Russia still abides by the old Soviet military principles of stockpiling all types of equipment, even if its quite old, in order to be prepared for the eventual third world war.
According to sources, Ivan still has 1,200 T-54/55s, 1,689 T-62s, 4,000 T-64s, and small amounts of SU-100s.
Now my question for /k/ is what else do they have down in those bunkers?
>>30522593
Hopefully tetanus shots
>>30522593
Probably a Mosin or two.
>>30522604
first post best post
>>30522593
kebab removal equipment
>>30522604
Hahaha laugh now faggot but soon when russia fucks everyone and takes over europe with stockpiled weapons enough to arm all its people with many tanks then you will laugh no more
>>30522604
/thread
>>30522745
US air superiority will mean those tanks are going to get as fucked as the russian economy when the soviet union collapsed.
>>30522745
Why do Russians even try anymore? Russian tank crews are incompetent as it is. What makes you think a group of random dumb Russians will be able to effectively crew a 50 year old tank?
>>30522593
Nigga that's not even scratching the surface of their reserves. Fucking summer I swear to God
>>30522604
Omfg FPBP
>>30522875
Isnt that the way they use them since like ever
>>30522836
Chairforce is a meme and waste of money.
>MUUUUUH IRAQ
Yeah great faggots, you destroyed quite large part of an army that was ready for fighting trench war, Iraq-Iran style. Meanwhile - NVA and Vietcong didn't care, HCM trial was only broken twice - by Missouri, as in USS Missouri, a battleship. Months of bombing couldn't do what few 16" rounds did. In Afghanistan chairforce is only good for pissing off locals so they'll help talibans more... um sorry, citing certain general P. "they will feel more connected with the new, democratic government because they'll have to file complaint to get financial subsidy" THANKS CHAIRFORCE YOU'RE MAKING AFGHANISTAN GREAT AGAIN
and so on and so on
Russians prepared themselves to fight war under NATO air supremacy ever since WW2 ended, why the fuck do people think that they'll get Desert Storm style stomping with chairforce alone is beyond me.
>>30522875
Because that's probably what they're trained on, and basically everyone in Russia has military service.
>>30522836
>implying any plane that gets up in the air won't immediate get fucked by either side's air defenses
>>30522922
>having total air superiority isn't worth anything in a war between superpowers
Do you want to know how I know that you're retarded?
>>30522977
>total
>inb4 but we will bomb Russian airfields, because that's where they'll have all their airplanes that can take off from basically everywhere when huge war starts, right?
Oh wait, chairforce unironically thought so when they gave F-111A the "F" designation.
Chairforce is composed of bunch of incompetent morons who basically never succeeded against enemy that fought back.
>hehehehe Serbs will surrender in week after we'll bomb them
>proceed to bomb Serbs for almost 3 months
>hehehehe we'll destroy that bridge in Korea in a minute
>fail to destroy it for so long that by the time they've managed to do it Chinese built several other bridges on the same river but it didn't matter because it was frozen to the point where they could just drive over it without bridge
>hehehehehe we will destroy those Syrian AA batteries, just wait
>lose 5 planes, hit nothing, gets bailed out by battleship that destroys said batteries with <10 main battery rounds
This is chairforce and worth of air supremacy for you.
>>30522922
Because they aren't a terrorist organization and could have large weapons depos, supply lines, factories, etc. destroyed by
>air superiority
Meanwhile ISIS and other middle east fucks don't have factories and shit to worry about. They're just a bunch of niggers with guns and bombs and the only reason they're a problem is because of edgy teens joining ISIS to find their calling and going jihad for no good reason.
Russia has infrastructure that we could collapse in a matter of months. The middle east has no infrastructure to collapse, no harsh winters to survive, and has literally centuries of experience of surviving in the second biggest third world shithole in the world.
I highly doubt Russia could pull out and maintain a war economy right now.
If anything those would be used for spare parts, there's no way they would actually put some older models back into service.
>>30522836
The US airforce is impressive but Russia wouldn`t be a pushover like Iraq. The Iraq and Gulf War really paint a distorted picture about how things would go down.
Iraq basically nerfed it`s own airforce due to them trying to coup saddam too many times in the past. They were pretty much avoiding fighting with the coalition forces because they knew in the Gulf War they don`t want to remove Saddam, so they basically was sitting in their bunkers or flew to Iran.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/KRL.htm
>>30523059
Oh yeah, know who else had all that third world surviving infrastructureless experience?
>vietcong
>>30522922
>the entire air force could be replaced by 1 battleship
Why haven't we just gassed the entire navy yet?
>>30522593
Look at the rebel regions in Ukraine. By the time they got volunteers and other expensive equipment 'out on nowhere' ,the rebels also had to rely on ww2 era soviet equipment along with whatever they managed to loot in the first hours of the war.
The anti tank cannons still worked, the grandpa mortars as well and dont forget the PTRD's.
There was also a ww2 tank on a pedestal that was awoken to fight.
Now imagine that your country is invaded, the army is fighting its own battles, but you have regions that arent protected, because the army will get stretched out and sacrificing people is not new to russia. But, those people (imagine being one of them) get to pick what they want from the old soviet rusting ground.
id be euphoric as fuck
I do have a strange attraction to storing things in large warehouses, like a reassembly factories, or neatly tidying up a scrapyard.
What would the result be if russia just decided to zerg rush china with 15,000 tanks?
>>30523083
>Russians are all willing to abandon their grass huts to move into tunnel networks while being supplied by a larger, aggressive ally in a shadow war while the US only lends manpower to European-directed campaigns.
It'll be totally the same, you fucking idiot.
Maybe you should do a tiny bit more research and figure out what *military* victories the Vietcong had over the US soldiers.
>>30522922
>Comparing guerilla forces to a regular standing army
The NBA, VC, Taliban, and Al Quesadilla also don't have motor pools full of trucks and armor. Not do they have lots of runways and jets. Your irregulars also dont have massive supply warehouses or DEDICATED logistics infrastructure like bridges and roads that a modern army like the Russian army would NEED. Otherwise it's force multiplier goes down to less than .5. you basically turn Russia into a guerilla force after bombing it. And we all know how terrible those kinds of forces are at holding land. Your entire argument is invalid.
>>30523120
>russians leaving homes for tunnels
no.
>supplied by larger
who?
>aggressive ally
who???
As someone who has family in Russia, I can assure you they wouldn't leave their homes to go live in fucking tunnels just because war broke out in a separate part of fucking Russia.
>>30522925
>mfw I'll never train with a qt3.14 Russian waifu in a multi-state military exercise
>>30523158
That's the point of the greentext, bro. To point out how stupid that guy's argument was that Russia will be the next Vietnam.
>>30523189
The point of >>30523059 was to say that Russia will be nothing like the middle east or vietnam
>Muh Air Superiority
>Russia can't survive
You know, back in the cold war the americans actually understood their enemy and saw them as a foe with might. Apparently a gene of retardation slipped into the american populace and made them forgot a very famous saying "Never underestimate your enemies"
I look foward to seeing F-22's fall out of the sky because some jingoistic cunt thought it was a good idea to mindlessly fight a nation which has a doctrine SPECIFICALLY centred on countering america.
>>30522593
>1,200 T-54/55s, 1,689 T-62s
Scrapped few years ago completely. They've got UVZ conveyor working, so they increase number of new and modernized tanks every year. You see, when you doesn't have a proper stockpile facilities and\or you spend not enough money for them, all that shit as good as junk.
That's some Belorussian storage facility:
https://people.onliner.by/2013/11/12/sklady-strelkovogo-oruzhiya
>>30523101
>There was also a ww2 tank on a pedestal that was awoken to fight.
A IS-3 that did nothing and was put back to place?
Israel does the same thing.
Rows of Merkava Mk.1's, Centurion's, Pattons, and Centurions
>>30522593
How long would it take for them to make the older equipment battle ready?
As for what's in the bunkers, most likely a good variety of firearms from mosins to Kalashnikovs in the stockpile.
>>30524065
>back in the cold war the americans actually.. saw them as a foe with might
Because they were.
Russia has a GDP smaller than Italy.
>>30524199
Merkava Mk.1's, Centurions, Pattons, and T-55's****
>>30524206
I want to know this, because honestly I don't see the reasoning behind this at all.
How does GDP have an effect?
At All?
Think of some western powers, especially australia.
Australia is not armed adequately, and if we were to think of GDP, it is better then russia.
But russia could absoltuely steam roll us.
If you are the kind of retard who thinks it makes any difference, you're wrong.
>>30524065
>Apparently a gene of retardation slipped into the american populace and made them forgot a very famous saying "Never underestimate your enemies"
no, it's because Russia's current military is a ghost of what the Red Army was in its prime. The Red Army used to be a force with personnel numbered in the MILLIONS. Competitive technology was a universal standard, not something made in the dozens and paraded across Red Square a la T-14. It was well-trained, well-equipped and well-organized. Combined with the rest of the Pact, NATO would have had serious issues dealing with it until the mid-1980s when WARPAC finally lost its edge.
Now the Russian military is a joke, a punchline to what amounts to little more than a paper tiger. The tanks in the OP are relics from a better time, and it's sad to see them rust before living even a moment of their lives in the limelight.
>>30524242
So could china, ESPECIALLY china.
GDP is nothing when it comes to military capabilities, as it stands we only have fucking MANPADS for our AA when it comes to ground force, beyond aeroplanes and ships.
Russia and China have great AA and anti-ship capabilities, none the less they can actually project themselves. We've only got two LHDs.
>>30524276
>An argument made of memes
Jesus christ.
I'd like to discuss, but if this is just going to just go to the lowest of the low "I'll argue with information which barely has anything behind it" I won't bother.
>>30524206
>Russia has a GDP smaller than Italy.
And 4th biggest defense budget on planet. Even without war against NATO, Syria showed that in scenario of civil war when you're cut off from markets and production chains are broken, you fight only with what you've got. Look at Syrian tanks and APCs losses for all this years. Syrian regime holds because of their stockpiles. Ridiculous number of tanks in Russian\CIS countries arsenals doesn't look so ridiculous now after all that years of middle east war.
>>30524276
It isn't the 90s, either. The soviet union collasped two decades ago. The submarines aren't falling apart. You'd be right if grozny was happening right now. But it's not. Right now we're in the middle of times we're we actively saw russian forces put to use in Syria as well as Ukraine, they've got abilities to project. Why is nearly everyone on this board stuck in the fucking 90s? I
>>30524343
Nice try, Vatnik.
>>30522889
>>30524242
Because if they spend the same proportion of the economic output as us on their military, they get nothing even resembling burgerland military.
>>30524373
>Actually defend what I said?
>Nah
>Post an actual argument beyond memes?
>Lel, no
>I know, I'll just call him a shill
Man this site is fucking cancer. I don't know why I keep coming back here to try and discuss things. Probably because it's entertaining even if it is dumb as fuck.
>>30524412
It's like you ignored my post, things take time to develop. As someone who actually understands war said in this thread stock-piling does make a good impact (He was talking about Syria) As it stands, right now, Russia has america beat in a lot of sectors. The only area which america has a good reserve of vehicles would be what, airforce recon?
>>30524412
>Because if they spend the same proportion of the economic output as us on their military, they get nothing even resembling burgerland military.
Russia spends more % of GDP on defense than US.
>>30522593
>>30524276
It's an Ukrainian storage, somewhere near Kharkov IIRC. Here is Russian.
>>30524445
Holy shit. Because pure numbers are the only thing that matters, right? Lets completely ignore quality because this would terrify the Vatnik.
>>30524456
I will never understand why they don't put their storage depots somewhere actually dry, rather than obviously humid regions.
>>30524477
>Quality
>Some universal standard
>Completely ignoring doctrine
>Completely ignoring tactics
>Complete fucking IGNORING EVERYTHING about warfare because western vehicles have some specialization
Utter retardation. I really hope that the US Armed Forces aren't as retarded as /k/unts.
>>30524446
And how large is the Russia gdp compared to the US?
T-80s on civilian market when?
>>30524446
>US spends 3.3% of GDP on military
>that means ~850 billion total
>Russia spends 5% of GDP
>that means 70 billion
The UK or France could both easily be greater military powers than Russia.
Russia are just the only people stupid enough to wave their dicks around.
>>30524311
>I'm going to call his post a meme and ignore it instead of making a cohesive counterargument
ok
nice dubs though
>>30524343
I never said it was the 90s, Russia has come a long way since the Chechen debacles but they're not nearly what they once were.
>>30524497
Considering the fact that over the last 25 years, the US has shown itself to possess excellent platforms in quality, very effective conventional warfare doctrine and very effective tactics in air, sea or land, and Russia has demonstrated only limited capability in any real sense, I'm having trouble finding what you're trying to say.
>>30524487
Because? Americans and their knowledge of geography, I swear...
>>30524199
don't they still use some magachs?
>>30524535
>discussing humidity/precipitation
>posts map of topographical elevation
Just how stupid are you?
Pic related is what you were looking for, and it clearly shows several areas which are much, much drier than any of the current Russian storage depot areas.
Go back to drinking Vodka and shooting Krokodil. The adults are talking here.
>>30524499
1/5th.
>>30524505
>"Greatness" of a military power is measured in its GDP and military expenditure.
Lol. Glorious nation of Saudi Arabia, the 3rd military power on the planet.
>>30524523
You are making my brow actually hurt from how much I'm disappointed in you. How can you be this goddamn inept at interpreting what I'm saying.
I said you have "Limited" knowledge about the russians from nearly everything you've posted, you underestimate them and you pump your fists on your chest completely ignoring a nation which develops anti-air platforms with the intention of being a counter to your "USAF" none the less development of anti-ship technology which they also develop. Russia is more then adequate.
I'm sure western generals aren't as retarded as you, because if they actually had your level of patriotic fervour we'd be reading about the consequences of your stupidity in the news.
>>30524568
>mfw nearly every Russian military storage depot is in some of the highest precipitation areas of the country
What the fuck, man?
>>30524568
>>30524602
You are aware that half of russia is unhabitable and most of the regions you are proposing are right smack in the middle of the widlerness?
>>30524487
That would have required money, something that did not exist when the Soviet Union fell. All those storage yards are old prepositioned Cold War era stocks that have been abandoned, not a real attempt at long-term storage.
>>30524553
No, only Magach-based vehicles like ARVs and Pereh tank destroyers.
>>30524568
>Discussing nothing but humidity
Americans and their knowledge of geography, I fucking swear. The only places on that map of yours that have precipitation on the level of deserts where Americans store their military equipment look like fucking this and have annual temperature range of fucking 40 to 55+°C.
>>30524687
>Expecting a bunch of fervour filled fuckwitts to understand anything about geography besides what they want to hear
Fucking retards are sugguesting the artic for storage.
>>30524499
He's talking about proportions, I gave him proportions. As for pure numbers, you can fight USA asymmetrically or stupid. Those, who are talking about pure numbers of defense budgets, are talking about second way.
>>30524505
>The UK or France could both easily be greater military powers than Russia.
But they don't.
>>30524568
>>30524487
Actually dry regions has great temperature changes because of Continental climate. Very hot summer. Very cold winter. Cold makes steel fragile. About deserts - too close to borders, not enough infrastructure, and still cold winters.
>>30524597
>I said you have "Limited" knowledge about the russians from nearly everything you've posted
That was my second post ITT.
>you underestimate them and you pump your fists on your chest
Actually, I analyze and write on their defense industry (among others) for a living.
>completely ignoring a nation which develops anti-air platforms with the intention of being a counter to your "USAF"
I'm not ignoring it, though I note that Russian posters on /k/ tend to completely ignore the proven efficacy of US SEAD/DEAD capabilities. Not even in the Vietnam war (the high point for SAM/AAA effectiveness against aircraft) did ground based air-denial systems keep attack and air superiority aircraft from imposing their will where they would. If I'm wrong here, feel free to provide examples. Would the US lose many planes? Absolutely. Would the US be stopped from striking targets more or less at will? Not even in your dreams.
>none the less development of anti-ship technology which they also develop
Again, you seem to be ignoring the US doctrinal/procurement response both in ship-borne SAM systems and universal launch platform AShMs like the LRASM.
>Russia is more then adequate.
I have seen no sign that Russian leadership itself believes this. Yes, they fuck with the west, yes they send Bears out to say hi, yes they play bumper cars with ships, and yes, they dickwave about mixed results in Syria. But for all his posturing, Putin has shied away from any act that could provoke a direct and unavoidable conflict with NATO anywhere near Russia, though the Ukraine business came close. Who knows, maybe he will go full retard over the next decade.
>I'm sure western generals aren't as retarded as you, because if they actually had your level of patriotic fervour we'd be reading about the consequences of your stupidity in the news.
You should probably read this:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rs-storm.htm
It's a fun lesson about the gulf between rhetoric and reality.
>>30522593
Ukraine has many stockpiles of tanks and such. They are refurbishing a good bit every month to be used at the front.
>>30522745
Not if the crews all get lockjaw and die.
>>30524709
>Ignore
I'm not ignoring anything, you're the one claiming to be an expert on all things russian, and denying they have capabilities and somehow get confused that I'm denying american capablities.
Are you legitimately autistic?
You've cited desert storm, a 2 decade year old conflict against a military force in a region known for nepotism, corruption and military failure as a reason why russians are somehow inept?
>>30524721
Including the Chernobyl graveyard :^)
>>30524621
>You are aware that half of russia is unhabitable and most of the regions you are proposing are right smack in the middle of the widlerness?
So is AMARC. What's your point? The western shore of Lake Baikal, for instance, is very rail accessible. As is the north shore of the Caspian Sea. As are the regions next to the Mongolian Border. That's three southern rail-accessible options right there (the Caspian sea option probably being the best for temperature).
>>30524626
>that have been abandoned, not a real attempt at long-term storage.
What a goddamn shame.
>>30524687
The only places on that map of yours that have precipitation on the level of deserts where Americans store their military equipment look like fucking this and have annual temperature range of fucking 40 to 55+°C.
Northern Shore of Caspian Sea: Astrakhan, for instance.
>Astrakhan features a temperate continental "Aralian" semi-arid climate with cold winters and hot summers. Astrakhan is one of the driest cities in Europe. Rainfall is scarce but relatively evenly distributed throughout the course of the year with, however, more precipitation (58%) in the hot season (six hottest months of the year), which determines the "Aralian" type (as opposed to the "Turkmenon" type, with the wet season during the cold months)
>Winters tend to be cold in the city, though by Russian standards, Astrakhan features relatively balmy winters. Summers in the city can be hot, with high temperatures in excess of +40 °C (104 °F). The mean annual temperature amplitude (difference between the mean monthly temperatures of the hottest and coldest months) is thus equal to 29.2 °C (52.6 °F) (+25.6 °C (78.1 °F) in July and −3.6 °C (25.5 °F) in January), so the climate is truly continental (amplitudes superior or equal to 21 °C (38 °F) determines continental climates
Just for one example. I'm sure I can find more.
>>30524721
They sold everything which was in good shape years ago.
>>30524703
>Very cold winter
see >>30524788
>>30524797
>−3.6 °C
Beyond water freezing point. Davis-Monthan located in a place where water (in general) can't freeze by itself during winter.
>>30524762
>somehow get confused that I'm denying american capablities.
Once again, that was my third total post in this thread. I was simply listing several US doctrinal differences that you seem to be completely writing off throughout this entire thread.
>>30524762
>You've cited desert storm, a 2 decade year old conflict against a military force in a region known for nepotism, corruption and military failure as a reason why russians are somehow inept?
No. I cited what Russian high command and politicians BELIEVED about Iraqi capabilities. There's a big difference there. Read the paper; it's well written and presents a compelling timeline of changing beliefs. Don't be afraid to learn new things just because you might find that your viewpoint wasn't entirely perfect. That's what growing and learning is all about.
>>30522593
>what else do they have down in those bunkers?
maitence equipment to keep those stockpiles to not rusting too shit.
They never use it. the keepers are corrupt lazy people who just sell just enough to not get caught and shot. And bribing the inspectors who are spose to be on their ass
>>30524853
>Don't be afraid to learn new things just because you might find that your viewpoint wasn't entirely perfect. That's what growing and learning is all about
>Patronizing/mock care in argument
> I was simply listing several US doctrinal differences that you seem to be completely writing off throughout this entire thread.
I'm not writing it of at all, I'm trying to explain to you that russian capabilities aren't as "Inadequate" as you say they are.
I'm reading your report, I'm not "Ignorant" I'm just highly skeptical of someone who earlier used the term vatnik and seems to completely think russians are inept.
>>30524846
>Beyond water freezing point. Davis-Monthan located in a place where water (in general) can't freeze by itself during winter.
I'm confused. Are you claiming that current Russian depots are placed where water doesn't freeze? Because that is universally not the case.
My point is that the region around Astrakhan, just to name one example, presents the driest and most mild climatic profile available to the Russians, and they chose to completely ignore it for military storage depots, instead choosing areas which are far, far wetter and on average 10-15 degrees colder in the winter.
>>30522745
In all seriousness, there's almost no point in stockpiling those weapons unless there's already commensurate stockpiles of spare parts, ammunition, and fuel.
>>30524889
>used the term vatnik
This is 4chan, anon. Sack up.
>seems to completely think russians are inept.
This is a strawman. There is a vast gulf between thinking Russians are completely inept and thinking that Russians would have a very, very hard time facing the US in a full on conventional conflict. The Naval and Air forces disparities alone suggest a very bleak picture. That's a lot of ground for just the Russian ground forces to make up, and I just don't see it happening.
>>30524788
>Astrakhan
In the middle of an enormous river delta below sea level, has 40°C annual temperature range and fucking 70% annual humidity. Americans and their knowledge of geography, I fucking swear.
>>30524907
>Sack up
Mate, it's argumentive suicide to even use shit like vatnik. It makes your argument look illegitimate. You've actually managaed to misinterpret me multiple times, and interpret what I'm saying as a jab at the capabilities of the west.
What I'm doing is the opposite of that, I'm saying that a great failure on the west's behalf or atleast people like you, in this thread is to greatly understimate a foreign military which EVEN In the report you citied shows that they're learning and analyzing to the be able to hold their own against the west. This is a nation specifically developing the army to counter your own.
>>30524890
I am claiming, that Russia can't afford to have such large stockpile facilities as US can, because in Russian climate this shit is too expensive. That's why they get rid of all T54/55 and T62 in 2010-2014. Now their reserves are T-64, T-72 and T-80th.
>>30524907
Here's what I was talking about
>With regard to Iraqi forces, other themes emerge: the underestimation of Western resolve and capabilities; the failure to launch a preemptive strike against the allied coalition when the opportunity was available; the failure to properly integrate and network air-defense systems; the integration of air-defense missile and artillery systems; the need for truly professional (versus political) air and air defense forces; the importance of redundant command and control systems and facilities; the importance of survivable underground complexes; the importance of survivable mobile missile launchers; the vulnerability of nuclear, biological and chemical production and storage facilities to air strikes.
Keyword IRAQI.
You've actually done what I said you would do which is cite a document about a armed force which wasn't even the soviet force themselves.
>>30522925
You do realize that, if a mobilization-ready populace did in fact train on those old tanks, that they wouldn't be in storage? Being trained on an armored vehicle actually involves getting inside of it, turning it on, and moving around--activities that those tanks haven't witnessed in decades.
>>30524935
>In the middle of an enormous river delta below sea level, has 40°C annual temperature range and fucking 70% annual humidity. Americans and their knowledge of geography, I fucking swear.
From the quote in the fucking post you responded to:
>Astrakhan is one of the driest cities in Europe
As far as relative humidity, see pic related. Not a lot of choice there when it comes to Russia. Everywhere has high relative humidity, and if you'll look at the map you'll notice that just about everywhere Russia has placed military depots has higher relative humidity than Astrakhan.
>>30524961
>Being trained on an armored vehicle actually involves getting inside of it, turning it on, and moving around--activities that those tanks haven't witnessed in decades.
If one country needs that, they take soldiers and put them in training facility. That facility has training materials for all tanks they need. In the same time, tanks are being getting into workable condition in another facilities. In few weeks, new unit is formed and can be placed in business, or to additional training on their tanks. That kind of stuff is universal foк any country with such mobilization system, not only to Russia.
So much of "Learning and growing"
Literally cites a report which specifically highlights what I've said previously as well as talks about what I addressed, that being iraqi incompetence and the idiocy of underestimated the ruskies because of it. Fucking hilarious how cites work like that.
>>30524943
>This is a nation specifically developing the army to counter your own.
You've yet to present any kind of argument or cite a reasonable source suggesting the Russian military can engage the US in a conventional conflict on equal footing. All you're doing is throwing around the two areas in which Russian doctrine dictates more investment and platforms: ground based SAM systems and supersonic AShMs. And then you ignore the obvious US responses to this doctrine.
I really don't have much more to say on the matter.
>>30524958
>You've actually done what I said you would do which is cite a document about a armed force which wasn't even the soviet force themselves.
Fine. Quotes from said source:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rs-storm.htm
>Among the many tasks which it performs, the Soviet General Staff is charged with analyzing and exploiting its own and other armies' war experiences so that the Soviet military can better cope with the challenges of future war. It has performed this task consistently and effectively since the 1920s. The General Staff has equipped the Soviet Army (and the Red Army before it) with a superb theoretical basis upon which to plan and conduct war and military operations. It is historical irony that often political and other factors have negated the benefits of the General Staff's analytical work. The General Staff's understanding of this irony has impelled it to even greater analytical efforts as technological developments accelerate the speed of change in the military realm.
Literally the first paragraph of the work. It is about how the Soviet general staff evaluates and assess foreign militaries and conflicts, not the Iraqi army.
>Although Soviet judgements regarding the Gulf War have often reflected a wide diversity of political views, and some have been polemical in tone and unrealistic in content, on balance Soviet observers have begun identifying important trends or tendencies which are significant and worthy of deeper analysis. Among the most disconcerting of these is the possibility that new, technologically sophisticated weaponry may negate many of the more traditional measures of military power and have a revolutionary impact both on future combined-arms concepts and on future war itself.
It is about the Soviet general staff learning from the Gulf War, their views evolving.
I can do this with dozens more quotes.
>>30522889
>3000 T-80 reserves
That's quite a few of what is a pretty good, solid tank.
>>30525069
>Literally cites a report which specifically highlights what I've said previously
Then you need to work on your reading comprehension.
>that being iraqi incompetence and the idiocy of underestimated the ruskies because of it.
Nowhere in that report does it mention anything about "underestimating Ruskies". Nice try, though.
>>30525079
>You've yet to present any kind of argument or cite a reasonable source suggesting the Russian military can engage the US in a conventional conflict on equal footing.
Not that guy, but DESU, US can't engage Russia in conventional conflict right now too. It will require preparations, that preparations will trigger Russians preparations and so on and so on to the level when Russians press the button and conduct pre-emptive nuclear strike. And that's the whole basis of their defense strategy. Keep power balance on level when US victory in conventional war is not guaranteed.
>>30524382
https://translate.google.ru/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Flenta.ru%2Fnews%2F2013%2F01%2F03%2Ft62%2F&edit-text=
http://warfiles.ru/show-107184-utilizaciya-sovetskih-tankov-v-rossii.html
>>30525134
Not him but
>For the U.S., it would be a mistake to generalize from the experiences of the Gulf War and assume that the performance of the Iraqi Army with its predominantly Soviet equipment replicates how Soviet forces would operate in future war. The Iraqis did possess Soviet equipment, but did not employ it in a "Soviet manner." An over-arching system similar to that of the Soviets to integrate weaponry was noticeably absent. The result was the almost immediate loss of the air war and subsequent disaster.
>Most Iraqi senior commanders, as Soviet critiques point out, were educated in Western or Indian staff colleges, while lower level commanders were Soviet educated. Much of the Soviet equipment performed well technically, and the Soviet military will not scrap the T-72 tank because its Iraqi crews chose to abandon them rather than fight.
>>30525112
Sorry, I'll be honest there I wrote that out incorrectly. I was meaning to say that they're analyzing the iraqi force and subsequently questioning their own capaiblities. Ignore what I said there as it was hastly put together.
>>30525134
>Nowhere in that report does it mention anything about "underestimating Ruskies". Nice try, though.
Read the summary.
It directly talks about it.
>For the U.S., it would be a mistake to generalize from the experiences of the Gulf War and assume that the performance of the Iraqi Army with its predominantly Soviet equipment replicates how Soviet forces would operate in future war. The Iraqis did possess Soviet equipment, but did not employ it in a "Soviet manner." An over-arching system similar to that of the Soviets to integrate weaponry was noticeably absent. The result was the almost immediate loss of the air war and subsequent disaster.
>Then you need to work on your reading comprehension.
My comprehnsion is fine, it's talked about the incompetence of the iraqis, it has also talked about changing the SOVIET doctrine (Mind you, this is TWO FUCKING DECADES ago) which goes with my statements they're developing specifically to counter US Doctrine.
>>30525079
Do I look like I'm in the MoD?
I can't give you that.
>>30524182
thats too bad
>>30525048
>Posts a map for one month
Why not another month, lol?
>Everywhere has high relative humidity
That's the point. There are no places in Russia as suitable for equipment containment as in the US. There's either Arctic desert, or high humidity, or swamps, or mountains, or valleys below sea level, etc.
>just about everywhere Russia has placed military depots has higher relative humidity than Astrakhan
Lol, no.
>>30525161
"Get rid of" doesn't necessarily mean scrap every single one out there.
>>30525319
If I remember right then it was the case of simply not having the logistical power to support a single heavy tank. They ran out of fuel and left it. It was also very early on during the conflict.
>>30525359
>Why not another month, lol?
Couldn't find a yearly average map. But in that map as well we find places with Russian military depots as having some of the highest relative humidity in the country.
>That's the point. There are no places in Russia as suitable for equipment containment as in the US. There's either Arctic desert, or high humidity, or swamps, or mountains, or valleys below sea level, etc.
Nothing as suitable, no. But plenty of places far, far more suitable than where they're placed. I have to assume that the only reason they're there is because Moscow can't trust them to be anywhere else. Political paranoia is the only thing that makes sense to me.
>Lol, no.
Go ahead and list them. Let's place them on the map.
>>30523076
that's a really interesting read, thanks.
I love how they were reliant on Russian tech support for their anti air. They were buying systems they were never trained to use.
Also, I'd love to see the kind of welcome an Iraqi gets for bringing Iran a free JET.
>>30525530
>But in that map as well we find places with Russian military depots as having some of the highest relative humidity in the country.
We've already been through this. Are you non-ironically proposing a military depot in an Arctic desert? Because that's where are the areas with low humidity in Russia.
>But plenty of places far, far more suitable than where they're placed
Name them.
>I have to assume that the only reason they're there is because Moscow can't trust them to be anywhere else. Political paranoia is the only thing that makes sense to me.
Lol, fatnik.
>Go ahead and list them
The one I posted above in near Krasnoyarsk. Another one is near Yekaterinburg. When all places are equally unsuitable there are other factors to consider, such as logistics. That is on the top of that the place must not be in the middle of fucking nowhere.
>>30525614
>in near Krasnoyarsk. Another one is near Yekaterinburg
Both with higher average relative humidity, four-six times the annual precipitation and far colder temperatures. Yup. Great choices.
>That is on the top of that the place must not be in the middle of fucking nowhere.
>Astrakhan
>middle of nowhere
Just to continue with the example I provided, and as you already noted, Astrakhan IS ON THE FUCKING VOLGA. It's also a major rail hub. You can't bitch about logistics when the proposed area is literally on Russia's most important commercial waterway AND well developed in rail. Seriously, anon. What the fuck.
I mean, what are you even arguing at this point? That the Russians made a great choice when they placed their depots? Why does it even matter so much to you that you'd spend this much time defending what is so clearly a very poor decision?
>>30524889
But you Russians are inept. Your economy is in the shit, not for the first time in 30 years, your military is a shadow of what it was, you have widespread drug and STD problems and your education system is quite clearly failing. You are inept. Russians are the kings of inept. If i could choose one word to describe Russians it would be, 100% without a doubt, inept.
>>30525686
>Both with higher average relative humidity
>four-six times the annual precipitation
No, they are not, lol. What is the purpose of such blatant shitposting?
>and far colder temperatures
And about the same annual temperature range.
>Astrakhan
>middle of nowhere
I didn't say that, dumbass.
>Astrakhan IS ON THE FUCKING VOLGA
Astrakhan is in the DELTA of fucking Volga and the whole valley is below fucking sea level.
>I mean, what are you even arguing at this point?
That Russia in general is not very suitable for equipment containment, and when all places are equally unsuitable there are other factors to consider, such as logistics.
>Why does it even matter so much
Because you are posting bullshit and have no understanding of climate and geography, let alone logistics.
>>30525860
>No, they are not, lol. What is the purpose of such blatant shitposting?
>And about the same annual temperature range.
Right. I guess, being retarded, you require the actual numbers. Here we go:
Astrakhan:
>Daily Mean Temperature (DMT): 10.5C
>Average low: 6C
>Average precipitation: 234mm
>Average relative humidity: 70%
Krasnoyarsk:
>DMT: 1.6C
>Average low: -2.8C
>Average Precipitation: 488mm
>ARH: 74%
Yekaterinburg:
>DMT: 3C
>Average low: -.7C
>Average precipitation: 541mm
>ARH: 71%
So, yeah. Both are about 10 degrees Celsius colder on average. Both have mean daily averages for the year below Astrakhan's average low. The average low of both is BELOW FREEZING. Both receive at least twice the precipitation. And both have higher relative humidity. You were saying?
>Because you are posting bullshit and have no understanding of climate and geography, let alone logistics.
I dunno. I think it's been pretty clear in this thread who can read a humidity and precipitation map.
>>30526142
Astrakhan: 70% average annual humidity, 234mm average annual precipitation, 39.1°C average annual temperature range.
Krasnoyarsk: 69% average annual humidity, 488mm average annual precipitation, 44°C average annual temperature range.
Yekaterinburg: 71% average annual humidity, 541mm average annual precipitation, 40.1°C average annual temperature range.
>69-71% humidity is higher than 70% humidity
>488-541mm precipitation is "four-six times" 234mm precipitation
Nah, YOU were saying. Bullshit, to be specific.
>The average low of both is BELOW FREEZING
Average low in Astrakhan is below freezing for 1/3 of a year.
>Both receive at least twice the precipitation.
And are not positioned below the fucking sea level.
>I think it's been pretty clear in this thread who can read a humidity and precipitation map.
Indeed, it is pretty clear that you are spewing bullshit with your every post.
>>30526320
>And are not positioned below the fucking sea level.
You keep saying this as if there is not plenty of high ground within 50 miles of Astrakhan to site such a depot, and the anon you're shitposting at isn't just using Astrakhan as a good source of climate information on the region.
It's pretty sad.
Are you really so desperate to not be wrong in any way ever?
>>30526320
>average annual temperature range
I don't think this means what you think it means. That's just an indicator of how much the climate swings, not what temperatures the swing is centered at. It doesn't change the face that both are significantly colder than Astrakhan.
Humidity is literally the only remotely close metric between the three. All others are vastly in Astrakhan's favor. So, again, why didn't the Soviets/Russian utilize climates like Astrakhan when they set up their depots? It makes no goddamn sense.
>>30526465
The time has come for you to stop posting.
>>30526526
Pic related and the fact that sea level matters fuckall with an INLAND FUCKING SEA suggest that you're retarded. Tell me, when was the last time Astrakhan flooded? Oh, right.
>>30526515
I don't think this means what you think it means. Temperature delta is one of the factors that affect equipment the most. Not knowing this simple fact shows how incompetent are you on the subject.
>69-71% humidity is higher than 70% humidity
>488-541mm precipitation is "four-six times" 234mm precipitation
Keep trying.
>why
Because it is positioned below the fucking sea level.
>>30526320
>And are not positioned below the fucking sea level.
>>30526526
Are you completely unaware of the fact that the Caspian Sea is landlocked, thus completely independent of the eustatic "sea level" of any other body of water?
>>30526572
None of these points are above sea level, red dots indicate 5 fucking metres below. Fucking imbecile, stop embarrassing yourself.
>sea level matters fuckall
Lol.
>>30526631
Wanna bet with a thousand tanks that nothing is going to happen?
>>30522593
I really like how American posters boast about how great their air support is, but had complete air superiority in vietnam and still lost. Also air superiority in korea and stalemated..... you beat a third world middle east country. That's on par with Italy beating Ethiopia
>>30526589
>Because it is positioned below the fucking sea level.
You are aware that the Caspian Sea has not fluctuated more than 4 meters (it goes up and down over decades) total since precise measurements began in 1840, right? And the fact that Astrakhan has never flooded since its founding in 1558, nor have there been recorded instances of flooding in the Upper Caspian? And the fact that sea level has nothing to do with inland sea water levels?
Do you understand how any of this machine works?
>>30526688
>I really like how American posters boast about how great their air support is, but had complete air superiority in vietnam and still lost. Also air superiority in korea and stalemated
Tell me at what point in either war were opposing air forces or SAM/AAA able to deny access to the US air forces? Because that's the actual point from a tactical and strategic perspective, genius.
>>30526690
Imbecile, stop embarrassing yourself.
>>30526589
>Because it is positioned below the fucking sea level.
>>30526690
http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/caspian/page/1353.aspx
>The Caspian Sea has been endoreic – inwardly draining – since the Pliocene epoch (about 5 million years ago)
It's been getting gradually smaller for 5 million fucking years.
>>30526724
That's a picture from a town almost 60 miles away. There have been 4 total floods in the Astrakhan Region since 1908, and two of those were less than a 2 meter rise over river fluctuation norms. None of them affected Astrakhan, and none of them would have so much as touched the yellow high ground in the northwest of the pic in >>30526572.
Nice try.
>>30526725
And yet every winter it turns into a swamp.
>There have been 4 total floods in the Astrakhan Region since 1908
So it is barely a suitable place for an equipment storage.
>>30526769
>That's a picture from a town almost 60 miles away
Proofs?
>>30526725
From your own fucking link, retard. Can you read this graph? Do you know what it means? Fucking imbecile, I swear.
>>30526725
... water flows into it.
But where does it go?
Underground aquifer?
Or does that much just evaporate every day to maintain the water level?
>The sudden reversal of the trend after 1977, with a rise in the water level of about two metres, took everyone by surprise and caused widespread problems in several areas: flooding of urban facilities, destruction of roads and railways, damage to industrial infrastructure on land and offshore, and destruction of beaches. Several tens of thousands of people in the lowlands of Azerbaijan, Daghestan and the Volga delta had to move. In Azerbaijan alone, damage resulting from the rise in sea level is estimated at $2bn. In Kazakhstan the encroaching sea has directly affected some 20,000 square kilometres of land, including the abandoned oil wells.
>The factors behind the changes in the level of the Caspian are still the focus of debate.
Absolutely fucking gorgeous region to place your equipment storage.
>>30526947
>From your own fucking link, retard. Can you read this graph? Do you know what it means? Fucking imbecile, I swear.
Yes. It means it may rise about another meter. However, the trend for 5 million years has been gradual draining. There is absolutely zero science which suggests that it's going to rise 10-15 fucking meters any time soon.
That dip in the 20th century was most likely caused by the building of dams upstream in the Volga and Ural, plus the 128 other rivers that feed the Caspian. Now that most of that activity is complete, the water might rise another half meter before returning to its gradual downward trend.
>>30526959
>Or does that much just evaporate every day to maintain the water level?
Yes, for the most part. Some of it is lost through geologic pathways, but not very much. Remember that the northern third of the sea is very, very shallow, which means higher overall temperatures and more evaporation in the summer.
The system is actually not in homeostasis. It is very gradually, over centuries, loosing water.
>>30526983
Oh, look. Right there in your pic. The flood vulnerability ends just 10 miles northwest of Astrakhan. ALL THAT FUCKING LAND WOULD BE JUST FINE.
Why are you being so retarded about this?
>>30527021
>Oh, look. Right there in your pic. The flood vulnerability ends just 10 miles northwest of Astrakhan
And that's if the Caspian has a 5m rise, which no one anywhere considers likely. Most scientists seem to agree it won't rise any more than .5-1 more meter before restabilizing and then continuing to drain.
>>30522593
This is the next generation's Mosin.
brb going to register t72crate.com
>>30527007
>There is absolutely zero science which suggests that it's going to rise
Except for, you know, the fact that it happened and no one knows why.
>>30527021
>flood vulnerability ends
It's not "flood vulnerability" retard, these are areas that are going to be flooded if water level will rise the same way it risen in the 20th century. With such fluctuations it is obviously a shitty place for a military depot. Why are you being so retarded about this?
>>30527036
>which no one anywhere considers likely
No one anywhere considered likely that it will rise in the 20th century. Stop posting, imbecile, your argument is invalid.
>>30527081
>no one knows why
Most papers seem to agree that it was caused by the fact that people stopped building as many dams upstream on the 130 feeder rivers, and then backfilling them for lakes/reservoirs. Most of that activity was played out by the mid 70's, hence more water back into the lake.
>it risen in the 20th century
Over the 20th century total, it dropped .7m.
>With such fluctuations it is obviously a shitty place for a military depot
It would have to rise more than 10m to affect anything more than 21.3mi northwest of Astrakhan. That is not only historically impossibly outside of epoch time scales, but scientifically impossible outside of a complete regional climate shift.
>>30527089
>No one anywhere considered likely that it will rise in the 20th century
No one bothered to factor in the effects of massive upstream dam and canal projects on lake levels, either ignoring it or figuring the Caspian was so huge it wouldn't affect it. Obviously, they were wrong. It isn't going to magically rise above where it was in the late 1800's now; there isn't any more water volume draining into it then there was then.
It's in a historical draining trend over centuries. This has not changed.
>>30527140
And then when something happens to those dams who will get the tanks from the bottom of the sea? You?
>Over the 20th century
It fluctuated.
>No one bothered to factor
You are refusing to factor the effects of a possible massive food or land turning into a swamp every winter.
>It's in a historical draining trend
It's in a 20th century fluctuating trend.
>>30527329
>And then when something happens to those dams who will get the tanks from the bottom of the sea? You?
You think the Caspian would rise 20+ meters, even if every dam on the Volga broke at once? That's cute.
>It fluctuated.
Yes, it did. But the water level from the year 1900-2000 dropped .7m overall, which is roughly 4 times the historical water loss rate for the Caspian sea over the last million years.
>You are refusing to factor the effects of a possible massive food or land turning into a swamp every winter.
Are you saying depots nowhere near major waterways with equal rail access which get more than twice as much precipitation and stay far colder are somehow better? Also, how can it turn into a fucking swamp every winter when it only receives 234mm of rain per year?
>It's in a 20th century fluctuating trend.
Except that water levels fell over the course of the 20th century. Pay attention.
>>30527453
Cute is how you think Volga will remain in its shores.
>But the water level from the year 1900-2000
Fluctuated.
>Are you saying
No, I am saying that Russia in general is not very suitable for equipment containment, and when all places are equally unsuitable there are other factors to consider, such as logistics.
>which get more than twice as much precipitation
Oh what is it? Now it's just "more than twice"? What happened to 4-6 times, clown? What happened to "much higher humidity"?
>and stay far colder
No, and have comparable temperature delta. Astrakhan is below freezing for 1/3 of a year.
>how can it turn into a fucking swamp every winter when it only receives 234mm of rain per year?
Because of the river.
>>30527570
>such as logistics.
You keep saying this. You keep ignoring that Astrakhan is a shipping and rail hub. Literally on the Volga. It doesn't get any better than that for logistics.
>No, and have comparable temperature delta.
see >>30526142
Krasnoyarsk: average 8.9C colder, average low below freezing
Yekaterinburg: average 6.5C golder, average low below freezing
I literally gave you the fucking numbers and you still can't crack the puzzle. How high are you right now?
>Because of the river.
During the winter? When most of the lake and parts of the river and any exposed ground water is generally frozen? Jesus fuck.
>>30527722
>It doesn't get any better than that for logistics.
Except for that part where a tank depot in this region might simply be not required strategically.
>I literally gave you the fucking numbers
I gave you the fucking numbers, imbecile. See >>30526320
>>30528089
>Except for that part where a tank depot in this region might simply be not required strategically.
Its a fucking storage depot, dipshit. They're not driving the tanks out of the gate directly into front line combat. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a depot in Krasnoyarsk.
>I gave you the fucking numbers, imbecile. See >>30526320
Once more for the retarded vatnik, average annual temperature range has nothing to do with average mean temperature. It only reflects how much it fluctuates, not how hot or cold it is. Jesus Christ.
>>30528227
>Its a fucking storage depot
It's officially called "reserve base" for a reason, imbecile.
>Otherwise, there wouldn't be a depot in Krasnoyarsk.
>What the fuck is rear? What the fuck is reserve?
I see.
>It only reflects how much it fluctuates
Which is among the most major factors affecting equipment, imbecile.
>>30522745
>Invade with t-55
>'Look at silly capitalists, running from might soviet tanks'
>Everyone it just staring and confused at you
>'Load might soviet shell so we can shoot pig dogs'
>Proceed to have tank explode
>Proceed to have everyone make smores over your burning carcass
Later:
>What was of sound Francois
>Art display I think, they were handing out smores.
>Was nice day
>go into thread thinking about treasure tropes of mosins and SKSen no one will miss
>half of it is about the fucking weather
the autism is real
>>30522922
>destroy the world's 4th largest standing army in 72 hours.
>no big deal, air force is over rated.
>>30522593
You see Ivan, if you stockpile tank long enough, natural camo of forest will grow.
Enemy will see nothing.
>>30528444
to be fair not many actually knew how to use it. say what you want about Russian conscripts but the baseline competence is miles above the average Arab, even under Saddam
>>30526702
In Vietnam at least, B-52s were suffering unsustainable losses despite the presence of heavy jamming and EW aircraft, up until the point that the NVA ran through their prewar missile stock. In addition, throughout the entire war the US had to dedicate a lot of resources to suppressing and trying to kill SAM sites. Doing this both caused a lot of losses to AAA, as well as diverted a lot of resources from bombing targets that would actually hurt the NVA's ability to supply their military in the field.
A top of the line air defense network is not going to "deny" air space against a determined foe with similar tech level. What it will do is force them to be dedicate an inordinate amount of resources to removing the SAM threat that would have otherwise been put to use bombing infrastructure/supply lines/manufactories/airbases/troops in the field, and make it far more difficult to carry out those strikes.
>>30524702
Not as bad as the anon who suggest that Russia/China could sneak an invasion force into South America and go through the Mexico border (while somehow skipping the 3000 miles and mountains)
The problem isn't Russia or all their tanks. It's because the US is the worlds parents. When they become to pre-occupied with something soon everyone else decides it's a great time for their own plans.
Russia doesn't need to beat the US, they just have to bide time until Iran, China and NK decide to go after their ambitions. The military of the US is only designed to win one war and stalemate the other. Once the magic number of three happens the. They lose the ability to win.
Not to say the US would ever get invaded, but once three major wars happen we gotta give up one entirely in order to win the others. This would kill moral at home and probably allow the opposing force to achieve their "near-abroad" objectives
>>30528518
>In Vietnam at least, B-52s were suffering unsustainable losses despite the presence of heavy jamming and EW aircraft
It's a bit of a different story when you have VLO aircraft to bird dog and destroy C4SIR and IADS facilities before sending the BUFFs in. Some are still going to go down, but you have to remember that the US air forces were having to learn on the fly how to deal with SAMs. It was the first war they'd had to face them in. It's a little different now.
>A top of the line air defense network is not going to "deny" air space against a determined foe with similar tech level. What it will do is force them to be dedicate an inordinate amount of resources to removing the SAM threat that would have otherwise been put to use bombing infrastructure/supply lines/manufactories/airbases/troops in the field, and make it far more difficult to carry out those strikes.
All this is true, except in the case of the US vs Russia, you're assuming both equal tech levels and the US having not significantly refined and specialized both IADS recon and SEAD/DEAD operations - both are significantly different from Vietnam.
>>30528581
>the US will automatically lose three wars at once
....?
>>30528581
You're right.
I remember this one time, Italy, Japan and Germany were at war with the US all at once, and they were way too swamped to handle it.
>>30528696
It's literally the pentagons statements.
The US of today is not the same monster of the Cold War. We are a leaner faster machine, but even a lean fast machine will get overwhelmed if enough large bulky machines attack.
In the Cold War and World War Two we simply decided we wanted to become a larger bulky machine.
There is a great book that explains this transformation and the reasons behind it. Cobra 2
>>30528641
>All this is true, except in the case of the US vs Russia, you're assuming both equal tech levels and the US having not significantly refined and specialized both IADS recon and SEAD/DEAD operations - both are significantly different from Vietnam.
I think the assumption that Russia has spent just as much time refining and perfecting the SAM as a weapon, as well as working on ways to detect VLO aircraft, as the USA has spent building them is a valid assumption. Also, the USA hasn't faced a truly threatening IADS with a similar tech level since Vietnam. Iraq was mostly older systems and a handful of newer ones run by an military that we now know was grossly incompetent, to the point where their sites rarely moved and radiated freely to the point that virtually all of them were wiped out on the opening days of the air war. By contrast, in Kosovo 30 decrepit three decade old SAM sites mostly remained in operation and threatened US airstrikes for the duration of the conflict despite facing the most advanced SEAD/DEAD technology, doctrine, and stealth in the world. Going off historical precedent and the assumption that neither side is stupid, the SEAD war is not by any means going to be quick or easy for the USA in a conventional conflict with Russia.
>>30528835
>I think the assumption that Russia has spent just as much time refining and perfecting the SAM as a weapon, as well as working on ways to detect VLO aircraft, as the USA has spent building them is a valid assumption
With what money?
As far as I can tell, the S-400 and THAAD have similar capabilities, and neither can reliably stop an F-35 from dropping bombs.
>>30528835
>I think the assumption that Russia has spent just as much time refining and perfecting the SAM as a weapon, as well as working on ways to detect VLO aircraft, as the USA has spent building them is a valid assumption.
Not when you account for the fact that Russia's R&D went for almost a decade practically unfunded through the 1990s, and then had to take several years to reassemble good talent and get facilities back after the brain drain and neglect.
>>30528835
>Also, the USA hasn't faced a truly threatening IADS with a similar tech level since Vietnam.
But they do beg, buy or steal every single example of the most recent Russian IADS systems so they can set them up at Tonopah and Nellis and train with them at Red Flag. Russia can't exactly do the same thing against VLO aircraft.
>>30522593
Does anyone know the theory that goes like this
>in WW3 production would not be able to quickly keep up with losses
>Constantly replacings M1A2's, F35's, SMART munitions etc. would be impossible to sustain
>Thus WW3 would eventually degrade to WW2 era weaponry until production can meet demand
>>30528887
Antiaircraft and strategic missiles are the areas that never had a shortage in funds.
>>30528906
Yes. The theory, however, assumes WWII attrition levels to both sides as well as WWII length of conflict. Neither of these things have yet held true in modern US conflict, so while the theory sounds neat, I believe it is built on several inaccurate assumptions.
>>30528921
>Antiaircraft and strategic missiles are the areas that never had a shortage in funds.
Just curious here, but do you have a source for this? Most of my research showed that there was a very significant slowdown in the 90's in Russian SAM development. Also, their strategic missiles were in very, very poor shape maintenance wise by the late 90s.
>"Quantity has a quality all its own."
Stalin never said anything like that.
>>30528928
The US can't fully pacify Tin Pot Little Countries without mobilising and it's going to fight in a WWIII without doing so?
>>30528991
>it's a COIN is the same as conventional warfare poster
>>30526688
>That's on par with Italy beating Ethiopia
But they didn't.
>>30525114
So, probably, are many of those T-72s. I mean it doesn't say what kind, and I imagine most of the T-72Bs are still in service, but still...
>>30524487
They have
They put sheets over them
Neither the US nor Russia are prepared for Great Wars. For the last two decades, they have configured their armies to respond to little wars, not big deadly conventional wars.
>>30524276
Competitive technology was a universal standard, not something made in the dozens and paraded across Red Square a la T-14.
Just like the M-4 Bison, right?
Oh noes over a thousand t-55 tanks! How can we ever deal with them?
Those are all there to fund pro-Russian troops in 3rd world shitholes, you retard. Most of that shit is firmly obsolete.
>>30528717
top kek
>>30528717
>America won WW2 single-handedly meme.
>>30529224
>America doesn't enter WW3 backed by NATO meme
>>30529271
>Underfunded and political-divided NATO.
>>30529271
Most countries that count like germany france and italy wouldn't fight if russia steamrolled romania and the baltics.
Can the world even wage industrialised total war when most of the manufacturing jobs have moved to Chinaland and similar countries?
>>30528823
citation needed
>>30529366
Birth rates are even a bigger issues.
>>30523048
The navy has always been salty with the airforce suck it squid
>>30529366
Most of the US materiel is made in the US for this reason, the US has a decent amount of manufacturing capability, main problem is the amount of startup capital needed but war tends to make shit get done fast with little attention paid to little details like that.
>>30523084
Some one has to pleasure the marines
>>30524276
>Competitive technology was a universal standard
So this is why the majority of Soviet active tanks were mobilization model T-72s right?
>It was well-trained, well-equipped and well-organized
The permanent readiness tier dudes, sure, maybe some B readiness units, but the majority after that not that much better at all. Which makes sense, considering if things went well they would be bodies used to occupy Europe anyway since anyone better in Europe was smashed.
>Now the Russian military is a joke, a punchline to what amounts to little more than a paper tiger.
Eyup, they are a joke. No better than those gooks, chinks, and charlies and those durka-durkas.
>Competitive technology was a universal standard, not something made in the dozens and paraded across Red Square a la T-14.
Considering they plan to make 2,300 of these things this means the majority of active units would have state of the art tanks, something the Soviet Union could never lay claim to considering most of its active units was made up of mobilization model T-72s. Yes, they are smaller in number overall, but when your reserves are made of high-tier for its time T-80s and highly upgraded T-72B/90s the quality more than makes up for the inferior numbers. I dare say the Russia of today can handily destroy the peak Soviet Union if it would appear.
>>30529566
>I dare say the Russia of today can handily destroy the peak Soviet Union if it would appear.
Kind of moot when the US would only need a tenth of its forces to accomplish the same.
Just as one example of how much time and ground Russia lost in the 90s, the US has commissioned more tonnage than the entire extant Russian navy since 1994, which was the last time Russia commissioned a surface combatant larger than 5,000 tons (not counting the Kuznetsov and the 6 year fitting out).
>>30528887
>Not when you account for the fact that Russia's R&D went for almost a decade practically unfunded through the 1990s
They sustained themselves through exports and joint developments, especially with China. Plus, the newfound access to Western electronics more than makes up for the loss in funding. The Soviet Union made sure they get all the funding they needed and then some but what they really need are sophisticated electronics that can put into practice what they originally envisioned of their designs, just not what the antiquated Soviet electronics industry can manage to give them. That they got and more importantly jump-started the development of capable electronics comparable to what the West has for the military field at least.
>>30529665
>They sustained themselves through exports and joint developments, especially with China.
Anon, that barely kept the lights on compared to funding in the Soviet days.
>That they got and more importantly jump-started the development of capable electronics comparable to what the West has for the military field at least.
They still had to deal with the massive brain drain the suffered in the early 90's.
>>30529610
>Kind of moot when the US would only need a tenth of its forces to accomplish the same.
>Eyup, they are a joke. No better than those gooks, chinks, and charlies and those durka-durkas.
>commissioned more tonnage than the entire extant Russian navy since 1994
And this is relevant why? You do realize its the US that has a global empire to maintain(to waste money on) not Russia.
>which was the last time Russia commissioned a surface combatant larger than 5,000 tons (not counting the Kuznetsov and the 6 year fitting out).
tonnage is a crap way of measuring capability anyway. They are shitting out frigates nowadays that are comparable to fucking destroyers.
>>30529758
>They are shitting out frigates nowadays that are comparable to fucking destroyers.
>Gorshkovs
>comparable to Burkes
whew, lad
>>30529725
>Anon, that barely kept the lights on compared to funding in the Soviet days.
You do realize all this S-400(S-300PMU2 payed by China), Pantsir-S1(payed for by UAE), S-350(Korea), Su-30MKK(China) etc. etc. trace their origins from the 90s? Its simple, really, they piggy-backed from their R&D payed for by foreign partners in their projects.
>They still had to deal with the massive brain drain the suffered in the early 90's.
Didn't stop the rest from accomplishing this much anyways. Sometimes if you really are that of an autist and you love your work you stay on despite being payed fuck all.
>>30529865
>You do realize all this S-400(S-300PMU2 payed by China), Pantsir-S1(payed for by UAE), S-350(Korea), Su-30MKK(China) etc. etc. trace their origins from the 90s? Its simple, really, they piggy-backed from their R&D payed for by foreign partners in their projects.
The fact that you think this to be a lot of progress says a lot.
>>30523110
We would see the chinese being confused by the thousands of tanks arranged like an elaborate parking lot after they all ran out of fuel or broke down
>>30529865
>payed
Paid.
>>30529831
Not as amusing as comparing Gorshkovs to the "self-propelled 57 mm gun" LCS frigate.
>>30529889
>The fact that you think this to be a lot of progress says a lot.
Its a lot of progress indeed, enough so that the entire 4th generation of aircraft operated by the West are rendered obsolete and need to be replaced the F-35 asap.
>>30529993
Why do they even bother with anything under 100mm.
>>30529993
>Its a lot of progress indeed, enough so that the entire 4th generation of aircraft operated by the West are rendered obsolete and need to be replaced the F-35 asap.
You act as if the West was forced to rush this, but the teen series had been in service for 25 years by 2000. The upgrade was long overdue.
Your argument would be more convincing if Russia had a single VLO aircraft in service yet, since the US has had them in service for 33 years now.
>All those cold war era tanks
>assuming they were even made operable
Do you hear that? It's the sound of every A-10 and AH64 pilot's erection piercing the canopy glass.
>>30530091
>Do you hear that? It's the sound of every A-10 and AH64 pilot's erection piercing the canopy glass.
Sure its not from the metal squares from a based BUK or a Tor/Pantsir or 23 mm rounds from a Shilka?
>>30530207
Have they ever tried putting a shilka turret into a t72 hull?
>>30529610
>surface combatant
So you learned your lesson and now specify the subject of discussion. Good. But too bad for you and your shitty argument commissioning submarines with the displacement of cruisers and battlecruisers still does count.
>larger than 5,000 tons
Did I say you learned your lesson since the last thread? I take it back.
>>30530246
>>30530258
>Did I say you learned your lesson since the last thread? I take it back.
Fucking unarmed 6,000t landing ship which was laid down in 2004 and still isn't commissioned? You're really showing us, Ivan.
>>30530269
I'm thinking more about something like vid related with a stronger hull.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZrtIYgTuGE
>>30530022
>You act as if the West was forced to rush this, but the teen series had been in service for 25 years by 2000. The upgrade was long overdue.
It was only made overdue because of the drawdown in the 90s, the cashing in on the peace dividend you know? Besides, had the next generation of Russian IADS didn't appear at all the F-35 would be a no sell and we would all be content with 4+++ block 50/60/infinity variants.
>Your argument would be more convincing if Russia had a single VLO aircraft in service yet, since the US has had them in service for 33 years now.
The F-35 as a VLO design is meant for tackling modern IADS first and foremost, so what is this non-sequitur about Russian VLOs or lack thereof?
>a couple thousand stockpiled shit tanks
>ww2 required tens of thousands of tanks, and ones that were 2-3 years old were horribly outdated and crippled on the battlefield
Those tanks are more outdated and outclassed now than wwI tanks would have been on Ost Front.
My guess is they keep em around so they can sell em to shit countries. Or use them in case of an uprising, as they're only good for killing civvies.
>>30530291
>The F-35 as a VLO design is meant for tackling modern IADS first and foremost, so what is this non-sequitur about Russian VLOs or lack thereof?
Gee, I dunno, citing lack of equivalent technology in a discussion of whether the Russians actually had equivalent technology?
Hi whats going on ITT?
Those tank columns sure look neat ;;____DDDDD All nicely stacked and whatnot...
>>30530282
>Russian landing ship
>Unarmed
Lol.
>which was laid down in 2004
And remained underfunded for years. Please, tell me you are not going to resort to squealing "Lies, doesn't count!" again for another 150 posts.
>>30530344
Hello darkness, my old friend.
>>30530346
>Lol.
What, you're claiming it's armed with more than a CIWS and maybe a couple small SAMs? Really?
Just how autistic are you? How important is it that this one 6,000t ship be counted against the roughly 1,000,000 tons the USN has commissioned since 1994? I need to know. For science.
>>30530370
I've come to talk with you again.
>>30530308
You do realize Germany brought the entire Western Europe to heel atop mostly obsolete Panzer 1 and 2s right?
>>30530344
Hard to strafe an armored column when a Shilka pumps you full of 23 mm bullets like that sandnigger did that Orlando gay bar.
>>30530386
Because a vision softly creeping.
>>30530401
Left its seeds while I was sleeping.
>>30530412
And the vision that was planted in my brain.
>>30530423
Still remains.
>>30530433
Within the sound of silence.
>>30530380
>Moving goalposts this hard
Yep. You just never learn, do ya.
>>30530472
Oh, and nevermind that they were somewhat busy constructing their half of Mistrals.
>>30530497
Which was a deal they were forced to make, lacking either the technical expertise in labor nor facilities to construct themselves.
Do please tell us more.
>>30530512
No, which was the deal they first and foremost made for political reasons.
>>30528906
At that point you would probably see WW2 levels economic mobilization which means production wouldn't be an issue for long
>>30530533
Hey everyone, check out the delusion on this guy!
>>30530542
He means that no matter how hard you mobilize production resources, the modern tech is just too complicated to stamp it in WWII tier quantities in any reasonable amount of time. Which is true to some extent, I believe.
>>30530591
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy,_Kostroma_Oblast
>>30525114
>That's quite a few of what is a pretty good, solid tank.
Yeah man the T-80 p. much was the epitome of soviet tank design excluding the T-90 and it sure looks like a sexy aesthetic soviet beast of war.
>>30530961
>T-80 p. much was the epitome of soviet tank design
No, it wasn't. This beast was.
>>30530972
Sure thing I know about that tank too but I said the T-80 was because it was superior than the T64/72 and could of cucked hordes of abrams and leo2s in real life if war ever happened.
And the epitome of T-80 design line was the Object 292.
![Centurion-AVRE-165-Fosgene[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/rjuEDnW.jpg "Centurion-AVRE-165-Fosgene[1].jpg")
>>30530972
>>30530987
There are any russian/soviet tanks with something like the 165mm of the Centurion AVRE 165?
>>30531107
IDK, maybe like Object 775? I don't think Russians ever used large calibre short-barrelled guns.
>>30530591
>filename
kekd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4cHOqTGjrU
Speaking of bridges.
>>30531211
They do have breechloaded 160mm mortars but they're towed ones.
>>30530344
Reminder that the Gau-8 can't penetrate a T-62 from the front.
>>30531287
Seems like Iraqi did put them on T-54/55 chassis.
>>30522593
>Now my question for /k/ is what else do they have down in those bunkers?
Tommy guns. Stg-44s. Garands. Every vintage gun you've dreamed off. Where do you think it all went after the war?
This while thread summed up.
>Russia sucks
>Russia doesn't suck!
>Well Russia only sucks because we have no other option but to suck.
>>30531315
>>30531315
Fuck, i guess we will have to put the gun on some sort of flying contraption then.
>>30530591
It is a god damn shame to see the most advance russian MBT being wasted like that.
The T-80UD was the most advance tank the soviets had and was significantly better then a normal T-80U with its better armor protection and commanders ability to do his job combined with using normal diesel engines.
For some strange reasons the russians are unable to continue to use the T-80UD and are instead putting the T-80UD turrets on T-80BV hulls, so called T-80UE.
>>30530981
>could of cucked hordes of abrams and leo2s in real life
not sure if b8
>>30531888
>with its better armor protection
T-80UD has the same armor protection as T-80U
>For some strange reasons the russians are unable to continue to use the T-80UD
Factory that produced T-80UD engine was lost to Ukraine
>>30531801
>>30531788
>memes
>>30532364
>if you see the tank from this angle while in the A-10 WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING.
>>30531888
T-80UD stands for T-80U Diesel.
It has a Diesel Engine.
T-80UE stand for T-80U Export
It's the export model.
What do you not understand?
>>30532373
Flying low to avoid radars doing strafing runs with your meme gun insted of using your perfectly fine ATGM.
>>30532373
>Implying the soviets and USA didn't have flying tanks during the cold war and that all the tanks we see now are just a smokescreen for the new Quantum tank in development by the USA and Russia to fight the illuminati alien overlords
