Posted on 11/26/2014 8:03:01 AM PST by Fennie
The US Army plans to deploy about 150 tanks and armoured vehicles to NATO countries next year and some of the heavy armour may be stationed in Eastern Europe, a top American general said on Tuesday.
The move is part of a US effort dubbed Operaton Atlantic Resolve in the Baltic states and Poland to reassure allies anxious about a 'resurgent Russia', with American troops deploying for several months at a time to conduct joint exercises.
Nearly 50 armoured vehicles are already in place and another 100 M1 Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles will be "pre-positioned" in Germany and possibly elsewhere for the US troops conducting drills with NATO partners, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges said in a phone interview from Estonia.
(Excerpt) Read more at macedoniaonline.eu ...
If there were full blown conflict between two modern armies we would quickly discover that most tank warfare would be suicidal. 150 tanks wouldn’t last a week against Russia because of the Kornet anti-tank missile. 50lbs of weapon that can hide in a hole by the road, a bedroom window, a barn, and takes out your 9 million dollar Abrams in few seconds for the cost of 12K. The flipside is true for the Russian tanks facing our Javelin or the French MILAN and other modern anti-tank weapons. The Iraqis even managed to take out a few Abrams in the first days of that war and they had no idea what they were doing and had only a handful of modern anti-tank weapons. Tanks are too easy to kill, too hard to maintain and too costly to replace. It will be great to have one near you for the time it lasts but they wont last long.
Thats funny, the Russians used tanks very effectively in the Ukraine this year, and the Ukrainians have modern ATGM’s, or modern enough.
And the same was said about tanks going back to the 1960’s - ATGM’s aren’t new. The ATGM’s back then could penetrate any tank in existence.
There are countermeasures against anything. And there are tactics to minimize any threat.
Ok, thanks for that explanation. It’s good to have a reasonable debate.
I do disagree about Russia. Sure, Obama has been HELL on our foreign policy, but Russia has also been, well, Russia, and means to have its way in Europe. We need to let them know they cannot.
We have had a 60 year or longer (if you count Great Britain, since 1941) alliance with Western Europe, where we promise to protect them. They are nervous about Russia, for good reasons. We need to support them and be there for them.
Russia knows this. They don’t like it, but this isn’t new. The only thing that’s new is what you said—Obama’s indecisiveness and weakness.
I also think we need to trim spending. I’m not for an increase in military spending, just not a decrease. The democrats have forced us to CUT military spending in order to get a commensurate cut in non-defense spending, but this tit for tat budgeting is silly. The Republicans need to cut the welfare state, and leave defense alone. If they don’t like it they can pound sand. We won and all...
The Ukrainians also have their own decent armored units and a decent Air Force but they never went all in to stop the Russians. Just because they have the weapons to stop smaller movements by Russia doesn’t mean they have the will to use them which would result in a larger response from the Russians that they likely couldn’t stop. ATGMS today are not your father ATGMs. Tanks are likely to go the way of piloted aircraft but that’s another argument and another day...
Bingo!
I saw something on the Military channel a few years back, where a single bomb was dropped hanging from a parachute and it dispensed 20 or 30 hockey puck like gizmos that each selected a tank and killed them from above. That kind of weapon prevents tank formations of the past. They are useful against ground troops that have no air power of any kind and a limited supply of anti tank weapons.
If we actually have half the weapons they show on the Military Channel, why would anyone pick a fight with us?
I fear carrier groups would fair little better in an all out war.
~The USA that won that war, that dominated the USSR and forced it into submission, no longer exist. What we have now is a weak Russia and a vacuous USA.~
It worth mentioning that the cold war was ‘won’ not by military means if you are looking at it on that terms. Also nobody in Russia believes they have lost. Common knowledge there says they understood they were wrong to pursue socialist goals, to hide behind iron curtain and to hold Europe as hostage so they have dismantled an evil empire voluntarily.
Both takes has obvious factual flaws of course, but you have to admit that mainstream American view is also very offensive for Russians and in no way they want to be treated as a defeated nation.
Nobody there likes NATO growing east as well, which factually predates modern Russian ‘imperialism’. And of course after dismembering of Serbia nobody takes US criticism of Russian involvement in Georgia and Ukraine any serious.
Along with a US criticism of Russian actions regarding Islamic extremism, which is much more a threat there than in America, it makes a perfect conditions for growing virulent anti-Americanism in Russia.
And we are talking about a country which was probably the most pro-American in world history in a period between 1989-1993 to the point of practically giving up a national souvereignity to Clinton administration.
Current actions of Obama’s administration comparing Russia to Ebola are adding to insult. And it is purely idiotic to think a majority of population would blame their authorities for a fallout of economic sanctions which are actually a gift for Russian government to explain any economic troubles with it putting all the blame on the West adding to an anti-Americanist crowd.
As for weaker both Russia and US I can’t disagree. People here saying that China is a distant third ignoring a fact that we are living in an era of non-linear warfare. Just look at the damage inflicted by Al-Qaeda which is technically not any viable power at all.
The Warsaw Pact was NOT an alliance, it was an occupation!
Once the communist dictator’s forces stopped killing people over their beliefs, the PEOPLE in Poland, et al Eastern Europe, chose to join NATO. Whether provocative or not towards Russia, it was their choice. Too many years of Soviet imperialism and communist dictatorship and totalitarianism made the Eastern Europeans fearful of Russia more than ANYTHING else, not the USA, France, the UK or even Germany.
Russia’s recent bellicosity is not helping at all.
What do you mean "there", since you signed up here, you told us that you were a Special Operations Russian soldier posting from Russia, your home.
Who you are and who you work for would also explain why you signed up here to make posts like that one.
Is that you have quoted seems factually incorrect to you or what?
~Once the communist dictator’s forces stopped killing people over their beliefs, the PEOPLE in Poland, et al Eastern Europe, chose to join NATO. Whether provocative or not towards Russia, it was their choice. Too many years of Soviet imperialism and communist dictatorship and totalitarianism made the Eastern Europeans fearful of Russia more than ANYTHING else, not the USA, France, the UK or even Germany.~
You certainly make sense here but each side still has its own perspective which makes sense as well.
After stopping support for communist regimes in eastern Europe and unilateral troops withdrawal Russia certainly entitled to some sentiments when it hears about a missile shield in Poland. A kind of sentiments one might remember from Cuban missile crisis.
Man your propaganda is obvious, even considering that you are a Russian soldier in Special Operations.
Active Duty ping.
It was a military victory unless you exempt military action that does not involve shooting. Constant fail safe flights by nuke bombers, submarine patrols, a massive defense build up, strategic and tactical nuke placements blockades, airlifts, the militarization of space.
Russians do not admit defeat but they readily agree that the USSR was defeated. They see themselves as having shed communism.
There is still left over pro-USA sentiment but it is for the USA of the Reagan era and its carry on through Bush1. I try to explain to the Russians I meet that the Reagan USA is gone.
In order to be a propaganda it has to be a lie.
What exactly is wrong with that I wrote? I actually have an idea on Russian perspective and I have put it out exactly like most people see it in Russia.
If it is not interesting to you, why do you comment?
Do you think you have better idea on what do they think? If so, share your knowledge.
Why do the myths and lies Russians believe matter?
USSR was defeated by socialism in the first place. There was no incentives to make society any productive, every idiot understood it is the system to blame. Nobody wanted to work and at that period there was nothing to pay. Europeans rioted in the West and Muslims in the south tearing USSR apart.
It made a classic revolutionary situation by Lenin’s own book and Commies given up power without too much a fight.
I actually remember the end of communism in Russia. Apart from a few senile idiots and federal employees nobody wanted any part of socialism, and getting rid of costly empire was a good idea too.
It means as much as your own beliefs, otherwise you shouldn’t complain when someone would push you around solving matters regarding your interests without your participation in the future.
Well you claim to be a Russian Special Operations soldier, and you signed up here to defend your invasion of Ukraine, so it's no surprise what "perspective" you will be delivering during your time here.
You were listing things that are not true while remaining technically correct saying these untrue things are what Russians believe. Of course Russians believe a lot of untrue things due to state monopoly on propaganda.
Are you now saying Russians must be appeased because they believe this bullshit? Some sort of thing similar to Muslim outreach program that recognizes and sympathizes with their desire for restoration of the lost caliphate and destruction of the Western civilization?
In order to argue my point you should bring yours or at least tell what exactly is wrong with mine. Calling names or as you put ‘ad hominem attacks’ aren’t exactly an argument.
And I am a firm believer that every point of view should be taken into account, unless it is completely inappropriate which means poses an existential threat to you. In this case you should stop arguing and need to fight to death for your idea.
Unlike many people, I can imagine myself in someone’s else shoes. I can’t see any existential threat to US in Russian thinking so far, despite the fact that Obama’s foreign policy does its best for deterioration.
For that reason your attitide is hard for my comprehension.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.