/hobby/ - Hobbies

Entertainment, Education, Games, etc.

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


(129.36 KB 1024x629 fzwq934d9maz.jpg)
MilTech: Soviet Military Technology Anonymous Comrade 01/04/2020 (Sat) 04:07:11 No. 4949
Haven't seen this thread revived anywhere so I thought I'd bring it back myself ITT: Discussions about stats of Soviet military hardware, tactics etc. Not strictly limited to Soviet stuff despite name.
(24.23 KB 330x497 Soyuz_TMA-9_launch.jpg)
(9.65 MB BasedOldPoland.mp4)
>>5142 Search about the Soyuz program dude. It's still the most widely used rocket out there while most US programs are trashed and put in storage in only a decade. Not to mention their pioneering unmanned probes, space stations, air defense, computer network, smart homes, and even mobile phones. On tank technology and anti-air, the red army dotrine is designed so that any division can take down western air forrce which weapons being the basis of most non imperialist air defense. >>5128 At least we still have the wayback machine. https://web.archive.org/web/20190630215144/https://8ch.net/leftypol/res/2774743.html
>>5142 BTR-60s, t-55s, t-72s, SA-3 and a the every famous AK-47 are just a few systems of the USSR used today regularly.
*opens Jane's warships 1908* Lemme tell you about how the french built French pre-dreadnoughts after the HMS Dreadnought had already outmoded them 2 years earlier
(293.17 KB 1200x900 frogs.jpg)
>>5378 The French are notorious for spending shit tons of money on useless outdated garbage. Most notable is their tank force. During the period from 1933-1939 France was renowned for having the "best" armoured force in the world, its tanks were on paper simply the best, the Infantry tank Char B1 was the best and most numerous heavy tank in Europe, its size also meant that it carried a two-way radio. Supplementing this was the Sa35, regarded as the best tank in the entire world, mostly due to its very good 47mm gun combined with its good armour and mobility, it was the best all-around tank, and the pinnacle of pre-war medium tank design that mid-war medium tanks would try and embody and would be furthered by MBTs. The problem with the French tanks is that although they were the best on paper, the French lacked any real practical experience in designing them. As a result French tanks were complete rubbish in an actual battle. Their guns, although very good, were slow to reload due to ALL french tanks having one man turrets, this meant that the commander was also the radio operator, the loader, and the gunner and could do none of those very well. As well French tanks had terrible off-road suspension, small ground clearance, and awkward hull shapes that tended to get them stuck in ditches or tip over on sharp inclines. As well they lacked radios beyond the B1, meaning that French tanks had to often communicate using signal flags or morse lamp. The Germans by 1939 were almost the complete opposite, their tanks were on paper dreadful, they were heavier, slower, and more lightly armed than the Allies's counterparts, with the best in service gun being the 3.7cm on the Panzer IIIs and Panzer 35(t)s/38(t)s with the 5cm universal gun being too expensive too see production at the time. However the Germans had built their tanks in cooperation with the Soviets and as such had extensive field experience with tanks, leading both the Soviets and Germans to prioritize ergonomics, off-road maneuverability, communication, and ruggedness. This meant that German tanks had 5 crewmen per tank compared to the French's 2-3. As well the brand new suspension created by Porsche allowed German tanks to travel over rough ground over large distances without needing replacement, something that French tanks found impossible due to their fragile suspension and low ground clearance. In 1940 France had 1240 "modern" tanks at its disposal with around 2000 slightly outdated tanks that could still pierce the armour of any German tank, while the German could muster only 570 modern tanks after Poland and 600 Czech models, bringing their practical strength to around 1100 tanks, the Panzer IIs and Is being redundant. However in reality the Germans had more tanks, entirely due to how divisional organization worked in both armies. In France tanks were not their own separate force, but integrated into the various arms of the army. Infantry and Cavalry tanks were not just monikers but quite literal descriptors, they were part of the Infantry and Calvary corps respectively. And they were in every single French division in the entire French army, working the same as any artillery or support division. In effect the French could muster anywhere from 20-80 tanks per division, with an experimental "Heavy" tank division mustering 200 tanks with 100 Char B1s, but only 2 of these every existed. What this meant was that the French, despite having more tanks than the Germans, were always outnumbered tanks wise. The Germans had concentrated their tanks into independent Panzer Corps, with supporting infantry and integrated aerial support to make up for heavy artillery, they were basically their own micro-army that could meet and overtake any opposing equivalent force with focus being on staying mobile. This meant that the Germans had 200 tanks per division against France's max 80 tanks per division, the French would have had to field at least 3 division for every German division, while more often they would have had to field, and coordinate 5 division to properly outmatch a single German division, and given the French's terrible communication system meant that was nearly impossible.
>>5383 Isn't that a copy+paste from the old thread? Cause I'm pretty sure I remember making that one lol.
is it true that soviets only got to space because of nazi rocket technology
>>5465 This is proven false by just a simple google search. Before ww2 the basis for multistage rockets and space flight has already been planned out by Tsiolkovsky and Korolev with even a few working prototypes in the GIRD series and later project 05 in 1933 pioneered by the same guy that designed Sputnik. On the whole Nazi science myth is pretty much a meme made of by Cold War warriors with not much evidence behind it. The R-1 was a V-2 but the rest of the designs look NOTHING like projected nazi rocket designs. The USA got almost all Nazi rocket scientists and tech from Peenmunde such as the nazi-sympathizing Wernher von Braun. The USSR got what were essentially lab assistants in the rocket science area.
not military, but related to the previous topic about stolen tech >In 1988 if you wanted to buy a factory-made 8-bit home computer, it would cost several monthly wages of a young engineer. >And it would be made mostly from outdated stolen western parts made with outdated stolen western equipment and plenty of manual labor. >If you study what goods USSR produced you will see that almost everything was stolen(rarely licensed) from the west and just copied. i'm guessing this is not true
>>5680 That might have some basis in reality as in 1988, Gorbashit was a huge fan Amerimutt shit so his reforms always try to emulate American trash products.
>>5680 >>5682 This reminds me that they reverse engineered gig tiger videogames to make their own with characters like the wolf and the rabbit from nu pogodi
>>4949 How effective was the Yugoslav AA systems fair against NATO during its breakup?
>>5680 The Soviet Union did reverse engineer some western tech, but most of their stuff they made/developed themselves. Their computers weren’t made of old western parts. They were designed in the USSR. Some of the design choices were influenced by stuff from the west, but most wasn’t.
>>6148 Fairly effective. The number of HARM missiles and other SEAD/AWACS based counter-systems was roughly 3x higher in expenditure than used by those same NATO forces in Iraq a few years earlier. Their airforce was fairly crippled unfortunately (old MiG-21s and export MiG-29s facing USAF F-15Es and F-16Cs with full AWACS and outnumbering them 5-1) however their SAMs were used to full potential. SA-3s and SA-6s were the main batteries used, they would get a long-distance scan, turn off as soon as a signal as caught and launch a missle blindly in the calculated trajectory, when the missle was roughly at intersect, the RADAR was flashed on and the missile guided the final dozen meters towards targets, nullifying any RADAR dazzler systems and preventing anti-radiation missiles from finding them. On top of that an old trick use was taking a microwave and with a generator turning it on in a field. This tricked HARMs into going after it instead. AAA was also used successfully against strike aircraft. Other than the A-10 ( I don't remember it operating there) no NATO strike craft had proper armor, meaning they were forced to do total indiscriminate strikes or inaccurate high-altitude drops.
>>6155 Ah so very similar to the AA during Nam. NATO probably fudged the numbers again just like they did during Linebacker. >According to Dana Drenkowski and Lester W. Grau, the number of aircraft lost by the USAF is unconfirmed since the USAF figures are also suspect. If a plane was badly damaged, but managed to land, the USAF did not count as a loss, even if it was too damaged to fly again. During the operation, the USAF told the press that 17 B-52s were lost. But later, the USAF told Congress that only 13 B-52s were lost. Nine B-52s that returned to U-Tapao airfield were too badly damaged to fly again. The number of B-52s that managed to return to Guam but were combat losses remains unknown. The overall B-52 loss is probably between 22 and 27
(43.83 KB 600x606 ZPU-1 Vietnam.jpg)
>>6161 > the AA during Nam Yep. Both the Yugos and the Vietnamese got very creative with their Air Defense systems during the war, as did the Syrians. A really good example I found was this: In 1972, on December 22, a Vietnamese anti-aircraft unitshot down an F-111 with a single-barrel 14.5 mm ZPU-1. On top of that, the anti-aircraft gun had only 19 shells left when they spotted the American aircraft.
>>6360 Funnily enough there were interviews regarding this. When asked to how they did it, the gunners nonchalantly answer that the Americans on their sorties alway fly on the same path. All they had to do was timing the trajectory of the planes using their watch and shoot where the planes going to be. Also another good example would be that time where an entire air attack got lured into a trap and get destroyed during Spring High. https://www.historynet.com/operation-spring-high-thuds-vs-sams.htm
>Aircraft carriers Their only real use is to act as transport and launch pads for imperialist fleets to park off the coast of a smaller country and bomb it to shit. When face with an opponent of equal technological advancement or even slightly comparable technology these carriers are sitting ducks to cruise-missiles. https://www.quora.com/Why-have-big-battleships-e-g-USS-Iowa-and-the-Bismarck-become-obsolete-in-modern-navies/answer/Chuck-Garen
>>6488 Most modern US strategy is for asymmetrical warfare. Anything more advanced than even Iran can easily beat them to a pulp in a pitch fight.
>>6488 Well yeah, the Soviets specifically made the KH-22 to be able to sink US carriers in 2 hits max, doctrine usually called for firing in salvos but with the KH-22 they were supposed to fire only one at a time since it was guaranteed to hit its target since even modern US CRAM systems have a had time hitting supersonic munitions, plus if by some miracle the KH-22 was shot down it was designed so its fragments after destruction would continue travelling and likely either blind or damage the defence system that shot them down.
>>4949 Why does most new Russian military projects are just reboots of old Soviet ones? Like the Kirov rearmament, focus on anti-air weapons and the new shitty armata being clearly based on old Soviet object series like the 490. Are there any hope that they’ll revive the weaponized Ekranoplan projects?
>>7973 Those large ekranoplans look cool but they're probably really expensive to operated considering they had 6 jet engines. A missile truck like the old Tu-95 is probably a better option. The Armata has good ideas in it like simplifying logistics with the same hull for Tank, IFV, and SP artillery, but they don't have the funds to get many Armatas and they decided to cheap out and stick with using T-90 hulls for the SP artillery. Kind of defeats the purpose. War is unlikely between Russia and NATO so we'll likely never learn how good or bad the Armata design is.
(4.35 MB 370x296 zapusk_satanyi.gif)
Introducing the SS-18/Р-36M Воевода Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile. To get a real understanding of the power wielded by the SS 18 this comparison gives a perspective; the Hiroshima bomb (Gun-shot type fission reaction of Ur 235) had an explosive yield of approximately 15 kilo-tonnes (KT) or 15,000 tonnes of TNT equivalent, and killed 70,000 people (at least) and affected the population of the area for decades. In comparison, a single SS-18 carries up to 10 separate thermonuclear warheads of around 750-1000 Kilotons each. Some missiles are armed with a single, humongous 20,000 KT warhead. During the early years of the missile age, the United States led in technology and numbers but by the early 1970s when the SS-18 started entering service in significant numbers, Moscow had closed the missile gap and pulled ahead. In 1990 Moscow had a stockpile of around 40,000 nuclear warheads (vs 28,000 for the US) but by just using the 3,000 warheads on its SS-18s it could wipe out all human life in the continental United States in 30 minutes or less. Codenamed Satan by NATO, the SS-18 weighs a gargantuan 209,000 kg. The highly accurate Russian missile can not only penetrate and destroy American missile silos, which are hardened to 300 psi, but its own silos are hardened to a stupendous 6000 psi, making the missile all but impregnable to a first strike. Amazingly, for a missile of its weight and length (102 feet) it can sidewind (move in a series of S-shaped curves) to evade anti-missile defenses and its micro-electronics are hardened to function even during the event of a nuclear attack, meaning even a nuclear bomb’s EMP wave won’t knock its systems out. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0-36%D0%9C A short history of its creation: https://pikabu.ru/story/mikhail_kuzmich_yangel__raketnyiy_akademik_sozdatel_r36msatana_6490436 The US equivalent ICBM to these missiles are the Minuteman series and the later Peacekeeper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118_Peacekeeper The former had no MIRV warheads in the first 2 models and its monoblock warhead had 1.2 Megatons. The 3-part MIRVs of the Minuteman III have only 171 Kilotons. The Minuteman is the only land-based ICBMs used today by the USA. The latter has 10-12 MIRV warheads, each having 300 Kiloton warheads with the undeployed W78 warhead increasing it to roughly 335kT, roughly 1/2-1/3 the capability of the SS-18.
>>10095 >Some missiles are armed with a single, humongous 20,000 KT warhead. This is awesome and all but holy fuck how did they cover the cost for making one of these babies?
>>10097 It's not that expensive considering the technologies. Currently the same explosive yield of the Tsar Bomba (for example) would be very easy to replicate with a much smaller (physically) unit.
Shouldn't this thread be in /tech/?
>>10270 wait nvm im retarded
(103.19 KB 1200x800 865qirkj1pq21.jpg)
I found this pro-US army site called Wearethemighty and holy fuck is it a bucket of laughs. The Sukhoi Su-25 is now apparently a copy of the Northrop A-9 and therefore loses to the A-10 warthog because it carries less weapons. (despite not presenting any feats on the Su-25 and some vague shit on the A-10) https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/the-battle-of-the-tank-busters-frogfoot-versus-warthog The idea that the Su-25 is a YA-9 ripoff is hilarious considering how they are only superficially similar. The Su-25 was the winner of a competition between Illyushin and Sukhoi based on their experience with the soviet pioneered shturmovik concept. https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/meet-the-ilyushin-il-102-the-most-gorgeously-ugly-comb-1601030964 The 2 aircraft are honestly incomparable to one another: https://battle-machines.org/2015/07/26/a-10-thunderbolt-ii-vs-su-25-frogfoot/
Anyone have the info on how the Greeks constantly shoot-down Turkish military planes that invade their airspace? At least some of the kills were with Soviet tech or older American tech vs the new F-16s of the Truks.
(397.02 KB 960x720 1597763867045.png)
(162.36 KB 1509x894 UlyanovskClass.jpg)
>>6488 Which explains why China is build carriers and the soviets built a lot of carriers and were planning on building nuclear powers supercarriers with similar capabilities to the Nimitz class before dissolution.
>>15114 If this is implying "Muh Soviet Imperialism" you're plumb stupid. I can agree on China however, though their current goals are more likely to secure their Seas with mobile airbases for now.
>>15114 >before the dissolution Yeah, most of their projects by that point are just trying to one up the US with no other goals in mind. Military spending must go up and what better way to do it than building more carriers. Most of their history the Soviets never focused their entire battle plans and fleets around the carriers like the US. >China Modern China is imperialist. No shit.
>>6490 >Anything more advanced than even Iran can easily beat them to a pulp in a pitch fight. >This is what Iranians actually believe lol
>>15171 This is easily proven with Yugoslavian Air Defense compared to Saddam's. Despite using outdated SA-3s and SA-6s, through superior training, improvisation and mildly effective tech, the Yugoslavians shot down more planes and forced NATO to use triple the number of SEAD and HARM systems compared to Iraq. While not comparable in a fully modern context, the Japanese Navy, despite being smaller than the USA, caused major damage to it, and held out against it for 4 years straight despite resource limitations and technological inferiority mid-way into the war.
>>15116 >soviet imperalism No one is saying that. All that I am saying is that carriers are more then imperialist death machines, they are a weapon of war. And one that is useful. >>15165 >Yeah, most of their projects by that point are just trying to one up the US with no other goals in mind. Not true, Soviet Carriers would allow the USSR to intervene to support Communist factions in civil Wars as well as significantly reduce American Naval Superiority in a hypothetical WW3, potentially evening gaining full control of the seas. >Most of their history the Soviets never focused their entire battle plans and fleets around the carriers like the US. No, but for most of Soviet history the USSR planned on building carriers or had acquired carriers. Their were plans to build carriers in the 1920s.http://www.avalanchepress.com/SovietCarriers.php The Helicarrier Moskva was laid down in 1962. The fist Soviet carrier with fixed wing aircraft was laid down in 1970 and completed in 1975. During the dissolution of the USSR the Soviet Navy had 7 carriers.
>>15174 >they are a weapon of war. And one that is useful. See the quora post in >>6488. Until CIWS is good enough to be 99% guaranteed to take out Air-Surface strikes and submerged strikes, they're only useful for beating down smaller countries, and as proven with Vietnam and Iraq, if you don't have land forces ready to back it up it's just wanton destruction. >Soviet Carriers would allow the USSR to intervene to support Communist factions in civil Wars as well as significantly reduce American Naval Superiority in a hypothetical WW3, potentially evening gaining full control of the seas. A fair point, BUT as pointed out before it is a questionable point and not worth the resources it would require.
>>15174 >Not true, Soviet Carriers would allow the USSR to intervene to support Communist factions in civil Wars as well as significantly reduce American Naval Superiority in a hypothetical WW3, potentially evening gaining full control of the seas. Just give the beleagued country shit loads of anti ship missiles and anti air vehicles. A 10% chance of hitting is good enough as a single successful strike can permanently crippled a ship. Plus it's extremely easy to mass produce for a country like Iran for example. But that would make the country much less reliant on the USSR which is incompatible with the Soviet realpolitik in the late 80s. Not to mention the multitude of ways the US can attack a small country other than just outright invasion.
>>15192 >Until CIWS is good enough to be 99% guaranteed to take out Air-Surface strikes and submerged strikes CIWS aren't the only anti-missile systems on a ship though. Thier are also SAMs that can be used in anti-missile roles as well as duel purpose main guns. Both of those systems are of long enough range enough that a system on one ship can defend another. Which is why carrier groups are a thing. Also a single CWIS system can be inaccurate but when you put multiple systems on a ship they are more effective.
>>15197 >main guns useless against anything that is supersonic >SAMs Long distance defense that - unless in large numbers like on the Kirov - are unable to cope with the sheer volume of fire they would be receiving > a single CWIS system can be inaccurate but when you put multiple systems on a ship they are more effective. I know, I was specific with the 99%. Unless we know with such certainty that not a single missile will impact, such huge RADAR reflectors are just sitting ducks to a proper deployment.
>>15201 DDG-51 type destroyers have 96 VLS cells, suppose half are carrying ESSM. Each cell can hold 4 ESSM so you're looking at 48*4 = 192 medium ranged SAMs per ship. A typical carrier battle group will have 5-6 ships (both destroyers and cruisers) carrying this many SAMs so the whole fleet will have about ~1000 SAMs for air defense. I heard that the engagement doctrine is to fire 2 SAMs at each incoming missile. So the a carrier battle group has enough missiles to shoot against an attack by 500 missiles. This is not counting the aircraft in the fleet which can also contribute to anti-missile defense. The limitation is not number of missiles, it is the capabilities of the radar systems. How many targets they can track, and how many targets they can engage. I've heard the older versions of ESSM required the ship illuminate the target using radar, and DDG-51 has 4? target illuminators so each ship can only engage 4 targets at a time. Given the speed of anti-ship missiles, the combat time for each ship is limited. The newer ESSM have active radar homing so they do not rely on the ship to keep the target illuminated, this in theory should greatly increase the number of targets one ship can engage. Still, the quantity of missiles is not the problem here. The problem is how many incoming missiles can be engaged and the limited time in which this engagement can happen. A saturation attack does not require 500 missiles, but it's not as easy as you say to overwhelm fleet air defense. I'm going to leave out the long range missiles but keep in mind carrier escorts will have long range SAMs that can also contribute to anti-missile defense.
>>15172 >forced NATO to use triple the number of SEAD and HARM systems compared to Iraq. Here's the thing, though, the US can easily afford to do that. The amount of money, training, and materiel they have is simply unparalleled by any military organization in the world. No one is going to beat the US in combat anytime soon.
>>15219 >the US can easily afford to do that Against Yugoslavia, but not against a larger country with BETTER systems. countries at Iran's level or higher would be far too much trouble to strike without the full support of the UN and NATO.
>>15230 >Against Yugoslavia, but not against a larger country I think you underestimate the sheer size of the US arsenal and the quality of the hardware involved. The US has about 1400 more combat aircraft than its next biggest rival, Russia. They receive more pilot flight time, maintenance, and can be replaced at a much faster rate. It has more aircraft carriers, 11 and more being built compared to its closest rival, China, which has two. The carriers are also newer, better-equipped and have better-trained crews. I mean, in every single sense, the US is a behemoth. This idea that the US is going to lose against any single nation is just silly. Would it cost more? Yes, but militarily, there is no defending a nation against the US. If they are determined in toppling your government they will do it as long as it's politically expedient. This is why a lot of nations cozy up to nuclear powers like Russia, because they know the Russians and the US won't fight each other directly. Realistically speaking, there is no way anyone is going to stave off a US invasion, even if they had no allies, and they have plenty of those.
>>10095 I love ICBMs because they are completely useless, since nuclear bombs aren't real. Beautiful megatoys.
>>15236 Your description lacks important details. Air superiority is meaningless in the face of proper Air Defense as has been proven in modern times. The USA was actively waging war with North Vietnam yet its progress was terrible and losses even more so, and this was a Vietnam that had old SAMs from Soviet stockpiles alongside WW-2 weapons and stolen US equipment. They had no cruise-missiles or mobile SAMs or large ships, yet the USA suffered enormous losses to little gain. Iraq was easy because there was no organization or proper training. Stop hyping up the US army. Outside of the special forces and groups like the Marines, the majority aren't much to look at. The majority are literal college-students who entered the force for G.I. benefits. >carriers are also newer, better-equipped and have better-trained crews. Again read the fucking quora post. They address ALL of this. 45 minutes is how long those carriers survive against any country with cruise missiles and a sufficiently sized and armed navy/army/airforce. The majority of Iraq tank and air-plane kills were literally abandoned vehicles who's crew wasn't even battle ready or willing to fight. Compare this to the VIetnamese or Yugos. Unlike with the USSR where the numbers of aircraft and tanks mattered, since they covered the majority of Eurasia, the USA is isolated on a continent it controls and has to send its troops and forces out, which means transport and supply considerations. Why do you think they were so adamant on Japanese, Hawaiian and Korean military bases? That is the only reason they need carriers to "forward-deploy". Against China those carriers are fodder and so are their AEGIS cruisers. The same goes for Russia and to an extent India. Iran having only 1 border with the shallow and narrow Gulf of Arabia/Red Sea has a very good chance of defending itself against Carrier deployments, as its land-based cruise-missile systems can pick them off.
>>15241 >Air superiority is meaningless in the face of proper Air Defense You clearly do not understand electronic warfare or SEAD and DEAD missions.
>>15244 >You clearly do not understand electronic warfare or SEAD and DEAD missions. Except I do. Electronic Warfare can only do so much. SEAD and HARMs were used extensively in Vietnam. They reduced losses BUT, considering they faced outdated systems and hurriedly trained crews, these loss reductions are not enough. In Iraq they lacked proper air defenses and air-defense tactics and were picked off easily despite an only slight numerical superiority in terms of aircraft. In Yugoslavia, a country much smaller than Iraq and with similar military tech but better training and set-up, the SEAD systems were much less effective, despite NATO air forces being numerically superior by several times and severe infighting in the country.
>>15244 The idea "the bomber will always get through" was disproven in WW-2. Without full air-support by fighters and electronic warfare, a manned strike aircraft has little chance of getting into airspace defended by even a moderately technological military force. On the water however, air-defenses are no enough because they're all centrally located. AEGIS Cruisers specifically turn into huge RADAR reflectors when a carrier formation is under attack to confuse and attract missiles to target them. The Carrier itself lacks anything above rudimentary air defenses and an armored deck, which is useless against any Soviet/Chinese/Iranian cruise missile which are all heavy enough to break through with kinetic force alone (let alone the warhead). The US navy lacks such anti-ship missiles, with the Tomohawk being its only real cruise missile of major use and that's fodder.
>>15241 >North Vietnam This isn't the 60s. The tech gap has only grown, and it isn't as if the US doesn't have plans to counter air defenses. Military science is something they pursue relentlessly. Nothing will ever be like Vietnam again. >. Outside of the special forces and groups like the Marines Marines aren't special operations. Please read more on this. >The majority are literal college-students who entered the force for G.I. benefits. I take it you've literally never been involved with the US military. Even if this were the case, and it's not. The average US soldier and marine receives more, better-funded, training than anyone outside NATO and maybe inside. The exercises are bigger, the equipment is better, and the NCO corps, the ones that actually carry out training set by the officers, has about 18 years of combat experience. There is no comparison. >Again read the fucking quora post. They address ALL of this. 45 minutes is how long those carriers survive against any country with cruise missiles and a sufficiently sized and armed navy/army/airforce. The majority of Iraq tank and air-plane kills were literally abandoned vehicles who's crew wasn't even battle ready or willing to fight. Compare this to the VIetnamese or Yugos. This is very optimistic, and relies on the US risking carriers to begin with. This scenario is simply not going to happen. >Iran having only 1 border with the shallow and narrow Gulf of Arabia/Red Sea has a very good chance of defending itself against Carrier deployments, as its land-based cruise-missile systems can pick them off. Again, I think you overestimate the ability of Iranian defenses, and seem to think a US invasion would start with them showing up in the gulf, and not deploying forward elements specifically to facilitate movement in the gulf.
>>15264 >The tech gap has only grown No it hasn't SAM tech has not stopped improving and neither have counter-counter-measures. FFS Yugoslavia shot down an F-117 with an SA-3 and damaged 2 others. This was the 90s and they faced F-15s, F-16s, F-18s and other aircraft of the new generation against SA-3 and SA-6 units primarily. >Marines aren't special operations You read more I said, special forces AND groups like Marines. The Marines are not standard military, I know the difference between their training and army training is enormous. >Military science is something they pursue relentlessly And their opponents are just sitting with their asses in the air waiting and not preparing against it? >you've literally never been involved with the US military As a soldier? God no. However I do know or knew people who have served in the US military and am well aware of its basic functionality, its not secret after all. Hell the most secrecy is usually around covering up failures and unsavory missions. >The average US soldier and marine receives more, better-funded, training than anyone outside NATO Better funded? Yes, mostly because everything is overpriced More? Not much more than any comparable country, like Israel, Russia or China. Throwing money at something does not equal better, the F-35 is evidence of that. >exercises are bigger Russia did several gigantic exercises in the past few years, parallel to NATO, as has China and India. The USSR's exercises were so vast that they were the world's largest even today. >equipment better Hah, no. Only frontline troops going overseas or specialized groups like Marines, tank-crewmen and motorized infantry get proper equipment from the get-go. >very optimistic, and relies on the US risking carriers FFS you're just shifting goal posts. The US cannot feasibly project its power without carrier transport or large permanent bases. Given that we are discussing carriers, that is the focus. Those carriers, by approaching an enemy with sufficient fire-power are sitting ducks. It's that simple >I think you overestimate the ability of Iranian defenses Hardly. They're no super-power, but they have plenty of modern tech and large armed forces >seem to think a US invasion would start with them showing up in the gulf Hardly, but they would have to enter the Gulf at some point if they were to be useful, thus Carriers are near useless in the conflict until after land-based subjugation, which was my entire point. >deploying forward elements specifically to facilitate movement in the gulf Bud, I've studied the Gulf-Wars, I'm aware of how this shit works. You're not the only one who lived through the 90s.

Delete
Report

no cookies?