Ukraine

[jono]

I can’t do everything for you A holes, I’ve got work to do.

Silly bunt. Everyone knows you lost your job when Biden was elebted.

[MultiVerse]

The 25mm and TOW rockets are for use against other APCs and to try to survive an engagement with a tank. No Bradley TC is going to go looking for a fight with a modern MBT, that's what the Abrams and Apache escorts are for.

I'm sure there have been instances when a Bradley took out a T-72, but I would almost guarantee it was out of necessity to survive because the T-72 engaged the Bradley and not because the Bradley was looking for a fight with the T-72.

I agree with your overall point. The fact is though, "of the 2,200 Bradleys involved in Operation Desert Storm, only three were disabled. In fact, more enemy armored vehicles were destroyed by Bradleys than by the Abrams Main Battle Tanks!" which included dug in T-72s met at close range.

Despite their lighter armor & armament, Bradley fighting vehicles were successful thanks to their accuracy versus the inaccuracy of the Russian tanks. Bradleys are a step down by current U.S. military standards but a big step up for Ukraine. As crazy as it sounds, Ukrainian soldiers had to drive across minefields in HMMWVs to assault entrenched artillery supported Russian positions surrounding Kherson.

[MultiVerse]

Yes. If we were fighting directly we would satellite and drone and guided missile so easily.
As they will to our 30 abrams.

Tanks are useless in modern warfare if you go high tech scorched earth. I’m an armchair non expert. But this ain’t ww2

Why don’t we send some darpa robot dogs to Ukraine?

This is the most technologically advanced war in history. And UAVs are actual, not science fiction, flying killer robots which are much scarier than "robot dogs."

[cspringsposer]

I agree with your overall point, The fact is however, "of the 2,200 Bradleys involved in Operation Desert Storm, only three were disabled. In fact, more enemy armored vehicles were destroyed by Bradleys than by the Abrams Main Battle Tanks!" including dug in T-72s at close range.

Despite their lighter armor & armament, the Bradley fighting vehicles were successful thanks to the inaccuracy of the Soviet tanks.

I wouldnt completely say it is because of the inaccuracy of Russian tanks. You also had poorly trained Iraqi troops with no will to fight operating poorly maintained exported T-72s.

Having spent a few years rolling in the back of a Bradley, I can pretty confidently say Bradley TCs are not tasked with or interested in hunting down a MBT for a fight, to include a T-72. A competent and well maintained MBT will always have the edge in that engagement.

[Woolly the Mammoth]

There are so many startling things that no one could have predicted about this war, but one of the most interesting to me is Russia's inability to establish air superiority. I would like to see us send some A-10 warthogs, seems like they could be very effective.

[riser4]

Well, for starters, Russia thought that all it had to do to win it was show up and act menacing. Derp.

[AKPogue]

The 25mm and TOW rockets are for use against other APCs and to try to survive an engagement with a tank. No Bradley TC is going to go looking for a fight with a modern MBT, that's what the Abrams and Apache escorts are for.

I'm sure there have been instances when a Bradley took out a T-72, but I would almost guarantee it was out of necessity to survive because the T-72 engaged the Bradley and not because the Bradley was looking for a fight with the T-72.

I love when stupid people act like they know what they're talking about.

[Core Shot]

This is the most technologically advanced war in history. And UAVs are actual, not science fiction, flying killer robots which are much scarier than "robot dogs."

Of course. Which was my first point.

But for ground combat I would fear a pack of 500 darpa dogs with machine guns and fricken laser beams more than one tank.

And the dogs wouldn’t destroy infrastructure like tanks and drone strikes.

The dogs are scary. But we really need darpa spiders. That would be freaky af. I know they built them before the dogs. But give them glowing red eyes and lethal weapons and it’s game over. Rabbits are so holy grail quest. Old school. Lethal but not scary.

[summit]

Hitler had 1,400 tanks invading Normandy.

Montgomery had 400 going after Rommel

But yeah. 30 Abrahams are going to change everything. In the age of satellite views and guided missiles.

Ok boomers. Good luck with that.

31 Abrams (no Abrahams) could literally kill all 1800 of the other tanks you mentioned with zero combat losses and only a few tanks might need to reload.

[MultiVerse]

I love when stupid people act like they know what they're talking about.

You need to quit banging your forehead against so many zippers, your arguments were never that good to begin with. Nobody said Bradley’s are the first choice against Russian tanks. That doesn't change the fact they have a pretty record against them anyway. If nothing else, a Bradley’s TOW missile is more accurate and has more than twice the range as a T-72s main gun.

So it's not a question of whether Abrams, Apaches, and F-16s or whatever are better than a Bradley or Marder. It's whether a Bradley is better than a lightweight lightly armored vehicle like a HMMWV on the wide open Ukrainian steppe.

[rod9301]

Is it possible the the US was against Nordstream 2 because it wanted to supply lng to Germany?

And then because this could increase the costs to German companies so much that they will be uncompetitive?

Could this be about money?


Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

[Bunion 2020]

You cracked the case Sherlock.

Meanwhile:

China could be at war with the United States two years from now, a top Air Force general predicted in a bombastic and unusual memo to troops under his command, asserting a shorter timeline before potential conflict than other senior U.S. defense officials.

Gen. Michael A. Minihan, who as head of Air Mobility Command oversees the service’s fleet of transport and refueling aircraft, warned personnel to speed their preparations for a potential conflict, citing Chinese President Xi Jinping’s aspirations and the possibility that Americans will not be paying attention until it is too late.

“I hope I am wrong,” Minihan wrote. “My gut tells me we will fight in 2025. Xi secured his third term and set his war council in October 2022. Taiwan’s presidential elections are in 2024 and will offer Xi a reason. United States’ presidential elections are in 2024 and will offer Xi a distracted America. Xi’s team, reason, and opportunity are all aligned for 2025.”

[MultiVerse]

The pattern of conspiracy theorists is to develop a paranoid understanding of the Western establishment, and then reverse-engineer a doppelganger in that warped image. The warped doppelganger is the Kremlin. Everything they image to be true about the US is in fact true about the revanchist wannabe USSR.

[rod9301]

You cracked the case Sherlock.

Meanwhile:

I hope this guy is wrong. This is the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. If there's a war with China, we will lose, and so will china.

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

[Cono Este]

I hope this guy is wrong. This is the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. If there's a war with China, we will lose, and so will china.

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

If there is a war with Russia all but a few cockroaches will win.

But we’ve got the cheat codes in this thread so we can play pretend.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

If there is a war with Russia all but a few cockroaches will win.

But we’ve got the cheat codes in this thread so we can play pretend.

Can you translate this into English?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[leroy jenkins]

Why don’t we send some darpa robot dogs to Ukraine?

Those are fucking scary.

Those are more designed for oppressing a civilian population without any risk of pesky things like a conscience or mental health problems.

[leroy jenkins]

There are so many startling things that no one could have predicted about this war, but one of the most interesting to me is Russia's inability to establish air superiority. I would like to see us send some A-10 warthogs, seems like they could be very effective.

They'd be fucking defenseless and get shot down.

[AKPogue]

You need to quit banging your forehead against so many zippers, your arguments were never that good to begin with. Nobody said Bradley’s are the first choice against Russian tanks. That doesn't change the fact they have a pretty record against them anyway. If nothing else, a Bradley’s TOW missile is more accurate and has more than twice the range as a T-72s main gun.

So it's not a question of whether Abrams, Apaches, and F-16s or whatever are better than a Bradley or Marder. It's whether a Bradley is better than a lightweight lightly armored vehicle like a HMMWV on the wide open Ukrainian steppe.

Oh another blathering idiot.

[This End Up]

They'd be fucking defenseless and get shot down.

The air force has been trying to get rid of the A-10 for a long time. Sending them to Ukraine would do the trick.

[riser4]

The air force has been trying to get rid of the A-10 for a long time. Sending them to Ukraine would do the trick.

Fuck. We really don't have a good replacement. Don't say F-35.

[leroy jenkins]

The air force has been trying to get rid of the A-10 for a long time. Sending them to Ukraine would do the trick.

The brrrt is not the best thing about the a10 in a near peer conflict.

They can carry as much ordinance as a fucking b52 depending on loadout while operating out of improvised dirt runways and require far less maintaince than a b52. the only thing the b52 has over the a10 is range. They are an amazingly versatile bomb truck. In any near peer conflict runways and airports are going to be a big target, with dispersal of assets being a solution to this just as it is for himars etc in ukraine currently. However dispersal of assets is a heck of a lot harder to do with aircraft.

f35s can operate within an enemy's air defense envelope but all stealth planes are handicapped by lack of carrying capacity for ordinance to maintain stealth. This is solved by the f35s sensor fusion technology, combined with the a10s massive carrying capacity as a bomb or missile truck and ability to operate out of dispersed improvised airfields just outside the enemy's air defense envelope. The f35s can then basically target for the a10s that will fire missiles from outside radar range.

Combine this with the mighty MALD, a long loiter time 'missile' that can mimic the radar cross section of any plane, detect target and jam enemy air defense radar and share its that data with all our other airborne assets and we've got an offensive capability no one else can touch or counter.

Take the a10 out of that and its significantly dimished especially with regards to asset dispersal.

The air force hasn't been trying to get rid of the a10. Budgeticians and congress have.


Not to mention that you're suggesting sending assets knowing they wouldn't work well and work get shot down. I mean are you joking?

[leroy jenkins]

I hope this guy is wrong. This is the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. If there's a war with China, we will lose, and so will china.

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

And so would a huge portion of the rest of the world that isn't even involved due to starvation etc. And it could open the door to a never ending ever expanding war in new theaters to battle for resources to keep the war going and could redefine the term "world war' in ways it didn't apply for the first two literally sucking in every corner of the globe.

Lets avoid that.

[oldnew_guy]

I love when stupid people act like they know what they're talking about.

…….

[Harry]

The air force hasn't been trying to get rid of the a10. Budgeticians and congress have.

This is absolutely incorrect. Congress is the only reason we still have the A10. If it was up to the USAF that plane would have been gone 10 years ago.


https://www.businessinsider.com/cong...rthogs-2022-12

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums