Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Ellapennella

NATO Deploys Troops

39 posts in this topic

 
23 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Remember NATO'S performance in Afghanistan, say no more -and yet some people expect they'll perform against the Russkies. reality check.

I dunno.  I also remember Russia's performance in Afghanistan ;)      And they didn't even have the excuse that the Americans were "helping" them :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 minutes ago, Essan said:

I dunno.  I also remember Russia's performance in Afghanistan ;)      And they didn't even have the excuse that the Americans were "helping" them :D 

Under what American President?

Edited by Ellapennella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

Under what American President?

Think it was the Reagan era.   They used - and lost - far more men and tanks than NATO ever did!   

Point being, the fact that NATO also failed in Afghanistan does not make the Russians a better fighting force, far from it..  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Essan said:

Think it was the Reagan era.   They used - and lost - far more men and tanks than NATO ever did!   

Point being, the fact that NATO also failed in Afghanistan does not make the Russians a better fighting force, far from it..  

So,  NATO wasn't pulling their fair share in fighting & paying. That's just it, everyone has always expected us to fight their battles for them at every expense. I don't think that President Trump will allow for NATO to get away with that anymore, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

The NATO crutch needs to be kicked out from under them so they can learn to stand on their own. 

Dont be silly, we have socialist governments in Europe where Defence is a after thought, much easier to promise money benefits to your citizens to get elected and let  America carry the burden of defence. while at the same time criticising America. 

The crutch needs kicking away and then hit NATO members over the head with it. im not just saying this with being British but there are only two capable militaries in NATO the US and UK. and the UK is a distance second. The UK defence budget as been cut and misspent and as a result we have the high end equipment and highly trained personnel trouble is we don't have enough. if i remember correctly 30,000 troops and equipment for a 6 month sustained campaign. Royal Navy just 19 major surface combatants. 13 Frigates and 6 Destroyers. 7 nuclear attack submarines. number of ships/boats available at anyone time. 3 subs, 4 destroyers and 8 frigates.

We need investment in the Navy as a priority, because make no mistake about it the next war we will lose. and i don't think the citizens of the UK are ready for that defeat.

Yet as a country we spend £13.4Billion on foreign Aid. and have to borrow that money in order to spend it abroad. bonkers.

 

1 hour ago, Ellapennella said:

So, what is exactly going on, are NATO trying to circle a certain land mass there so that Russia can't what? have land, sea & air power? Or something like that?

NATO's whole purpose as you know was and is to contain Russia.

In Europe Russia is trying to secure the Northern European plain, the path which it has been invaded through, throughout History it doesn't matter if Putin was leader or not whoever is the Russian leader the security of the Russian nation relies on securing the boundaries. Moscow is protected from invasion from the east by the Ural mountains and the vast distances beyond. When it comes to the West (europe) the natural defences is the Carpathian mountains and the Caucasus mountains. to explain it in maps.

first note the countries on the Northern European plain, - on the path to Russia. and how they feature in the geopolitics we witness today. Ukraine and NATO troops in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Nato is camped on Russia's front yard.

Once we understand what's going on. geopolitics we can see the national interests of Russia and why they act as they do.

(map shows Carpathian mountains and european plain)

polish-funnel.jpg

second map shows the ural mountains protecting moscow from the east.

89941-004-0962A14F.gif

Third map overall. Moscow, Ural mountains to the East, Caucasus mountains  and black sea to the South, Carpathians to the West, and just north of them mountains Russia secures the gap (northern european plain)

runewlg.gif

Edited by stevewinn
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Russia's main problem in Afghanistan was that both James Bond and Rambo were helping the Mujahideen  :D  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Essan said:

I dunno.  I also remember Russia's performance in Afghanistan ;)      And they didn't even have the excuse that the Americans were "helping" them :D 

Yes, its a point worth making trouble is that was 1979 to late 1980's. NATO's adventure was 2001 to 2013. A lot has changed in regard to Russia Equipment more as a result of their performance in the 2008? Georgian invasion. it highlighted failures in the Russian military structure and equipment,-  since then they embarked on a modernisation programme making their armed forces more professional by 2020. while NATO was tying itself in knots in Afghanistan and the UK and US nation building in Iraq, the Russians quietly went about their business using the high oil and gas price to fund their modernisation programme. - how we all laughed, Russia! modernisation all there equipment, we joked rusting and half the troops drunk on vodka, Ukraine/Crimea stopped us laughing and we haven't laughed since. - Just look at the military spending in the Baltic countries and the sheer panic in NATO. Its like the collapse of the soviet Union, all the experts all the academics, political leaders and Governments never seen it coming just in the same way they never seen Ukraine/Crimea.

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Dont be silly, we have socialist governments in Europe where Defence is a after thought, much easier to promise money benefits to your citizens to get elected and let  America carry the burden of defence. while at the same time criticising America. 

The crutch needs kicking away and then hit NATO members over the head with it. im not just saying this with being British but there are only two capable militaries in NATO the US and UK. and the UK is a distance second. The UK defence budget as been cut and misspent and as a result we have the high end equipment and highly trained personnel trouble is we don't have enough. if i remember correctly 30,000 troops and equipment for a 6 month sustained campaign. Royal Navy just 19 major surface combatants. 13 Frigates and 6 Destroyers. 7 nuclear attack submarines. number of ships/boats available at anyone time. 3 subs, 4 destroyers and 8 frigates.

We need investment in the Navy as a priority, because make no mistake about it the next war we will lose. and i don't think the citizens of the UK are ready for that defeat.

Yet as a country we spend £13.4Billion on foreign Aid. and have to borrow that money in order to spend it abroad. bonkers.

 

NATO's whole purpose as you know was and is to contain Russia.

In Europe Russia is trying to secure the Northern European plain, the path which it has been invaded through, throughout History it doesn't matter if Putin was leader or not whoever is the Russian leader the security of the Russian nation relies on securing the boundaries. Moscow is protected from invasion from the east by the Ural mountains and the vast distances beyond. When it comes to the West (europe) the natural defences is the Carpathian mountains and the Caucasus mountains. to explain it in maps.

first note the countries on the Northern European plain, - on the path to Russia. and how they feature in the geopolitics we witness today. Ukraine and NATO troops in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Nato is camped on Russia's front yard.

Once we understand what's going on. geopolitics we can see the national interests of Russia and why they act as they do.

(map shows Carpathian mountains and european plain)

polish-funnel.jpg

second map shows the ural mountains protecting moscow from the east.

89941-004-0962A14F.gif

Third map overall. Moscow, Ural mountains to the East, Caucasus mountains  and black sea to the South, Carpathians to the West, and just north of them mountains Russia secures the gap (northern european plain)

runewlg.gif

thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

Yes, its a point worth making trouble is that was 1979 to late 1980's. NATO's adventure was 2001 to 2013. A lot has changed in regard to Russia Equipment more as a result of their performance in the 2008? Georgian invasion. it highlighted failures in the Russian military structure and equipment,-  since then they embarked on a modernisation programme making their armed forces more professional by 2020. while NATO was tying itself in knots in Afghanistan and the UK and US nation building in Iraq, the Russians quietly went about their business using the high oil and gas price to fund their modernisation programme. - how we all laughed, Russia! modernisation all there equipment, we joked rusting and half the troops drunk on vodka, Ukraine/Crimea stopped us laughing and we haven't laughed since. - Just look at the military spending in the Baltic countries and the sheer panic in NATO. Its like the collapse of the soviet Union, all the experts all the academics, political leaders and Governments never seen it coming just in the same way they never seen Ukraine/Crimea.

 

 

 

What do you suppose Obama meant by in his 2nd term when he thought the mic was off or that he  assumed that couldn't be heard saying that  he could be more influential or something for Russia? I think we've had the upper hand, until Obama took office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Yes, its a point worth making trouble is that was 1979 to late 1980's. NATO's adventure was 2001 to 2013. A lot has changed in regard to Russia Equipment more as a result of their performance in the 2008? Georgian invasion. it highlighted failures in the Russian military structure and equipment,-  since then they embarked on a modernisation programme making their armed forces more professional by 2020. while NATO was tying itself in knots in Afghanistan and the UK and US nation building in Iraq, the Russians quietly went about their business using the high oil and gas price to fund their modernisation programme. - how we all laughed, Russia! modernisation all there equipment, we joked rusting and half the troops drunk on vodka, Ukraine/Crimea stopped us laughing and we haven't laughed since. - Just look at the military spending in the Baltic countries and the sheer panic in NATO. Its like the collapse of the soviet Union, all the experts all the academics, political leaders and Governments never seen it coming just in the same way they never seen Ukraine/Crimea.

 

 

 

The Russian military is still far from being a professional fighting force and despite their efforts to modernize they still have a long way to go.  Currently Russia has a little over 20,000 tanks but 2,800 are T-55s, 2,500 T-62s, 2,000 T-64, 8,900 T-72s of which only 600 have been upgraded to the latest T-72B3, 3,450 T-80s, 550 T-90s, and 16 T-14s.  Only about 20% of Russia's current tanks can be classified as modern.  Then there is the Russian drone program, or better put the lack of one.  Every drone bigger then hand launched has been purchased from a different country, I believe Israel sells Russia most if not all of its larger drones, and all the larger drones are surveillance drones and they currently have no combat drones.  Every so often the Russians try to restart their drone program but it always gets shut down before they can even build a prototype.  As for training the Russian military still relies heavily on conscripts, out of Russia's about 770,000 man standing army about 300,000 are conscripts who have only a few weeks of training and serve only for a year.

That's just a few of the glaring areas of where the Russian ground forces lag behind and the Russian Navy and air Force are in far worse condition then their ground forces.  While Russia has been spending money modernizing their forces the benefits haven't really materialized yet, most being just prototypes in various stages of completion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

The Russian military is still far from being a professional fighting force and despite their efforts to modernize they still have a long way to go.  Currently Russia has a little over 20,000 tanks but 2,800 are T-55s, 2,500 T-62s, 2,000 T-64, 8,900 T-72s of which only 600 have been upgraded to the latest T-72B3, 3,450 T-80s, 550 T-90s, and 16 T-14s.  Only about 20% of Russia's current tanks can be classified as modern.  Then there is the Russian drone program, or better put the lack of one.  Every drone bigger then hand launched has been purchased from a different country, I believe Israel sells Russia most if not all of its larger drones, and all the larger drones are surveillance drones and they currently have no combat drones.  Every so often the Russians try to restart their drone program but it always gets shut down before they can even build a prototype.  As for training the Russian military still relies heavily on conscripts, out of Russia's about 770,000 man standing army about 300,000 are conscripts who have only a few weeks of training and serve only for a year.

That's just a few of the glaring areas of where the Russian ground forces lag behind and the Russian Navy and air Force are in far worse condition then their ground forces.  While Russia has been spending money modernizing their forces the benefits haven't really materialized yet, most being just prototypes in various stages of completion.

If memory serves; According to Janes Defence which took its source from a NATO report, 70% of the Russian modernisation programme as been achieved. and we still have another 3 years left to go.

We also have to remember when talking of old equipment in numbers and getting lulled into a false sense of superiority. How many hours does it take to train and crew and be efficient in Americas main battle tank. M1A1/2 Abrams compared to Russia's T-55, or T-64. The point being the more complex the equipment the higher the cost, the longer it takes to build, equip and train the crew from scratch.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

If memory serves; According to Janes Defence which took its source from a NATO report, 70% of the Russian modernisation programme as been achieved. and we still have another 3 years left to go.

We also have to remember when talking of old equipment in numbers and getting lulled into a false sense of superiority. How many hours does it take to train and crew and be efficient in Americas main battle tank. M1A1/2 Abrams compared to Russia's T-55, or T-64. The point being the more complex the equipment the higher the cost, the longer it takes to build, equip and train the crew from scratch.

 

 

 

 

I looked for this article and the only one I found with those numbers was that Russia was hoping to reach 70% modernization by 2020, up from only 10% of its forces being considered modern in 2010.  I haven't been able to find any article that says Russia has modernized 70% of its armed forces.

The Russians made a strategic blunder in their modernization program, they focused too heavily on developing new weapon platforms instead of upgrading what they already had.  Long term creating new and better weapon platforms is generally better unless you suddenly are unable to afford it, like Russia, and have to cut defense spending by 12%.  A good example is their tank force, instead of upgrading most of their T-72s to T-72B3, or T-72B3M, they instead decide to invest large amount of money into the development of the T-14.  Instead of having thousands of modern tanks they now have about 16 modern tanks and this modernization continues through the entire Russian military.  

It may take longer to train a crew on more advanced equipment then equipment from five decades ago but it doesn't change the fact that the T-55, T-62, and T-64 would stand absolutely no chance against any modern tank.  While there is a certain strength to numbers quality is also equally important.  Any modern tank has greater range, better accuracy, far superior armor to the point that none of those tanks could pierce modern tank armor, and outgunned.  Those tanks would be slaughtered before they could even fire a shot not that it would even matter if they fire of a shot since it wouldn't do anything.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

I looked for this article and the only one I found with those numbers was that Russia was hoping to reach 70% modernization by 2020, up from only 10% of its forces being considered modern in 2010.  I haven't been able to find any article that says Russia has modernized 70% of its armed forces.

The Russians made a strategic blunder in their modernization program, they focused too heavily on developing new weapon platforms instead of upgrading what they already had.  Long term creating new and better weapon platforms is generally better unless you suddenly are unable to afford it, like Russia, and have to cut defense spending by 12%.  A good example is their tank force, instead of upgrading most of their T-72s to T-72B3, or T-72B3M, they instead decide to invest large amount of money into the development of the T-14.  Instead of having thousands of modern tanks they now have about 16 modern tanks and this modernization continues through the entire Russian military.  

It may take longer to train a crew on more advanced equipment then equipment from five decades ago but it doesn't change the fact that the T-55, T-62, and T-64 would stand absolutely no chance against any modern tank.  While there is a certain strength to numbers quality is also equally important.  Any modern tank has greater range, better accuracy, far superior armor to the point that none of those tanks could pierce modern tank armor, and outgunned.  Those tanks would be slaughtered before they could even fire a shot not that it would even matter if they fire of a shot since it wouldn't do anything.  

You promoted me to look for the article but i no longer have a subscription. Headed over to NATO's website and found a report similar to the figures you've used. differing only slightly, it is indeed 70% modern by 2020. 30% of this 70% target was achieved by 2014. What are the latest figures you've seen? Has the procurement programme accelerated over time and what's been delivered. you might be interested in the UK Defence committee report. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.