Originally posted by Vanguard
2 T-72s are much better than 1 Leopard. Reminds on that article, 4 legs good, 2 legs bad! - FACT!

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
What's the state of Russian nukes? Better than the state of civil liberties there.

Originally posted by Patroklos


The funny thing is, after seeing it in two threads, I think you believe you are being witty here http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/frownnod.gif Sad isn't it?

Originally posted by Patroklos


1991 proved this woefully untrue in the extreme. I think the lack of modern fire control systems, primitive night vision, less trained crews, and lack of any air suport had a lot to do with how one sided the gulf war was.

And even in 1991 it would be stupid to compare an Iraqi tank crew to what was then a Soviet tank crew, whoc would be using either a better equiped version of a T-72, or a T-80 or T-64.

T-72's ? I only got a glimpse (and my eyesight is going) but I would've sworn it was a T54.

If it's true that they already lost a handful of planes in the short campaign against Georgia then I'm not impressed.

Well, the Russians lied, they didn't pull out of Georgia. They are keeping the port city of Poti. Poti is the Port through which, according to my understanding, alot of oil goes out by tanker.

This to me is HUGE. It is the making of a ground war the implications of which are unimaginable, the end of the world.

Sure, there's lots of diplomatic things the west can try...so we'll see. The Russians can't be relying on 300 T-90s to hold us back, that's for certain.

I truly doubt that Russian T-72s would go as quietly as Iraqi T-72s. IIRC, the non-export variant has a better sighting system and reactive armor, and I have no doubt that they've improved their kinetic penetrators since the Gulf War.

I doubt it will ever come down to armed conflict. In any event, even if it did, I doubt there would be any real tank battle. NATO would immediately go for air superiority and start tank planking.

Even if Putin decides to say, I think it highly unlikely that we will try to intervene militarily. No rational person is interested in engaging Russian forces over Georgia. Everyone is going do a lot of talking, the Russians will probably stay right where they're at, and the US will lose a little prestige. Hopefully we've learned a lesson about supporting a rash, unpredictable, and potentially unstable country.

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
Even if Putin decides to say, I think it highly unlikely that we will try to intervene militarily. No rational person is interested in engaging Russian forces over Georgia. Everyone is going do a lot of talking, the Russians will probably stay right where they're at, and the US will lose a little prestige. Hopefully we've learned a lesson about supporting a rash, unpredictable, and potentially unstable country. All very valid points. There will, no doubt, be a cost to Russia for this. It just depends on how the West views the intent behind this action. I would imagine that the Russians have calculated the risks and rewards and have decided that the gamble is worth the price. It is not often these days that the Bear gets to jab a stick in the Eagle's eye and they really picked a good place to do it.

Originally posted by PLATO


I doubt anybody would pop a nuke unless there was an actual invasion of Russian territory or NATO territory. If things turned sour for one side or the other then it would probably be a pretty quick cease fire and the loser withdrawing.

Russian Air Defenses are substantial, but getting them "in theatre" in quantity to deal with a massive NATO strike could be an issue.

If there were an armed conflict, which I highly doubt, then the West would certainly have its own logistical challenges. As Georgia is on the Russian boarder, it would be very difficult to keep any force logistically well supplied.

The idea of cutting through Russian territory to get to Georgia is a non starter as well. In Russia, it would be extremely difficult for NATO to keep a supply line open...assuming they could open it in the first place.

The only solution for the West militarily would be through Turkey. As the US saw in Iraq, the Turks are not keen to have an invasion launched from their territory even against a country they don't like with little chance of reprissal. Turkey would have to be very scared and very certain of further Russian aggression.

NATO forces are certainly much more capable than their Russian counterparts, but as in real estate...location, location, location.
Russia picked a good spot to poke a stick at the West. Well, I'll respectfully disagree. The region around Poland and the Ukraine is excellent tank country and sparcely populated compared to western europe. NATO ground forces would dominate the battlefield in southern Russia and once Russian armor was destroyed and SAM sites overrun maintaining supply would be fairly easy. NATO could then press on into Georgia and clean that mess up. Likely there would be a diplomatic solution allowing Russia to save face while at the same time pulling out of Georgia.

Again, the only problem then is how tight a control the Russians have over the tactical nukes distributed to the front line units. If Boris and his missile truck could make the decision all by his lonesome, well that would be bad.

Also, is Putin nuts? He could end the world if he didn't react well to getting his army destroyed.

Glad I could inspire you Kid. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

Originally posted by Lancer


Well, I'll respectfully disagree. The region around Poland and the Ukraine is excellent tank country and sparcely populated compared to western europe. NATO ground forces would dominate the battlefield in southern Russia and once Russian armor was destroyed and SAM sites overrun maintaining supply would be fairly easy. NATO could then press on into Georgia and clean that mess up. Likely there would be a diplomatic solution allowing Russia to save face while at the same time pulling out of Georgia. Sparsely populated? Do not think so.

Ah, Russia is not the Soviet Union, and given Russia's falling population, in a long war, they don't win.

Though again, I find all this talk about a war in central Europe plenty inane.

As for Russian Armor, they build their tanks based on a different general war fighting strategy than the West. IN the West the main idea about warfighting remains that you engage the enemy army and destroy it. Its sort of a mix of the German blitzkrieg and the Anglo-American reliance on firepower from WW2. The point of battle is to destroy the enemy army on the field. Fast movement is to break up and isolate enemy units, then you kill them.

The Soviets built their tanks on the WW2 developed notion of deep operations. You would use mass and speed, not technical superiority, to overwhelm the enemy at certain points, but then, instead of just turning to destroy the enemy army in pitched battle, you drive deep inside, destroy internal lines of communication and supply, and threaten their industrial and political interior. This might leave significant portions of the enemy force without being destroyed, but now their position is untenable, and they have to move back. You gain territory and position. This is why Soviet tanks were made smaller, cheaper, easier to maintain than western tanks. They are not built for one on one tank warfare, they are built to overwhelm a position, then run wild in the back country. This obviously exposes units to encirclement or flank attacks, but the point is to move in so fast and deep that the damage you do is one that the enemy can't recover from.

Originally posted by Saras


By what you're saying, Russians are ill equipped for defence. Eeeexcelent! http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/dev.jpg By the way, when are you going to give Wilno back to Poland?
I think Tusk won't mind our invasion if we promise Kresy to him. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/nod.gif

Ha, won't work, we're buddies now http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/tongue.gif