Veteran war strategist here; ask me a question

I mean all of the Ukraine.

OP, so killing our NSA comms boat the Liberty, as a first move, blinding the US, was Israel's best move?

You think they were a success? In that war? Didn't Golda have to threaten nukes? That means they lost that war, she used the weakling vector, see'm sayin?

it is. Not clear what form it will take.

This is just conjecture, but I think when the lid on this boiling pot finally blows, it will be all over the place. China will take Taiwan and attack Japan, Russia all of the Ukraine, the Balkans and perhaps a good chunk of Europe and will make their way to Syria... And the U.S./U.K. Et-al Will be bogged down in the Middle East too, and and all other fronts as well. Japan will re-arm, but with tacts and will side with the U.S. and will eventually want to have control over the South China Sea.

Pakistan and India will go at it, and China might engage the U.S. In the Middle East as well. It will be mayhem! Unfortunately if this all comes, there will also be a limited nuclear exchange between the power houses, and we will also see other WMD come into play which will make nukes seem like Childrens firecrackers. I don't even want to elude what I think it is. But warfare will change, that's for sure.

^^^ Hmmmokay,

1: Will there be wind?

2: Will it be of livable temperature?

3: Will it carry depleted uranium in dust form, into your genes?

4: Is there a fourth question?

The information is out there, or just have to know where to look.

Here: [link to www.cnn.com]

and

Here: [link to www.sfgate.com]

Not much is mentioned bout it, but the positron bomb (which I believe the U.S. Has many) may be the reason why they aren't afraid to get rid of their nuclear arsenal in these supposed nuclear arms reduction treaties..land those may be obsolete now too.

A little about the reverse slope defense.

It is a standard tactic for tanks. Due to the fact that a tank can only depress its cannon so far a tank cresting a hill cannot fire at tanks on the reverse slope, but they can be fired upon by those said tanks.

Generally though the US military enjoys superior weapons so we want to have line of sight at the greatest distance possible. It is best to kill them before their weapons are brought to within effective range.

Our scoped and reflex sited rifles and the soldiers firing them are more accurate than the enemy. Our cannons are well kept and the aiming devices are very accurate. Our artillery men and mortar crews are intimately familiar with the performance of their weapons. Our night vision is better.

We want to engage at range, then quickly close the distance and overwhelm. We follow through when the enemy falters. We keep them on their heels and never stop pounding at them. We do not fight stationary. We are always moving and always keeping pressure on. If the American soldiers in front of you are not moving then you better be very concerned because somewhere American soldiers are moving against you and/or they are keeping their distance from the pounding they just called in upon you.

A little about Russia's ability to expand its army.

Russia has literally tens of thousands of tanks mothballed. Of these perhaps 10% can be quickly readied for service. They will be tanks of second quality but for Russian tactics that isn't so bad. 10% of 15,000 is 1,500 tanks. That will fill out 5 armored divisions.

Of the remaining 90% of mothballed tanks perhaps 10% more could be combat ready within a month or so. They could in fact be getting refitted as we speak and we'd never know. So another 5 divisions worth of armor is within quick reach.

Beyond these 3,000 tanks the rest are likely in very poor condition. Cannibalizing parts would ruin half the inventory. Still that would leave perhaps 10 to 15 divisions worth of tanks fieldable within months.

Russia has even more armored infantry carriers. Perhaps 20,000. These are lower tech than tanks with their complicated guns so they basically just need a tune up and some fresh brakes. 40% could likely be fielded within a month or so. This of course relies upon an all out effort by Russia.

Russia relies upon conscript soldiers. Russia can simply recall the soldiers that have been discharged in the last 24 months and increase its numbers by about 60%. Recall the ones released 2 to 4 years ago and now your army has more than doubled. Not one soldier has had to be trained yet.

Of course any nation can do this, but in Russia's case it can do it quickly. All it has to do is say "report in 48 hours" and most will for fear of reprisals. A couple of days refreshing the men on their training and off they go in the very same vehicles they used a few years ago. A day of driving and they are at the front lines.

Compare this to how long it takes the US to mobilize. Russia secretly refitted 5 divisions of tanks in the last month or so and last week they called up old conscripts and now an entire damned army of 5 armored divisions and 6 mechanized infantry divisions just rolled into Poland behind the first rate army divisions that took Poland earlier in the week.

Meanwhile the US troops back home have been mustered and are awaiting transport. Some have been airlifted in, but most will go via ship and will arrive in a few weeks or a couple of months. French brigades have begun arriving in Eastern Germany and the UK has airlifted a few brigades in. Other countries have added a few brigades worth of mostly light infantry since you cannot viably move large numbers of tanks by air.

And Turkey, which boasts a massive military that is generally on par with Russia is a wild card these days. Nobody really knows what Turkey will do.

And Russia is very fond of artillery. The number of artillery pieces that Russia holds in reserve is astounding. It is easy to call it garbage, but all it has to do is point and shoot. And Russian hardware is notorious for being "loose". In other words you can bury it in the mud for a year, dig it up, rinse it off in a lake, and go to war with it.

Their air defenses are formidable. Iraqis might not be adept at air defense but russians are. They have always recognized their weakness in the air and have long sought to mitigate it with air defense missiles. It isn't just the quality of the missiles and the radars but how you deploy them in regards to terrain. Russia will not screw it up.

The allies will pay a toll for flying into Russia and even flying at the front lines. Russia has good ground support aircraft. Their attack planes are very, very good. Russia has a small number of first rate air superiority fighters that can at least contest allied air power.

And contesting the skies is all it takes to sap great strength from the allies abilities to bring their aircraft to bare upon the front. Suddenly half your sorties are air defense or in defense of your own attack aircraft.

Nonetheless the allies will in the end control the skies. However it will take a while because the US will not play the "forward and to hell" tactic of wasting away its material strength in a game of attrition.

Great thread OP, thanks!

Thread: BREAKING!! Iran Navy detects US nuke sub in PG (Page 3)

This is very bad...

[link to itar-tass.com]

I knew there was a fight coming...

I wonder how this will kick off?

What about the Nuclear bomb?

Does it not in theory make wide spectrum weapons obsolete for the mere fact they won't have much of a purpose after a nuke war?

Clearly the military college in hickville didn't educate you very well. Armies are in fact exactly what have built nations since the beginning of civilization.

How? The OP started out by claiming armies do not nation build. There are very few nations that can be pointed out throughout history where this is true, the Minoans being an example that comes to mind. Funny thing about the Minoans is their civilization disappeared without a trace...

The fact that an American can claim that armies do not nation built is quite funny. The natives built their nations through armies, like the Iroquois confederacy, and the subsequent European settlers built nations on top on top of natives with armies.

If not for armies, the US nation would not have been built. The stupidity is mind boggling. It is as if through out all of his "advanced education," he did not take a single fucking history course.

Mission of the US Army used to be destroy enemy forces and take away his will to fight. An army does not nation build.

So full of derision.

Actually you are correct. Armies are used to secure the interests and increase the power of nations. In this respect that is exactly what armies do.

What I had written was within the context of building nations amongst a foreign and uncooperative people; a people who do not share your culture or values and who see you as the (or a) problem. I had assumed that this context was understood.

I really know of no pure example where a military attempt to create a stable and functioning society has lasted for more than a generation or two. They always seem to fall apart.

A nuke is not a conventional weapon. It is held to be a pandoras box that if opened will kill everybody.

No sane leadership will use nukes against another nuclear power of even roughly equal strength except for self preservation.

Why? Well, why do nations go to war? They go to war for advantage. they seek a material, economic, or security advantage. This can come in many forms but it will always be for one of these reasons. Of course the leadership won't say this. They'll make it a moral fight. but it is for gain or to prevent loss.

They seek victory, but if victory is not possible then self preservation is a must. Has any country with nuclear weapons ever been invaded? No they haven't. Because everybody knows that a nuclear power will nuke you if you try to destroy them. It is not only a plausible threat, but a damned near surety.

So if you go to war with another nuclear power over control of some third party real estate and you win the other guy can walk away still in control of his own country because he has nukes and you know that if you try to take what was originally his he will nuke you to keep it. but if he nukes you over the third party real estate he knows you will nuke him back and he just lost everything. why would he ever nuke you over third party real estate?

the fact that he has nukes gives him something of a get out of jail free card. In the past the loser was often killed and his nation annexed. But now he can gamble and never lose his ante. sure he might face all sorts of economic sanctions and internal uprisings, but no army is coming for him because he has a nuke.

Sane powers do not use nukes against nuclear powers. they keep them so they will never lose what they started the war with.

yeah I remember that cold war Russian artillery doctrine. RAGS and DAGS. There was a time when everyone thought the Russians were coming through the Fulda Gap.

The Russian doctrine is simple enough. During the Soviet days the primary unit was in fact an army. Today it would be a corps comprised of 3 or more mechanized divisions. Several corps would each advance to target group A. Once they had reached their targets they would consolidate their holdings as another wave of corps continued the advance to target group B.

Including naval ground forces Russia currently has about 23 mechanized infantry divisions which vary in composition from lightly armored infantry divisions to what the US would call cavalry divisions. Such "cavalry" divisions are integrated combined arms divisions which organically employ tanks and armored infantry along with helicopter support and self propelled howitzers. Cavalry divisions are high powered assault divisions that often form the center piece of their respective corps.

Russia has 3 tank divisions. But it is well known within US military circles that Russia can expand their tank divisions to 8 literally within a matter of weeks. It is well known that a certain and significant number of mothballed tanks are kept in useful order. This is of no surprise as the US does the same thing.

If i farted would that be a tactical apporach or a everlasting. Cheer gor for a mudlim president

If we suppose a mobilized force strength of say 35 mechanized divisions, 2 airborne divisions, a single conventional infantry division, as well as 8 tank divisions then we can calculate the force they could insert into Eastern Europe.

Russia is not likely to insert more than 50-60% of its force. The rest will remain in Western Russia. It is certain that a division will remain in the far East and forces will be kept around Moscow. Regardless, 23 to perhaps 26 divisions could be sent into Eastern Europe.

Mind you mobilization can continue. New conscripts and old ones can be called up. Every day more mothballed tanks, APCs and artillery pieces will be made ready. It is not unreasonable to presume that even after the most easily readied reserves are mobilized that a new division can be made ready every week or so.

Still nothing on the scale of WW2 Eastern front.

Russian divisions are smaller than their American counterparts, but about equal to most other nations. But Russian combat forces per division are high.

All things being equal (and they never are in war) a Russian division pitted against an equivalent American division will be destroyed in short order. Quality of equipment and personnel are simply not in the same league. Unfortunately any US division won't face a Russian division. It'll face a corps.

And other NATO divisions often are hardly worthy of the designation, German divisions being an exception. Such second tier NATO countries as France employ divisions that are little more than reinforced brigades. There are tank divisions in Europe that will in reality field no more than 135 tanks. In reality US divisions will put around 300 tanks into action out of a stated force of 325.

Indeed the standard fighting force is increasingly the brigade.

It boggles the mind to imagine the forces in Europe during the war. Literally hundreds of divisions, tens of thousands of tanks, and millions of infantry.

"What I had written was within the context of building nations amongst a foreign and uncooperative people; a people who do not share your culture or values and who see you as the (or a) problem. I had assumed that this context was understood."


The Marine occupation of Haiti for IIRC thirty years is an example of military nation building failure.



And that was a relatively benign situation. Very unlike the nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The hubris or just downright stupidity was absurd. When people said there is no strategy in Iraq, the bush people said, there is a strategy. It is clear, hold and build.

Yeah, that worked really well.

Foreign occupiers with a different language, culture and religion don't do well. In the long or the short run.