obyknven Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 Generals are always prepared to fight the last war. NATO armies actually quite retarded and win wars only because bribing a generals and enemy armies tactical incompetency. This thread about "how to defeat best armies in the world". http://youtu.be/6yOk3pr_LWA 5
HoonDing Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 This thread about "how to defeat best armies in the world". You mean like the Georgian army? 4 The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
obyknven Posted February 18, 2013 Author Posted February 18, 2013 This thread about "how to defeat best armies in the world". You mean like the Georgian army? Georgian army not too different from army of any other NATO member. They trained by NATO instructors, use tactics, battle order, units structure and weapon of NATO. http://youtu.be/AI4JNndqeI4 4
NOK222 Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 Is this another Russia is Alpha as **** and the west are bunch of **** beta males thread? Really oby, it's getting old. 9 Ka-ka-ka-ka-Cocaine!
obyknven Posted February 18, 2013 Author Posted February 18, 2013 Is this another Russia is Alpha as **** and the west are bunch of **** beta males thread? Really oby, it's getting old. nope. It's thread about future warfare. NATO is most powerful military force in the world, but with huge amount of weak points. This is huge bureaucratic machine, very inert and retarded. Because this even small flexible army or group of freedom fighters can defeat them (if they use asymmetric strategy). MOAR: http://youtu.be/0O-apVLasjU 1
Agiel Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) July 30, 1970, the War of Attrition - Operation Rimon 20: "Elite" Soviet pilots flying MiG-21s, then the backbone of Warsaw Pact air power are trounced by Israelis flying F-4E Phantom IIs and Mirage IIICs, losing five Fishbeds to no losses on the Israeli side. August 1996, the First Chechen War - Battle of Grozny: Advancing into the town without infantry support (as you have said before, tantamount to suicide in urban warfare), Russian armour gets slaughtered in the dozens by Chechen rebels, including several of what was then considered among the cream of the crop of Russian armour, the T-80BV. September 2004, Beslan, North Ossetia: In a show of, to put it mildly, disproportionate application of force in resolving a hostage crisis involving women and children, Russian armed forces resort to using tanks and thermobaric weapons to neutralise the hostage takers. Tragically (and rather predictably) 385 hostages lose their life and a further 783 are injured. Entebbe, Lufthansa Flight 181, and the Iranian Embassy in London this ain't. I can own up to the West's share of military blunders since the Cold War began (MacArthur's idiotic decision to push to the Yalu river despite ample warning from the PRC, LeMay's single-minded focus on strategic bombing which would stagnate Air Force doctrine until Chuck Horner and the AirLand Battle concept came into the picture). However, I won't stand for it if someone thinks his country's armed forces is above something as concrete as human fallibility. Edited February 19, 2013 by Agiel 2 Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling
obyknven Posted February 19, 2013 Author Posted February 19, 2013 To many myths there. July 30, 1970, the War of Attrition - Operation Rimon 20: "Elite" Soviet pilots flying MiG-21s, then the backbone of Warsaw Pact air power are trounced by Israelis flying F-4E Phantom IIs and Mirage IIICs, losing five Fishbeds to no losses on the Israeli side. Lol, MIG-21s piloted by Arabs. Arabs can't into tactics and warfare. Because this they cant do nothing against Israel and NATO. August 1996, the First Chechen War - Battle of Grozny: Advancing into the town without infantry support (as you have said before, tantamount to suicide in urban warfare), Russian armour gets slaughtered in the dozens by Chechen rebels, including several of what was then considered among the cream of the crop of Russian armour, the T-80BV. These "Chechen rebels" is ex-Soviet Army veterans (with Afghan war experience). It's Soviet school of warfare. Against them mostly acts Internal Army (some sort of riot police with tanks, but without properly tactics, - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Troops_of_Russia ). Russian Armed Forces avoid do something in this conflict (they hate Internal Army so much ). September 2004, Beslan, North Ossetia: In a show of, to put it mildly, disproportionate application of force in resolving a hostage crisis involving women and children, Russian armed forces resort to using tanks and thermobaric weapons to neutralise the hostage takers. Tragically (and rather predictably) 385 hostages lose their life and a further 783 are injured. Entebbe, Lufthansa Flight 181, and the Iranian Embassy in London this ain't. Tanks and thermobaric weapons... Looks like you watch Fox TV to much. Actually all modern armies are retarded. But NATO armies are most retarded, as most huge and powerful. For example they have scary tanks (WW2 style warfare). But tank's not needed if you want stop them. Any cheap car + Kornet-E M1 can exterminate any amount of them. It is asymmetrical strategy. NATO have scary Aircraft carriers (WW2 style retarded warfare again), but you not need carriers to destroy them. Cheap hypersonic missile system is weapon of choice. http://youtu.be/QNYuMQLPFgQ 1
AGX-17 Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) Is this another Russia is Alpha as **** and the west are bunch of **** beta males thread? Really oby, it's getting old.nope. It's thread about future warfare. NATO is most powerful military force in the world, but with huge amount of weak points. This is huge bureaucratic machine, very inert and retarded. Because this even small flexible army or group of freedom fighters can defeat them (if they use asymmetric strategy). It's contradictory to state that "NATO is most poweful military force in the world" if they're "inert and retarded" and "even small flexibly army or group of freedom fighters can defeat them". There's no logical consistency, all the videos are simply your standard implicit statement "look at our mighty superior Russian culture and technology, inferior NATO Western degenerates!", as expected of Yet Another Russian Inferiority Complex Thread™. Really, if you didn't have one, 90% of your posts wouldn't be Russian nationalist propaganda or anti-American/European insults. It's the fearful dog that barks the most. Edited February 19, 2013 by AGX-17 1
Agiel Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 Actually look up Operation Rimon 20. It was *Soviet* flyers in MiG-21s (in the 70s, still a very competitive fighter when the MiG-23 and MiG-25 had barely entered into service). 1 Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling
Agiel Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 "Looks like you watch Fox TV to much." Le Monde, Associated Press, and Reuters actually. Way more credible than Pravda. 1 Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling
Zoraptor Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 Not that oby isn't massively overstating things but the west's military is rather paper tigerish. They'd blat the traditional forces of any mid range organised power in a matter of days or weeks but that is not what they are being used for. They won't fight anyone whose WORDS ARE BACKED BY NUCLEAR WEAPONS so performance against them is irrelevant, and they've proven themselves less than awesome against irregulars and prone to end with Vietnam style Peace With Hono(u)r solutions. Ten years on from Iraq War 2 and the crowning achievement is an Iraq that still has ongoing problems and has Iran as its best bud. Predictable, but hardly what Rummy, Blair, asterisk Cheney and co sold as the glorious future. The one thing you can guarantee is that whoever the west fights next they aren't going to 'fight fair' and go stand conveniently in a field with their AKs and RPG7s and wait to be obliterated by a drone strike just for limited cachet of being labelled 'honourable' by the press in the west. AGX-17, on 20 Feb 2013 - 05:39, said: It's contradictory to state that "NATO is most poweful military force in the world" if they're "inert and retarded" and "even small flexibly army or group of freedom fighters can defeat them". There's nothing even slightly contradictory about it. If you want an illustrative example look at Rome/ Varus at the Teutoburger Wald. Rome was indisputably the most powerful military force in the world and they were also inert and retarded, being defeated by a relatively small and definitively less well organised and armed group of germans due to tactical inflexibility and the Germans not 'fighting fair' (ie going and standing conveniently in a field to be killed off conveniently, as above). Agiel, on 20 Feb 2013 - 06:38, said: Actually look up Operation Rimon 20. It was *Soviet* flyers in MiG-21s (in the 70s, still a very competitive fighter when the MiG-23 and MiG-25 had barely entered into service). .Export model MiG21s though, that's a very significant difference. Really though, the soviets were always likely to lose at close to 1:1 odds just as they were in WW2, problem was that in most important situations the odds were not or would not be anywhere near 1:1 Comparing Beslan to an Entebbe or a Iranian Hostage Siege is facile, the scales, the skills of the hostage takers and situations aren't even remotely similar. Once the chechens had got into the school there was only one way it was going to end whether it was Russian or US or anyone else involved because you had a well armed, well motivated and well dug in group, and no prospect of surprise. 1
Guard Dog Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 Actually the way for a small group to defeat a large modern military would be to avoid direct confrontation, concentrate on small group actions against soft targets. That way they drive up the cost of the war effort by damaging logistics and by avoiding direct confrontation they deny thier opponent any large vicotries to show for the added costs. Then just wait for the political will to continue the fight to collapse. Basicly you make yourself more trouble than you're worth. That's how I'd do it. 2 "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Raithe Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 There was that old joke that used to run around about Nato forces and the different attitudes/training of the various groups involved at any one point. Ran something along the lines of "The worst mixed unit in Nato has a nurse from germany, a cook from england, a quartermaster from italy, a french engineer and an american officer. The best unit has a nurse from italy, a cook from france, a quartermaster from america, a german engineer and an english officer." 1 "Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."
Agiel Posted February 20, 2013 Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) There was that old joke that used to run around about Nato forces and the different attitudes/training of the various groups involved at any one point. Ran something along the lines of "The worst mixed unit in Nato has a nurse from germany, a cook from england, a quartermaster from italy, a french engineer and an american officer. The best unit has a nurse from italy, a cook from france, a quartermaster from america, a german engineer and an english officer." I don't know about the worst nurses. What I do know is that I'd let the ladies from the Bundeswehr's tank corps take care of me. Especially one who could load those sabot rounds into that 120mm Rheinmetall L55 gun like nothing. Reeeowww... mein frauleins. Edited February 20, 2013 by Agiel 1 Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling
Gfted1 Posted February 20, 2013 Posted February 20, 2013 I think people are confusing nation building with warfare. Im willing to go out on a limb and say, currently, there isnt a nation on earth that could defeat the US in 1-1 warfare of regular forces. Hell, I dont think NATO could defeat the US but those Germans are a capable bunch. 1 "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Zoraptor Posted February 20, 2013 Posted February 20, 2013 Nation building is pretty critical though, unless you want to have to fight the same wars over and over. US would roflstomp any other country including Russia and China, they'd just take longer. Still, there is always the possibility of something unusual happening. Might be interesting if someone else has a satellite killer and could take out GPS to see how well the back ups work and how well the military functions without modern ease of use type stuff, or could hack drones in combat situations, or bring down the internet but fortunately we aren't likely to find out. 1
Guard Dog Posted February 20, 2013 Posted February 20, 2013 There was a great book from the 80's called Red Army by Ralph Peters. It was a novel that looked into how the Soviet Army and Warsaw pact forces would behave in land combat against NATO in Germany. Although it was about the Soviets from a persepctive of the Red Army soldiers and leaders they were able to win a quick but not quite decisive victory because they were unified in purpose while the NATO forces were stronger, the alliance as a whole was less than the sum of it's parts because all the powers had different agendas. It was an interesting take. Oby would like it becaue he would think the "good guys" won. The rest of you might like it because it was a good read. 2 "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
BruceVC Posted February 20, 2013 Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) Guys its irrelevant if there is a perception of the West being militarily weak, they have no country that can seriously challenge them. The Russian army is almost completely useless and ineffective. It took them 16 years and 2 civil wars before they could install a semblance of peace in Chechnya. Imagine the mighty Russian bear being unable to conquer a band of mountain guerrillas , and they could only finally achieve peace in Chechnyan by allowing a corrupt and brutal Chechnya to rule the country as a Russian puppet, Ramzan Kadyrov. Seriously you need to read about this guy, he makes Robert Mugabe look like a boy scout. And this is the person the Russians let lose on the Chechnyan rebels http://dailysoviet.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/ramzan-kadyrov-corrupt-flower-loving-pervert/ http://www.kyivpost.com/content/russia-and-former-soviet-union/chechnyas-kadyrov-calls-for-crackdown-on-sorcery-320241.html http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=38999&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=27&cHash=1ba84ce37104da38ba7d1719b34ae987 Finally you can say what you want about the USA but at the moment there military might is untouchable. They have had 13 years of wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and these conflicts have honed and refined ther military experience and strategies. And the best thing about there current policies under Obama is that they don't feel the need to constantly threaten other countries using force to effect political changes, but the reality is they could defeat any possible country if they so desired. Edited February 20, 2013 by BruceVC 1 "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Walsingham Posted February 20, 2013 Posted February 20, 2013 Trolled for a response. Got one. 2 "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
obyknven Posted February 21, 2013 Author Posted February 21, 2013 Find some western critical analysis of NATO military power. On Russian language we have many articles about this, but on English language this is unusual (too many censorship and taboo, western citizens must read only patriotic propaganda ). http://www.combatreform.org/heavytankshelicopters.htmIn city fight Abrams tank very vulnerable. Maximum Abrams gun elevation angle is restricted to 20°. In other words tank can't shot on top floors of buildings. Infantry in safety there. Meanwhile Abrams tank from the top side (actually all tanks vulnerable from the top side, but after Chechen war Russians increase their tank top protection). 1
Agiel Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 Soviet tanks were small, which did make them harder to hit and gave them good power to weight ratios. At the cost of that, the composite armour was generally inferior to NATO tanks (many pre-T-72B models and derivatives still use cast steel armour) and the turret elevation and depression was far more limited than their western counterparts, which made them even less suitable for both urban operations and fighting in a defensive hull-down position. Western tanks are also far less susceptible to catastrophic explosions and ammunition cook-offs, unlike the later Soviet tanks that used an auto-loader (hence the nickname given to T-72s, "Jack in the Boxes"), something that is also exhibited in that image you gave. Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling
greylord Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 I'd say it depends on how quickly that army moves to wireless communications and wireless control. Easiest methodology to defeat an army like that...stop ALL signals in the air...friendly, unfriendly, that should stop most things. Next, be willing to nuke your own soil and enemy troops on it. It would be a defensive use of nukes (thus far usage has all been offensive, and all plans are offensive plans). This creates an effective wall as well. They have to be willing to go through that wall in order to get to you...both bad and good things...but it creates an immovable obstacle. Next, get the best hackers in the world to do intel prior to invasion, hack the enemy govts. intel, power grid, communciations, and everything else. Secretly and simultaneously if possible, than hit it all in a total blackout when you hit them with invasion forces. Just some of my ideas...not that anyone would ever utilitze them.
obyknven Posted February 25, 2013 Author Posted February 25, 2013 i will just leave it here. Lockheed Martin try copypaste Yak-141 as F-35, but fail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136312-1,00.html
obyknven Posted February 26, 2013 Author Posted February 26, 2013 Arma 3 http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/02/26/rifle-report-arma-3-enters-playable-alpha-on-march-5th/#comment-1207566 What the crap is that thing in the picture? ARMA 3 sounds great apart from the “near future” setting. Give me kit I can spend hours looking up on Wikipedia not some fantasy gear the devs dreamt up. I’m personally glad they’re going for a slightly sci-fi setting this time. Less money being diverted from game development to licensing official military hardware terminology and names, and thus less money actually going to arms manufacturers. The result is a guilt-free game of virtual soldiers. Lol, western kids don't known about "Punisher". They think this is sci-fi.
Agiel Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 The F-35 is still a very capable stealth BVR fighter, the big problem that remains is reining in the final flyaway cost so it has the export potential and "bang-for-your-buck" the F-16 had (the F-35 is supposed to be to the F-16 what the F/A-22 is to the F-15). When it does enter full production, it will move the 5th-generation fighter goalposts because virtually every non-NATO aligned air force still lacks a proper response to 4th generation jets with the AIM-120B/C AMRAAM. Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling
Recommended Posts