Europe ?
How long do you think it would take for the USAF to mass enough jet fighters to the battle zone . Really think the Russian air force will let them deploy unopposed ?
As for the comments above, taking aside the crazy man's nuke option, you wouldn't need massive ground forces. The fact Ukrainians are knocking out Russian aircraft with mostly Soviet age antiaircraft weaponry means we'd truly win the sky in a few days, and from there the Russian armor is no different from Iraqi last time they had time to lay in the sky all day. Ukraine knows with that they'd mop up the ground themselves. It's why their president wants a no fly zone so badly.
B. Just how many are combat troops ?
C. If they are primarily hospital staff, quartermasters and a division of relatively lightly armed paratroopers ...the numbers don't mean **** .
D. Again ......the Russian Air Force is First Rate. Comparing then to Iraq in terms of training, numbers, and quality of combat aircraft is ridiculous . Most importantly Russian air bases are far closer to the battlefield . Which means each jet can linger over the battlefield far longer before they have to re fuel .
A. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/politics/us-troops-deploy-europe.html
Just grabbed the first one I saw on google. I've been watching reading so much I don't remember which article I read.
B. Say 50,000 are only combat. Again if it's a hypo where no one else but US/Russia/Ukraine is involved, then Ukraine is still going to be your main fighting force. And the 1st armored division is already over there so I know we have armor on the ground that can love quickly. If your going to be do a WW3 scenario I'll still play but different game.
C. see above
D. This is not true so far as it seems to me. They seem to be having a worse time dealing with a lot of the same Soviet era anti aircraft weaponry(ironically made by them) than we ever did in Iraq. I you could have sheer numbers, but do I think all 1,000 of those Russians planes work? Hell no, not after looking at some of the mechanical issues their armor has been facing. Some of that is being attributed to lack of maintenance. I can imagine their air fleet wouldn't be any different. But if we're bringing in our anti aa imparted to russias S300 systems that we've beaten in the past too, it tips in our favor to me.
I don't want us involved at all for what it's worth. I think this is Russias Afghanistan 2.0, only deadlier and its going to crush Putin, his legacy, and I think his life honestly, he may have to "retire" but I don't see any victory coming out of this for him. I think the insurgency is going to be beyond anything imagined.
We don't have anything approaching 50,000 troops in Europe....and much fewer legitimate combat troops.
Only a couple of regiments of the 1st armored division are in Europe. The rest are still in the states. Would take months to transport enough heavy weapons to make any kind of impact. And Putin isn't an idiot...he will attack before we could possibly match his forces.
Our navy is the best in the world ....possibly our Air Force as well . But they are spread all over the world . In eastern Europe Russia has the dominant conventional force ...by far .
We need to face reality and WALK AWAY from this .
Putin is currently attacking a neighboring country for merely attempting to join NATO in its own self defense..
He is not stupid or timid enough to repeat Hussein's mistake .
Putin would attack BEFORE US forces fully deploy in Europe.
In any case the US army could not deploy enough tanks and heavy equipment to offset the current massive advantage of the Russian army .
That last comment is correct. The sole reason Apache and A-10s were developed were specifically for Soviet armor because of that. 1 Apache is designed to eliminate 10-12 tanks. We knew between Europe and US forces there we'd never have the same amount as Russia. It's kind of ironic that people within the military had to fight tooth and nail the last few years to keep some bean counter higher ups from completely dismantling the A10 program the last 5-10 years.
And this isn't a comment towards you. But I still don't buy Putins BS comment about having Ukraine attacked because of nato at his doorstep. WERE ALREADY THERE. We have 2 countries sharing a border with Russia since 2004 in nato. I really think this is his swan song. He's 70 and trying to find his legacy. He wants statues built of him conquering like Peter and Catherine the Great.
There is a difference between having a responsibility and standing by watching as a thug destroys a nation.Redbrickbear said:
True,RMF5630 said:There is a difference between having a responsibility and standing by watching as a thug destroys a nation.Redbrickbear said:
Ukrainians have every right to fight for the country.
And I have no problem with the US-EU sending supplies and weapons to them.
I guess same for Taiwan? Where we part is that the US and NATO were not innocent bystanders in the Ukrainian situation and played a role in their turning over nuclear weapons to Russia and courting them to the west. Same with Taiwan, the US and allies did not just stand pat and say we are not involved, they armed both and established relations with the west.Redbrickbear said:True,RMF5630 said:There is a difference between having a responsibility and standing by watching as a thug destroys a nation.Redbrickbear said:
Ukrainians have every right to fight for the country.
And I have no problem with the US-EU sending supplies and weapons to them.
So, I do believe for the former European former Soviet states, South Korea, and Taiwan the situation is different and they deserve military support. Maybe not boots on the ground, but air support, cyber and naval as well as the supplies. I am one of those idealist that believe their is an implied obligation, if not a binding one.
Not a popular view on here I know and I will be called a liberal, even though I have voted Republican since Ford.
Unfortunately I think the same has to be true for Taiwan. We let our defense treaty with Taiwan expire in 1979.RMF5630 said:I guess same for Taiwan? Where we part is that the US and NATO were not innocent bystanders in the Ukrainian situation and played a role in their turning over nuclear weapons to Russia and courting them to the west. Same with Taiwan, the US and allies did not just stand pat and say we are not involved, they armed both and established relations with the west.Redbrickbear said:True,RMF5630 said:There is a difference between having a responsibility and standing by watching as a thug destroys a nation.Redbrickbear said:
Ukrainians have every right to fight for the country.
And I have no problem with the US-EU sending supplies and weapons to them.
So, I do believe for the former European former Soviet states, South Korea, and Taiwan the situation is different and they deserve military support. Maybe not boots on the ground, but air support, cyber and naval as well as the supplies. I am one of those idealist that believe their is an implied obligation, if not a binding one.
Not a popular view on here I know and I will be called a liberal, even though I have voted Republican since Ford.
And have been ambiguous about support for Taiwan in a war with China since then.
I don't think we can risk a nuclear war with China (and its 1.4 billion people) for Taiwan. It was once a part of China and is still filled with ethnic Han.
Though I do think we should arm them to the teeth... and hope they make any conquest as hard & bloody for the Chinese as possible. Heck I hope they beat the Chinese back and keep their independence. And as an Island nation they have a better chance of withstanding an invasion than Ukraine does from Russia. Large islands with lots of people are very hard to conquer.
S. Korea & Japan are different stories. If China is stupid enough to try and conquer them then its WWIII and we have no choice but to fight.
Lol no. The A10 is a weapon of destruction. It is hellfire from the sky. The noise alone is a deterrent. There is a reason that it has been shelved and reactivated numerous times.
Gotcha. I understand the realities, just tough if your Taiwanese or Ukrainian. Those are the ones I have a problem with because they both have fought to stay independent and Ukraine has applied several times to NATO.Redbrickbear said:Unfortunately I think the same has to be true for Taiwan. We let our defense treaty with Taiwan expire in 1979.RMF5630 said:I guess same for Taiwan? Where we part is that the US and NATO were not innocent bystanders in the Ukrainian situation and played a role in their turning over nuclear weapons to Russia and courting them to the west. Same with Taiwan, the US and allies did not just stand pat and say we are not involved, they armed both and established relations with the west.Redbrickbear said:True,RMF5630 said:There is a difference between having a responsibility and standing by watching as a thug destroys a nation.Redbrickbear said:
Ukrainians have every right to fight for the country.
And I have no problem with the US-EU sending supplies and weapons to them.
So, I do believe for the former European former Soviet states, South Korea, and Taiwan the situation is different and they deserve military support. Maybe not boots on the ground, but air support, cyber and naval as well as the supplies. I am one of those idealist that believe their is an implied obligation, if not a binding one.
Not a popular view on here I know and I will be called a liberal, even though I have voted Republican since Ford.
And have been ambiguous about support for Taiwan in a war with China since then.
I don't think we can risk a nuclear war with China (and its 1.4 billion people) for Taiwan. It was once a part of China and is still filled with ethnic Han.
Though I do think we should arm them to the teeth... and hope they make any conquest as hard & bloody for the Chinese as possible. Heck I hope they beat the Chinese back and keep their independence. And as an Island nation they have a better chance of withstanding an invasion than Ukraine does from Russia. Large islands with lots of people are very hard to conquer.
S. Korea & Japan are different stories. If China is stupid enough to try and conquer them then its WWIII and we have no choice but to fight.
Be interesting to see what goes down with Sweden and Finland. The Fins at least have terrain and climate in their favor, that would be a tough rock to take,
Its a terrible situation for both Taiwan and Ukraine to be in...they are just too close to aggressive & large empires.RMF5630 said:Gotcha. I understand the realities, just tough if your Taiwanese or Ukrainian. Those are the ones I have a problem with because they both have fought to stay independent and Ukraine has applied several times to NATO.Redbrickbear said:Unfortunately I think the same has to be true for Taiwan. We let our defense treaty with Taiwan expire in 1979.RMF5630 said:I guess same for Taiwan? Where we part is that the US and NATO were not innocent bystanders in the Ukrainian situation and played a role in their turning over nuclear weapons to Russia and courting them to the west. Same with Taiwan, the US and allies did not just stand pat and say we are not involved, they armed both and established relations with the west.Redbrickbear said:True,RMF5630 said:There is a difference between having a responsibility and standing by watching as a thug destroys a nation.Redbrickbear said:
Ukrainians have every right to fight for the country.
And I have no problem with the US-EU sending supplies and weapons to them.
So, I do believe for the former European former Soviet states, South Korea, and Taiwan the situation is different and they deserve military support. Maybe not boots on the ground, but air support, cyber and naval as well as the supplies. I am one of those idealist that believe their is an implied obligation, if not a binding one.
Not a popular view on here I know and I will be called a liberal, even though I have voted Republican since Ford.
And have been ambiguous about support for Taiwan in a war with China since then.
I don't think we can risk a nuclear war with China (and its 1.4 billion people) for Taiwan. It was once a part of China and is still filled with ethnic Han.
Though I do think we should arm them to the teeth... and hope they make any conquest as hard & bloody for the Chinese as possible. Heck I hope they beat the Chinese back and keep their independence. And as an Island nation they have a better chance of withstanding an invasion than Ukraine does from Russia. Large islands with lots of people are very hard to conquer.
S. Korea & Japan are different stories. If China is stupid enough to try and conquer them then its WWIII and we have no choice but to fight.
Be interesting to see what goes down with Sweden and Finland. The Fins at least have terrain and climate in their favor, that would be a tough rock to take,
I think Sweden will join NATO and Russia will probably not have a huge problem with it.
Finland must remain neutral if it hopes to avoid the problems Ukraine has had. Finland did that successfully for the entire cold war. And unlike Ukraine they have no large ethnic russian population. They are also not economically valuable to Russia or US-EU. Just too small of a population (5 million) and too cold for good agriculture.
Redbrickbear said:Its a terrible situation for both Taiwan and Ukraine to be in...they are just too close to aggressive & large empires.RMF5630 said:Gotcha. I understand the realities, just tough if your Taiwanese or Ukrainian. Those are the ones I have a problem with because they both have fought to stay independent and Ukraine has applied several times to NATO.Redbrickbear said:Unfortunately I think the same has to be true for Taiwan. We let our defense treaty with Taiwan expire in 1979.RMF5630 said:I guess same for Taiwan? Where we part is that the US and NATO were not innocent bystanders in the Ukrainian situation and played a role in their turning over nuclear weapons to Russia and courting them to the west. Same with Taiwan, the US and allies did not just stand pat and say we are not involved, they armed both and established relations with the west.Redbrickbear said:True,RMF5630 said:There is a difference between having a responsibility and standing by watching as a thug destroys a nation.Redbrickbear said:
Ukrainians have every right to fight for the country.
And I have no problem with the US-EU sending supplies and weapons to them.
So, I do believe for the former European former Soviet states, South Korea, and Taiwan the situation is different and they deserve military support. Maybe not boots on the ground, but air support, cyber and naval as well as the supplies. I am one of those idealist that believe their is an implied obligation, if not a binding one.
Not a popular view on here I know and I will be called a liberal, even though I have voted Republican since Ford.
And have been ambiguous about support for Taiwan in a war with China since then.
I don't think we can risk a nuclear war with China (and its 1.4 billion people) for Taiwan. It was once a part of China and is still filled with ethnic Han.
Though I do think we should arm them to the teeth... and hope they make any conquest as hard & bloody for the Chinese as possible. Heck I hope they beat the Chinese back and keep their independence. And as an Island nation they have a better chance of withstanding an invasion than Ukraine does from Russia. Large islands with lots of people are very hard to conquer.
S. Korea & Japan are different stories. If China is stupid enough to try and conquer them then its WWIII and we have no choice but to fight.
Be interesting to see what goes down with Sweden and Finland. The Fins at least have terrain and climate in their favor, that would be a tough rock to take,
I think Sweden will join NATO and Russia will probably not have a huge problem with it.
Finland must remain neutral if it hopes to avoid the problems Ukraine has had. Finland did that successfully for the entire cold war. And unlike Ukraine they have no large ethnic russian population. They are also not economically valuable to Russia or US-EU. Just too small of a population (5 million) and too cold for good agriculture.
I think Taiwan's semiconductor industry really does change perspective for it compared to Ukraine. That's a huge national security issue and one even if we try fixing right this second, won't be completed for at least 10-20 years. You don't want China in control of the majority of chip manufacturing with very few alternatives outside S Korea. I do honestly think we'd go to war with china strictly over that alone.
Russia has been pretty open about its security (dominance) objectives.
They view any US-NATO movement into their 600km zone as hostile.
I would not be so much worried about Finland (safe if they remain neutral) but would be more worried about the baltic states.
If Russia moves against them for being in NATO...then its a major world war.
And Russia just might do that....
They view any US-NATO movement into their 600km zone as hostile.
I would not be so much worried about Finland (safe if they remain neutral) but would be more worried about the baltic states.
If Russia moves against them for being in NATO...then its a major world war.
And Russia just might do that....
I think China has the same fears (expansionist dreams?)
And would view any US alliance bases in Taiwan, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar...the same way.
And would view any US alliance bases in Taiwan, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar...the same way.