Capability

#62
Haven't they done similar with WR and SA80, only upgrade the bare minimum instead of all of them? If so it seems short sighted and likely to cost more in the long run, especially if the poo ever hits the fan, I assume they're gambling a bit over this.
If you look back at some of the cold war stuff on Youtube it breaks your heart to see how far we have plummeted in simple numbers and potentially just as much in capability........
 
Last edited:
#63
Modernising some elements rapidly, others less so. But yes, they have modernised and it's TRUE the technology advantages we once held are considerably less so, in some areas.

I really don't believe we will need the armour. When, if, an Article 5 is called there will be a number of nations all bringing different capabilities to the table. We won't all turn up with the same capabilities. That's why NATO is a coalition.

At the end of the day I do not see the UK investing in significant numbers of MBT. The Army has prioritised AFV over them already, and I re-iterate I sincerely doubt we'd have sufficient people to man them.
I don’t share this blind enthusiastic thought process. I seriously doubt most of NATO will show up with meaningful capabilities. The US Army and Poles will not be the only ones to show up with the teeth arm units. You will be required to man a section of the frontline, and keep your forces in action. You won’t get to send nothing but css units. You will need Armour in numbers, and the mech infantry to match. You need heavy metal capability.
 
#64
Personally I don't really see much of a difference in keeping either a fleet of 148 or 227 when you've got 15,000+ fairly modern MBTs in the Russian arsenal.

With that thinking however, perhaps we could all pack up and go home.
 
#65
Personally I don't really see much of a difference in keeping either a fleet of 148 or 227 when you've got 15,000+ fairly modern MBTs in the Russian arsenal.

With that thinking however, perhaps we could all pack up and go home.
I believe there are roughly 2500 ‘fairly modern MBTs’ in Russia with large reserves of non-modern armour.
 
#66
I believe there are roughly 2500 ‘fairly modern MBTs’ in Russia with large reserves of non-modern armour.
When I was in there was a saying in the quality v quantity debate that said;
'quantity has a quality all of its own'!
 
#68
Well if you are outnumbered 8-1 the other guy wins, even if you kill him 5-1.
But not if you stop him refuelling; or re-arming; or disrupt/destroy any of a multitude of critical logistical or communication nodes. We will never be numerically superior to Russia, so best we be better and smarter.
 

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
#69
Why is Russia always presented as the big bogeyman? Is it because of the tradition inherited from the Cold War era? Russian has never had any designs on other countries, nor has it made any move to establish itself as the only superpower (in contrast to the US). It's NATO (and thus the US) that's been aggressively following the path of confrontation, simply because it needs an "enemy" as its raison d'être.

If the Septics really are stupid enough to force a conflict with Russian, the inevitable result will be that China will see itself as the next victim and ally with Russia. That would leave NATO totally Donald Ducked. There's no way the western states could even hope to win such a war. And if they start lobbing nukes in their desperation, the Russians and Chinese will lob some right back.

What a mad game the Septics are playing, and all so that they can say "mine's bigger than yours".

MsG
 
#70
Strange thing but I didn't see many ships operating the BFG and if i.e. the Russians, they are Europes biggest threat, decide to holiday in Germany/Poland then aircraft carriers aren't required. I take your earlier point that an aircraft carrier with a full complement of aircraft and Land personnel may be the best way to go for minor incursions/disaster relief/peace keeping far away but to counteract a force such as the Russians can project needs ground eqpt, not Naval support.

I would expect in such a scenario (I'm not or never have been an Army Big Brain) our aircraft, and those of our allies, would be countering the Russian air cover leaving any air to ground to Appache.

The Army hasn't been asking for everything, but as for MBT it's been neglected for that long it's almost criminally negligent and has left us with a competent but not leading MBT. Air has leading aircraft, Navy has new aircraft carriers so to balance the Armed Forces we need investment in all the CR2, not just the minimum.
Report warns Russia would be able to 'overrun vulnerable areas of NATO territory'

HSC Senior Fellow and author of the report, Dr Rowan Allport, said:

“The recent Exercise Trident Juncture 2018, the US Navy’s decision to reform its Second Fleet to coordinate North Atlantic operations, and a parallel effort by NATO to set up its own Joint Force Command for the Atlantic, are all encouraging signs that the Alliance is taking the northern maritime realm seriously after a near exclusive focus on Eastern Europe in the wake of Russia’s actions against Ukraine.

However, much more remains to be done. Russia represents at threat to NATO’s sea lines of communication through the use of advanced submarines, is capable of targeting the alliance with a growing arsenal of conventional strategic weapons such as the Kalibr and Kh-101 cruise missiles, and continues to build-up its facilities in the Arctic. A firm commitment is now required by the Alliance to rediscover the forward maritime strategy that helped contribute to winning the Cold War.”

Other key recommendations outlined in the report include:

  • The UK’s Royal Navy should take the lead in any early effort to counter offensive Russian submarine operations via a multi-national task group centred upon one of the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.
  • NATO requires a pro-active strategy to degrade and defend against Moscow’s ship, submarine, air and ground-launched cruise and ballistic missile capability based in and staging out of the Arctic region – a campaign that would require a wartime multi-carrier deployment by the US Navy and the basing of substantial forces in Iceland, the UK and Norway.
I don’t share this blind enthusiastic thought process. I seriously doubt most of NATO will show up with meaningful capabilities. The US Army and Poles will not be the only ones to show up with the teeth arm units. You will be required to man a section of the frontline, and keep your forces in action. You won’t get to send nothing but css units. You will need Armour in numbers, and the mech infantry to match. You need heavy metal capability.
Yes, but how much is enough? Is there a balance between infantry, arrmour, artillery, and attack helicopters?

Challenger 2 tanks and Wildcat helicopters prove desert capability

Is there a balance between land, sea, and air capabilities? What about the overlaps?

Who would want to be a defence planner?
 
#71
Report warns Russia would be able to 'overrun vulnerable areas of NATO territory'

HSC Senior Fellow and author of the report, Dr Rowan Allport, said:

“The recent Exercise Trident Juncture 2018, the US Navy’s decision to reform its Second Fleet to coordinate North Atlantic operations, and a parallel effort by NATO to set up its own Joint Force Command for the Atlantic, are all encouraging signs that the Alliance is taking the northern maritime realm seriously after a near exclusive focus on Eastern Europe in the wake of Russia’s actions against Ukraine.

However, much more remains to be done. Russia represents at threat to NATO’s sea lines of communication through the use of advanced submarines, is capable of targeting the alliance with a growing arsenal of conventional strategic weapons such as the Kalibr and Kh-101 cruise missiles, and continues to build-up its facilities in the Arctic. A firm commitment is now required by the Alliance to rediscover the forward maritime strategy that helped contribute to winning the Cold War.”

Other key recommendations outlined in the report include:
  • The UK’s Royal Navy should take the lead in any early effort to counter offensive Russian submarine operations via a multi-national task group centred upon one of the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.
  • NATO requires a pro-active strategy to degrade and defend against Moscow’s ship, submarine, air and ground-launched cruise and ballistic missile capability based in and staging out of the Arctic region – a campaign that would require a wartime multi-carrier deployment by the US Navy and the basing of substantial forces in Iceland, the UK and Norway.


Yes, but how much is enough? Is there a balance between infantry, arrmour, artillery, and attack helicopters?

Challenger 2 tanks and Wildcat helicopters prove desert capability

Is there a balance between land, sea, and air capabilities? What about the overlaps?

Who would want to be a defence planner?
Oh about 3 divisions should be fine.
 

overopensights

ADC
Book Reviewer
#72
Because they never had any for a start. If the country is so bad, feel free to leave and head to whatever 3rd world socialist shambles that will take you.
The Irish have never quite forgiven the British aristocracy for leaving Ireland to go off to fight in the Napoleonic wars, it derived them of their favorite Sunday morning sport of shooting them through the hedgerows as they went off to Church. The Irish never got over that, and find it completely reprehensible and unforgivable!
 
#73
Why is Russia always presented as the big bogeyman? Is it because of the tradition inherited from the Cold War era? Russian has never had any designs on other countries,
Absolutely Correct as long as you ignore incidents such as

Estonia Latvia Poland (Thrice) Ukraine (Twice) Georgia (twice) Mongolia Finland (Twice) Hungary, Afghanistan - East Germany in 56, attacks on China - war with Japan over Chinese territory - Japan and the Kurils in 44* -

In which case yes other than half the known world Its fair to say that Russia , the Russian Empire** and the Soviet Union has never had designs on another country.


Let me guess its the wrong sort of Russia therefore all previous attempts dont count because that wasn't really true Russia

*whilst it argued by some (Soviet apologists normally) it was an attempt to bring WW2 to a close - that revisionism ignores there were no hostilities between Russia and Japan until the European war ended and they weren't wanted or needed against Japan - the failure to hand back the Kurils smacks of Land grab rather than helping end the war

** Clues in the name really
 
Last edited:

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
#75
Absolutely Correct as long as you ignore incidents such as

Estonia Latvia Poland (Thrice) Ukraine (Twice) Georgia (twice) Mongolia Finland (Twice) Hungary, Afghanistan - East Germany in 56, attacks on China - war with Japan over Chinese territory - Japan and the Kurils in 44* -

In which case yes other than half the known world Its fair to say that Russia , the Russian Empire** and the Soviet Union has never had designs on another country.


Let me guess its the wrong sort of Russia therefore all previous attempts dont count because that wasn't really true Russia

*whilst it argued by some (Soviet apologists normally) it was an attempt to bring WW2 to a close - that revisionism ignores there were no hostilities between Russia and Japan until the European war ended and they weren't wanted or needed against Japan - the failure to hand back the Kurils smacks of Land grab rather than helping end the war

** Clues in the name really
Fairy nuff. Let me narrow that down to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. What then? Chechnya, Georgia (which was instigated by your man Shashlikwilly), and (arguably) Crimea. Now compare that to how many countries the US has totally fücked up in the same timeframe - the latest one being Venezuela.

It's very clear that the Russians have been spending their time trying to land as many commercial contracts as they can because they're far more interested in trading than conflict. That, in fact, was always the case, even when it was the Soviet Union, believe it or not. True they did support North Vietnam to a certain extent. But only to the tune of about a million dollaz, while the Septics spent literally billigans, just to pathetically lose a war they were always just on the verge of winning.

MsG
 
#76
Fairy nuff. Let me narrow that down to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. What then? Chechnya, Georgia (which was instigated by your man Shashlikwilly), and (arguably) Crimea. Now compare that to how many countries the US has totally fücked up in the same timeframe - the latest one being Venezuela.

It's very clear that the Russians have been spending their time trying to land as many commercial contracts as they can because they're far more interested in trading than conflict. That, in fact, was always the case, even when it was the Soviet Union, believe it or not. True they did support North Vietnam to a certain extent. But only to the tune of about a million dollaz, while the Septics spent literally billigans, just to pathetically lose a war they were always just on the verge of winning.

MsG
By Christ, you don't half talk some crap.
 
#80
Fairy nuff. Let me narrow that down to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. What then? Chechnya, Georgia (which was instigated by your man Shashlikwilly), and (arguably) Crimea. Now compare that to how many countries the US has totally fücked up in the same timeframe - the latest one being Venezuela.
MsG
Well done you've moved from no foreign interference - to interferes less than US

Now reflect
Venezuela isn't really to down to the US - that fucked up before they stuck their oar in - Russia is also equally involved in Venezuela - and for that matter Syria. Then add in the Baltics - pressuring Canada

The reality is there probably isn't much between Russia and the US when it comes to Foreign involvement - The US is more capable of deploying abroad alt media is very selective in how and what it reports** which means rather than Russia Good US bad its shades of grey but you only see one side


Only US made Saudi bombs kill civillians in the Yemen, only US backed forces ever make mistakes, Only US Airstrikes kill combatants - Russian carpet bombing techniques reminiscent of Dresden are somehow more precise and civilian casualty averse than a single Paveway etc
 

Similar threads


Top