Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

That's one of my only fear : Nato armies had a pretty easy 40 years with no real large scale conventional operations against somewhat challenging ennemies. Plently of time for the structure to get rusty, officier to get complacent and commander to be choosen for how good they are at politics and not on the field.

[miljan]

That's one of my only fear : Nato armies had a pretty easy 40 years with no real large scale conventional operations against somewhat challenging ennemies. Plently of time for the structure to get rusty, officier to get complacent and commander to be choosen for how good they are at politics and not on the field.

When did nato have any large scale operation again challenging enemies in the past? In fact if you compare nato to other countries, it is the most aggressive block out there (and well the only one in way at the moment) that is constantly in war/occupation or some other form of warfare from directly NATO or its members. So from that  nato members  are the mostly trained and experienced with war, as that the thing they are doing all the time, so I am not sure how you can make that conclusion.

[Phmcw]

I said it's a fear, I don't said it's the most probable scenario. Putin could, if he have competent generals, have an army better prepeared for a war than nato countries, even if it's smaller and its equipement is worst. He is the attacker, so he may have the initiative. He won't have any kind of sustainability though, but no one expect a major conventional war to break out. It may give him an edge. 

[Sergarr]

To note: he probably has at least one competent general - the one who lead the 58th army onto Georgia, crushing it in about a week, despite the constrained terrain.

I mean, he allegedly managed to solve the communication problems by borrowing a satellite phone from a journalist. How inventive is that?

[Sheb]

Yeah, that had nothing to do with overwhelming numerical superiority, and the fact that the best element of Georgia's army were helping the US in Iraq.

[LordSlowpoke]

sheb, numerical advantage is fine, but if a country sends off important troops to go invade something it's the country's fault that they went off to invade things instead of i don't know not doing that

[Sheb]

So we agree that beating Georgia was hardly a measure of Russia's strategic acumen.

[Sergarr]

Well, it is more indicative of Georgia trying to war on two fronts at the same time.

Also according to wikipedia this "overwhelming" numerical superiority was only 2:1...

[Sheb]

Depend in what, Russia had overwhelming air superiority, which is pretty much an instant win.

[Sergarr]

"Russian aircraft were frequently assessed as hostile by Russian troops and South Ossetians, and were fired upon before they could be accurately identified.[330] The air force flew 63 sorties on 8 August to support Russian ground troops.[331] Russia lost a total of six aircraft during the war: one Su-25SM, two Su-25BMs, two Su-24Ms and one Tu-22M3; three were shot down by friendly fire."

No, air superiority doesn't make an instant win. USA would have disbanded most of its ground troops otherwise.

[miljan]

Depend in what, Russia had overwhelming air superiority, which is pretty much an instant win.

No. Air superiority doesn't mean it's a instant win. It depends from terrain mostly how much benefit from air superiority you can have.

[Sheb]

Well, ground troops are needed to occupy the country afterward, to take cities...  But to actually take down another army? Aircrafts all the way.

[miljan]

Well, ground troops are needed to occupy the country afterward, to take cities...  But to actually take down another army? Aircrafts all the way.

Again not correct. Aircraft cannot destroy enemy military, I mean not most of it (in areas that are not just desert). They can give support and destroy some stationery defences but again depending from terrain desert/forests and similar it can have bigger/small effects. It has effect on the war, but thinking air superiority means wining and destroying majority of enemy forces with it is just not correct.

[Sergarr]

Aircraft is way too costly to actually kill the opposing army. You lose more in fuel, repair and downed aircraft than the recieving sides loses in infantry and tanks, unless you're fighting against a severely technologically/doctrinally inferior opponent.

Just look at Serbia. They've managed to continue fighting, even using combat helicopters while the NATO forces were enjoying full air superiority. Only the ground invasion has managed to stop it.

[Loud Whispers]

Aircraft is way too costly to actually kill the opposing army. You lose more in fuel, repair and downed aircraft than the recieving sides loses in infantry and tanks, unless you're fighting against a severely technologically/doctrinally inferior opponent.

Just look at Serbia. They've managed to continue fighting, even using combat helicopters while the NATO forces were enjoying full air superiority. Only the ground invasion has managed to stop it.

Unfair comparison, everyone knows Serbian artillery is guided by GOD. Regular ground forces would get smashed, especially with the addition of drones.