1. #12381
    Quote Originally Posted by BreathTaker View Post
    What, are you arguing about military forces of the west and Russia again?
    Seriously this is getting boring.
    Good always wins so US will disappear from Earth far sooner than Russia anyway, stop all this useless conversations here.
    Or i'll call a wrath of almighty on you, i warned you!
    Nah we're just drawing comparisons as a commentary about the composition of the armed forces that Russia has massed on their side of the border. Comparing them to something else - such as the US - puts their capability (such as it is) in context. It's a perfectly legitimate and on-topic discussion. I mean Russia has massed what... 40,000 troops on the Ukrainian border? What percentage conscripts? Lots of T-72s and SU-27s tanks imaged by the way... not a lot of things built since the people driving them / flying them were born though.

    The conversation actually started with a discussion about the Russian Air Force trying to send a message (consensus is, the message was a joke) by having the antique Su-24 fly over a modern US Navy destroyer... something that only happened because the Destroyer chose not to blow it out of the sky the second it came in weapons range.

    So actually... Russia started this really. They invited the discussion by deciding to give the US Navy an epic case of eye-rolling. If they want to embarrass themselves less, stick to buzzing Ukranian ships or something.

    But... oh wait... that's right. They knew the US Navy was going to elect to not blow up their flying museum piece and start a major military conflict, just the same way they know that F-22s out of Alaska aren't going to shoot down the Tu-95s they periodically intercept, salute, and escort.

    It's not a show of force if the other side knows you're harmless and decides to let you get away with waving your muskets around.
    Last edited by Skroe; 2014-04-15 at 06:13 AM.

  2. #12382
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    Nah we're just drawing comparisons as a commentary about the composition of the armed forces that Russia has massed on their side of the border. Comparing them to something else - such as the US - puts their capability (such as it is) in context. It's a perfectly legitimate and on-topic discussion. I mean Russia has massed what... 40,000 troops on the Ukrainian border? What percentage conscripts? Lots of T-72s and SU-27s tanks imaged by the way... not a lot of things built since the people driving them / flying them were born though.

    The conversation actually started with a discussion about the Russian Air Force trying to send a message (consensus is, the message was a joke) by having the antique Su-24 fly over a modern US Navy destroyer... something that only happened because the Destroyer chose not to blow it out of the sky the second it came in weapons range.

    So actually... Russia started this really. They invited the discussion by deciding to give the US Navy an epic case of eye-rolling. If they want to embarrass themselves less, stick to buzzing Ukranian ships or something.

    But... oh wait... that's right. They knew the US Navy was going to elect to not blow up their flying museum piece and start a major military conflict, just the same way they know that F-22s out of Alaska aren't going to shoot down the Tu-95s they periodically intercept, salute, and escort.

    It's not a show of force if the other side knows you're harmless and decides to let you get away with waving your muskets around.
    Well, in Russia's defense, they were likely Naval Aviation Fencers, which is the best that the Russian Navy has in the area.

  3. #12383
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    I'd be less concerned about what the tanks are firing, then who is driving the tanks.

    Let's just keep something in mind... and this is yet another reason why the Russian military is kind of a joke. It's Ground Forces (Army) has 190,000 conscripts who serve one year and 107,000 professional soldiers. That's fewer professional soldiers than the British Army. It was supposed to be 450,000 professional soldiers. Never happened.

    http://russiamil.wordpress.com/2011/...power-problem/

    You're going to have a hard time fielding well trained armored brigades, when the majority of the army play soldier for one year then go home. Sure Russia can have immense numbers of (mostly terribly outdated) tanks on paper. And it's crewing them with what? People too poor or unconnected to get out of their mandatory service?

    At at the head of this? The army has 800 Generals. Yes. 800.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26975204

    By contrast the 546,000 Active Duty US soldiers are commanded by a mandated by law maximum of 230 Generals.

    Anyone wanna take a guess why it's horrific for large, complex bureaucracies to be extraordinarily top heavy, as a rule? And specifically why it's particularly a terrible thing for armed forces?
    As I heard, the major part of US army right now are people who want to get US citizenship, low educated and have some serious mental problems according to fotos from Iraq/Afganistan.

    Brigade system indeed is more effective when you invading a country with no any good weapon When the relation of forces is 10:1.

    Russian weapon is outdated by like 23 years right now, but still it's better than most of US/NATO. So I guess someone in US military system just wasted 23 *(military budget)$ for personal needs.

  4. #12384
    Quote Originally Posted by BreathTaker View Post
    What, are you arguing about military forces of the west and Russia again?
    Seriously this is getting boring.
    Good always wins so US will disappear from Earth far sooner than Russia anyway, stop all this useless conversations here.
    Or i'll call a wrath of the almighty on you, i warned you!
    captain america says USA is good and you evil.

    i trust the super hero

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by malgin View Post
    As I heard, the major part of US army right now are people who want to get US citizenship, low educated and have some serious mental problems according to fotos from Iraq/Afganistan.

    Brigade system indeed is more effective when you invading a country with no any good weapon When the relation of forces is 10:1.

    Russian weapon is outdated by like 23 years right now, but still it's better than most of US/NATO. So I guess someone in US military system just wasted 23 *(military budget)$ for personal needs.
    now thats some good propaganda.

  5. #12385
    Quote Originally Posted by malgin View Post
    As I heard, the major part of US army right now are people who want to get US citizenship, low educated and have some serious mental problems according to fotos from Iraq/Afganistan.

    Brigade system indeed is more effective when you invading a country with no any good weapon When the relation of forces is 10:1.

    Russian weapon is outdated by like 23 years right now, but still it's better than most of US/NATO. So I guess someone in US military system just wasted 23 *(military budget)$ for personal needs.
    You just posted a bunch of opinions as facts without anything to back you up.

  6. #12386
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by malgin View Post
    As I heard, the major part of US army right now are people who want to get US citizenship, low educated and have some serious mental problems according to fotos from Iraq/Afganistan.

    Brigade system indeed is more effective when you invading a country with no any good weapon When the relation of forces is 10:1.

    Russian weapon is outdated by like 23 years right now, but still it's better than most of US/NATO. So I guess someone in US military system just wasted 23 *(military budget)$ for personal needs.
    To even get into the National Guard you have to be a US Citizen or legal resident, have a high school level education, and pass physical and mental standards (as compared to Russia were the only requirement is to be too poor to bribe your way out).

    Most Russian weapons are 2+ generations behind the US, UK, France, and Germany. Heck, Germany has been practically giving away tanks to other NATO countries that are superior to even the last T-72s that make up the bulk of Russia's tank forces. At sea, Russia is so far behind I don't know why they even bother to have a Navy.

    To put it bluntly, the US National Guard/Air National Guard alone is strong enough to defeat Russia in a conventional conflict, all else being equal.

  7. #12387
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    To even get into the National Guard you have to be a US Citizen or legal resident, have a high school level education, and pass physical and mental standards (as compared to Russia were the only requirement is to be too poor to bribe your way out).

    Most Russian weapons are 2+ generations behind the US, UK, France, and Germany. Heck, Germany has been practically giving away tanks to other NATO countries that are superior to even the last T-72s that make up the bulk of Russia's tank forces. At sea, Russia is so far behind I don't know why they even bother to have a Navy.

    To put it bluntly, the US National Guard/Air National Guard alone is strong enough to defeat Russia in a conventional conflict, all else being equal.
    Don't forget national guard can be built with very little timber and gold, while t-72 are very expensive on steel and oil. It takes like 5 turns to build one t-72.
    With upgraded barracks you can build 2 national guard for the price of one.

  8. #12388
    Quote Originally Posted by Bakis View Post
    I never said my article is better than yours that is the problem. You immediately said I was full of shit cos you posted an article. By linking an article you were immediately right in your view. Remember?
    In your very first post you wrote I was full of bullshit and linked article which turned out to be the exact opposite of my later article and pretty much every military analyst but lets forget that


    Not admitting when I'm wrong? Read post #13600 please, but I guess you will post an article and say that post never happened.
    After all posting article make you right and other people wrong


    Strange, it is 00:53 now. Guess that people who work are wrong too even if they goto bed a bit later than usual

    So tell me now, who look like a complete fool?
    Again, since you seem to ignore it, some answers please:
    Where did I say my article was right and yours was wrong? Where did I say you were full of shit? Start reacting on the things people post, because your reaction had nothing to do with what I posted (Russia being dependent on Ukraine). Secondly I gave some "extra" information why it could be hard for Russia to go into Ukraine. It's not even opposing the things in the article you linked, so that's why I asked you if you had even read them. You still haven't admit you were wrong on the Godwin and fascist thing, basically that you don't know what they mean.

    So all in all, there can be no other conclusion that I made before: you are a selective reader, insulting people if they don't agree with you and lack some general knowledge. Hence, I question your education/age. Logical...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    I have nothing but disdainf or utopian one-worlders. Even worse than obnoxious internet wanna-be communists (you know what kind of people I'm talking about), who at least have a developed if discredited philosophical foundation. Utopians want to skip to the end for some nonsense ambition of making Star Trek real or something. They arrive at an endpoint, that humanity is better off resembling something united they've seen in a work of fiction, then work backwards. Since when is that approach legitimate in any way about anything?

    Nothing could be further from the truth. Nevermind the fact such a dream is tremendously insulting to the immense number of non-Western traditions that utopoan one-worlders sideline or gloss over, it completely (and disrespectfully) plays down the entirely legitimate and intractable differences between countries. I mean hell, look at US and Western European beliefs about pretty fundamental things like jury trials, social wellfare, and civil rights. There are some things we have nothing in common about. And we're the most alike peoples in the world on most issues. Saying that people who respect and want these differences to be maintained are warmongers is ridiculous. Utopianism isn't enlightened... it's delusional, and it's foundation is ignorance and disrespect to the immense ways the multitude of humanity is different from each other, and frankly, really doesn't care for those who are different from themselves.

    Don't get me wrong: nothing would be better than a united world without war. But that's the same way as saying "nothing would be better than faster than light travel". In the very real world we live in, both are far harder to accomplish than in fiction. On whose terms is the world united? American terms? That means 95% of the world loses. Broadly Western Terms? What about the other 5.5 billion people in the world who will be subject to that? Some kind of international compromise? Really. And how has compromise worked out for countries as a whole so far? How achievable is it? Does every country have an equal voice? Is that fair to larger richer countries? If it is proportional, what about the rights of small countries? As we see with Climate Change, even with the treat of catastrophe, the world cannot agree to even modest collective action because of fundamental disagreements (in this case, particularly, developing countries shaking down rich ones for hundreds of billions of dollars per year, which is never going to happen).

    You call it "middle ages". It's not that. It's the world in which we have and will continue to live, because the differences that the US has with Russia, the US has with China, the EU has with everyone, the "Global South" has with the West, China has with Japan, Australia has with Indonesia, so on and so forth... are extremely legitimate and pretending that if we somehow just all took a step back and threw down our arms, it would fix it, is immature and without credibility. If we were to listen to you, we would skip to the end, without actually working through these immense differences... slowly and painfully. How legitimate would such a world be in that case? How lasting? Human history isn't guided by the good things that has happened to it - no one celebrates United Nations Day. It is guided by the absolutely horrible things have happened to it though.
    I have no bigger disdain for warmongers like you (see I can do it too), basically you proved my remark about a certain mindset. You have to admit that a military as the US has is basically just show, my dick is bigger than yours! A tool for an aggressive bully. If the US had NOT declared themselves to be the world police, the size of the army could be much, much less.
    You make wrong assumptions about "utopian one-worlders", I am far from one. But a very small army can be as effective as a bloated big one. Currently in the US the cost doesn't justify the size of the military. "We will use the army for humanitarian reasons." As if that worked out so good the last few times it really was needed, even inside the US. And then you condemn companies like Lockheed for trying to get the most out of the contracts with the DoD? To me that is a kind of contradiction

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    The conversation actually started with a discussion about the Russian Air Force trying to send a message (consensus is, the message was a joke) by having the antique Su-24 fly over a modern US Navy destroyer... something that only happened because the Destroyer chose not to blow it out of the sky the second it came in weapons range.

    So actually... Russia started this really. They invited the discussion by deciding to give the US Navy an epic case of eye-rolling. If they want to embarrass themselves less, stick to buzzing Ukranian ships or something.

    But... oh wait... that's right. They knew the US Navy was going to elect to not blow up their flying museum piece and start a major military conflict, just the same way they know that F-22s out of Alaska aren't going to shoot down the Tu-95s they periodically intercept, salute, and escort.

    It's not a show of force if the other side knows you're harmless and decides to let you get away with waving your muskets around.
    Nice spin around, but you CAN consider this as an epic troll. The Russians know the US won't shoot them, so there is no embarrassment or a "show of force". It would have been even more fun if they had send their oldest, most obsolete aircraft they have...
    Last edited by TooMuch; 2014-04-15 at 08:14 AM.

  9. #12389
    Deleted
    my dick is bigger than yours!
    This might just be the source of your troubles fellas.

    http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=3073

    Can you take this over the pacific please?

  10. #12390
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by TooMuch View Post
    Nice spin around, but you CAN consider this as an epic troll. The Russians know the US won't shoot them, so there is no embarrassment or a "show of force". It would have been even more fun if they had send their oldest, most obsolete aircraft they have...
    So yeah, wasting fuel on "trolling" even though everyone knows the US clearly has the superior military force by margins, including the Russians.

    Honestly, I doubt it's trolling, Russians send away airplanes all the time to neighbouring countries just to provoke them, it's like a guy putting a small Post-It-note on a neighbour's door telling them "HAHA I WAS IN YOUR GARDEN FUCK YOU WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT" and then running away. Like, of course we care they're in our backyards but that's not because we're really threatened by the guy but rather because they're fucking annoying when they do this stuff without any rhyme or reason.

  11. #12391
    Quote Originally Posted by Trollskalden View Post
    So yeah, wasting fuel on "trolling" even though everyone knows the US clearly has the superior military force by margins, including the Russians.

    Honestly, I doubt it's trolling, Russians send away airplanes all the time to neighbouring countries just to provoke them, it's like a guy putting a small Post-It-note on a neighbour's door telling them "HAHA I WAS IN YOUR GARDEN FUCK YOU WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT" and then running away. Like, of course we care they're in our backyards but that's not because we're really threatened by the guy but rather because they're fucking annoying when they do this stuff without any rhyme or reason.
    So it is/was effective, they don't intend to be threatening. Tell me the difference (in this case) between trolling and being an annoyance?

  12. #12392



    The Ukrainian soldiers are helpless, they are clearly just kids. They clearly don't want to attack their fellow citizen, but the illegitimate government in Kiev continues to push them. Yatsenyuk even went as far as to request UN "peacekeepers" against his own citizen.

  13. #12393
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by TooMuch View Post
    So it is/was effective, they don't intend to be threatening. Tell me the difference (in this case) between trolling and being an annoyance?
    You troll to get an emotional response. The airplane got told to get out of the airspace but otherwise there was no real emotional response.

  14. #12394
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    Don't forget national guard can be built with very little timber and gold, while t-72 are very expensive on steel and oil. It takes like 5 turns to build one t-72.
    With upgraded barracks you can build 2 national guard for the price of one.
    The US National Guard is better equipped, better trained, and has more combat experience than the Russian Army, and they are our reserve troops.
    And why waste the resources on a T-72 that will last ~20 seconds against 3 guys and a TOW?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by TooMuch View Post
    So it is/was effective, they don't intend to be threatening. Tell me the difference (in this case) between trolling and being an annoyance?
    The biggest thing is the US Navy was concerned the Su-24 would crash into the ship.

  15. #12395
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    The US National Guard is better equipped, better trained, and has more combat experience than the Russian Army, and they are our reserve troops.
    And why waste the resources on a T-72 that will last ~20 seconds against 3 guys and a TOW?
    O'rly? May I ask, where did they get their "combat experience"? And please, do tell me where you've picked up silly idea that they are better trained/equipped?
    Banned.

  16. #12396
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    The US National Guard is better equipped, better trained, and has more combat experience than the Russian Army, and they are our reserve troops.
    And why waste the resources on a T-72 that will last ~20 seconds against 3 guys and a TOW?
    Yes but to get the national guard you have to upgrade the barracks twice.
    T-72 is available as soon as you build the factory.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Skulkgra View Post
    O'rly? May I ask, where did they get their "combat experience"? And please, do tell me where you've picked up silly idea that they are better trained/equipped?
    Silly question. With upgraded barracks national guards already come out with +1 level.
    You can upgrade in "commando", "barricade" or "assault".
    Don't tell me you're still playing version 1.9?

  17. #12397
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Skulkgra View Post
    O'rly? May I ask, where did they get their "combat experience"? And please, do tell me where you've picked up silly idea that they are better trained/equipped?
    Funny thing, the National Guard is trained and equipped to the same standards as the Active Duty Army, and they conduct combat tours alongside them. Besides, it isnt hard to be better trained than most Russian troops, they are only in for a year.

  18. #12398
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    Funny thing, the National Guard is trained and equipped to the same standards as the Active Duty Army, and they conduct combat tours alongside them. Besides, it isnt hard to be better trained than most Russian troops, they are only in for a year.
    Combat tours where? Did US openly wage war in past decades? Why would they send brave American soldiers anywhere, when they got countries like Poland and Latvia in their puppet organization, NATO. Whom do you think they send to the vanguard of conflicts such as Kosovo? Right, baltic people. And they are happy to oblige, they're itching to shit into Russia's backyard, more than anyone in EU probably.
    They are funny, the balts, locked in a never-ending fight against soviet past.

    Russian regular troops maybe in for a year, but you have to remember that a lot of people decide to stick to the army till their retirement/death.
    Banned.

  19. #12399
    Quote Originally Posted by Skulkgra View Post
    Combat tours where? Did US openly wage war in past decades?
    Lol wut? ...

  20. #12400
    Quote Originally Posted by Skulkgra View Post
    Combat tours where? Did US openly wage war in past decades?
    National Guard brigades do combat tours to Afghanistan and did them for Iraq. The weekend warrior thing went away over a decade ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skulkgra View Post
    CWhy would they send brave American soldiers anywhere, when they got countries like Poland and Latvia in their puppet organization, NATO.
    Well, one reason would be many of these countries fought along side US troops in the NATO mission to Afghanistan (ISAF) and many of them contributed to Multinational Force - Iraq, even though it was not a NATO operation (rather, it was a Coalition / UN one).


    Quote Originally Posted by Skulkgra View Post
    Whom do you think they send to the vanguard of conflicts such as Kosovo?
    What the hell? Are you engaging in some weird "anti-balticism" or something? I just had to make up a word right here to describe something so weird.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skulkgra View Post
    Right, baltic people. And they are happy to oblige, they're itching to shit into Russia's backyard, more than anyone in EU probably.
    They are funny, the balts, locked in a never-ending fight against soviet past.
    Because Russia invaded, subjugated and dominated them for decades. Estonia is an independent nation, and they had until a couple of years ago, some monuments to Vladmir Lenin lying around. A foreigner. A Russian. Like what the hell? And then Estonia gets electronically assaulted, by Russia, for having the gumption to throw down these monuments to a foreign leader whose successor conquered them?

    They're entirely right to resent Russia. They are entirely in the right. Russia did that itself.



    Quote Originally Posted by Skulkgra View Post
    Russian regular troops maybe in for a year, but you have to remember that a lot of people decide to stick to the army till their retirement/death.
    That's not what the data that I linked indicates at all. Furthermore it's a mathematical impossibility. With 190,000 conscripts per year, if a large proportion of them were to stay on as you said "until retirement or death", both of which would necessarily happen at a slower rate than very broad recruitment, the Russian Army would grow in size at an extremely rapid annual rate. Except... the opposite is happening. It's shrunk, dramatically over the last decade and a half.

    I'm calling bullshit on this and I think you made it up on the spot for some reason. I don't know why. It's not a fact... it doesn't have meaning... if it just exists in your head.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •