The British army has admitted it is no match for Russia

[Ulmita]

Nobody cares about Turkish airplanes in fucking Greek airspace. You are both members of the same alliance. Try to act the part.

You are wrong. Turks enter w/t our permission. Do you know what invade means? Thats why they will never get in EU as long as Greece and Cyprus are around =)
Also, keep typing more retarded stuff and cry about transport aircrafts entering finish airspace hahahahah

[Skroe]

You are wrong. Turks enter w/t our permission. Do you know what invade means? Thats why they will never get in EU as long as Greece and Cyprus are around =)
Also, keep typing more retarded stuff and cry about transport aircrafts entering finish airspace hahahahah

Maybe Greece should leave then.

The Turks are more valuable than you.

[Kellhound]

Prove it. cite sources not just random thoughts. I've seen with my own eyes how green the majority looked. so will need to back that statement up with some hard facts.

The Russian military has about 300,000 conscripts, 220,000 officers, and 200,000 contract personnel.

The US Army has had more that 50% of its active duty force deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan at least once, and a large amount of the reserves have also been deployed at least once. Very few if any senior NCOs have not served at least one combat tour.

[Ulmita]

Maybe Greece should leave then.

The Turks are more valuable than you.

Leave what? the EU?

[caervek]

A SAM is neither a cruise missile nor a ballistic missile, so by default they do not fall under the INF treaty.

A SAM is a cruise missile by definition, if it wasn't it wouldn't be able to hit anything.

[Gorgodeus]

Prove it. cite sources not just random thoughts. I've seen with my own eyes how green the majority looked. so will need to back that statement up with some hard facts.

13 years of War in Iraq, 13 years in Afghanistan, 12 years in Pakistan, all just since 2000. Not hard to see why the American military is considered "veteran".

[Annoying]

A SAM is a cruise missile by definition, if it wasn't it wouldn't be able to hit anything.

By definition, no. In order to be a cruise missile, it has to be primarily for hitting ground targets, which SAMs don't. SAMs are neither cruise nor ballistic, but guided.

[Skroe]

A SAM is a cruise missile by definition, if it wasn't it wouldn't be able to hit anything.

You have been legitimately making shit up like this the *entire* thread.


Good god man what are you even doing?


I'm starting to think you're doing some kind of poor man's KenM.

[Ulmita]

I think what the poster is trying to say is that the Mark 41 Vertical Launch Tubes are capable of launching a variety of missiles INCLUDING tomahawks.

[Deleted]

13 years of War in Iraq, 13 years in Afghanistan, 12 years in Pakistan, all just since 2000. Not hard to see why the American military is considered "veteran".

Great practice in losing.

[Kellhound]

A SAM is a cruise missile by definition, if it wasn't it wouldn't be able to hit anything.

A SAM is not a cruise missile under the definition agreed upon in the INF treaty, nor is it a ballistic missile by the same.

- - - Updated - - -

I think what the poster is trying to say is that the Mark 41 Vertical Launch Tubes are capable of launching a variety of missiles INCLUDING tomahawks.

Which requires equipment not installed in the AEGIS Ashore installations.

[hamilkar]

You are an advocate for an aggressive, antagonistic approach to Russia? Are you going to enlist and fight on the front lines when WW3 happens? Or are you the typical guy behind a keyboard who gets all giddy like a child when they learn about our war technology thinking that it will save us when this war starts? Do you even know about the history of Russia and what they are capable of doing? I get that you are a cog in this empire and get all of them good feelings when you learn about our global strategy of domination, but if you aren't going to do the real fighting be quiet about it.

[Ulmita]

Which requires equipment not installed in the AEGIS Ashore installations.

Which you can't possibly know if it is there or not. Stop typing bs.

[Kellhound]

Which you can't possibly know if it is there or not. Stop typing bs.

Its unique, obvious, and requires a different security clearance than normal fire control equipment.

[Independent voter]

It's not Russia versus Britain. Britain has allies, Russia doesn't, well outside of Assad in Syria.

Britain's allies: Twelve countries were part of the founding of NATO: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In 1952, Greece and Turkey became members of the Alliance, joined later by West Germany (in 1955) and Spain (in 1982). In 1990, with the reunification of Germany, NATO grew to include the former country of East Germany. Between 1994 and 1997, wider forums for regional cooperation between NATO and its neighbors were set up, including the Partnership for Peace, the Mediterranean Dialogue initiative and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. In 1997, three former Warsaw Pact countries, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, were invited to join NATO. After this fourth enlargement in 1999, the Vilnius group of The Baltics and seven East European countries formed in May 2000 to cooperate and lobby for further NATO membership. Seven of these countries joined in the fifth enlargement in 2004. Albania and Croatia joined in the sixth enlargement in 2009.

Britain has 28 allies who've sworn to come help if Britain is attacked, Russia has no allies.

[Kellhound]

You are an advocate for an aggressive, antagonistic approach to Russia? Are you going to enlist and fight on the front lines when WW3 happens? Or are you the typical guy behind a keyboard who gets all giddy like a child when they learn about our war technology thinking that it will save us when this war starts? Do you even know about the history of Russia and what they are capable of doing? I get that you are a cog in this empire and get all of them good feelings when you learn about our global strategy of domination, but if you aren't going to do the real fighting be quiet about it.

I have already done my part for king and country. The history of Russia says they have to be invaded, almost destroyed, have the invaders crippled by over extended supply lines, and then and only then are they able to conduct large scale offensive operations successfully.

[Lockon Stratos]

I have already done my part for king and country. The history of Russia says they have to be invaded, almost destroyed, have the invaders crippled by over extended supply lines, and then and only then are they able to conduct large scale offensive operations successfully.

And every invader thought he could solve the problem of supply lines....

Russia is simply too big to occupy, there's almost an endless amount of land that they can retreat to.

The Axis invaded the USSR with almost 4 million men, and that still wasn't enough.
NATO can't even raise 1/4 of that, and modern technology is not enough to bridge the gap.

[Independent voter]

And every invader thought he could solve the problem of supply lines....

Russia is simply too big to occupy, there's almost an endless amount of land that they can retreat to.

The Axis invaded the USSR with almost 4 million men, and that still wasn't enough.
NATO can't even raise 1/4 of that, and modern technology is not enough to bridge the gap.

Used to be. Today everyone rides around in a vehicle with a heater.

[Marcellus1986]

Great practice in losing.

Losing what? We've been stomping mudholes in the cave dwellers for 13+ years. Where is Iraq's military at? Where is the Taliban? They were both out in the open and well known before we invaded. Where are they now?

- - - Updated - - -

Which you can't possibly know if it is there or not. Stop typing bs.

Neither can you. Pot meet kettle. I'll trust Kellhound's navy experience over some armchair Greek-Hungarian-Italian-Russian-PanSlav general who learns all he knows about military matters from wikipedia and Russian circle jerk state media.

[Kellhound]

And every invader thought he could solve the problem of supply lines....

Russia is simply too big to occupy, there's almost an endless amount of land that they can retreat to.

The Axis invaded the USSR with almost 4 million men, and that still wasn't enough.
NATO can't even raise 1/4 of that, and modern technology is not enough to bridge the gap.

1: Nazi logistics were actually not that good.
2: Nazi air power was not designed for long range heavy bombing, so large size was a major defense against it.
3: One does not need to occupy a country to defeat it.