Stan187

Remember this advice for dealing with trolls my man, the ignore list is your friend.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

Firral

You are right, however pay attention, that these seven or eight shells could not make anything! The reason: shells were too weak what to punch protection at a great distance. Your shells easily destroyed their tanks on this distance. You represent moral spirit of the Iraq tankmen (if they have remained are alive)?
On close distance you simply did not admit them. On your party there was an aircraft, satellites and excellent communication. This all speaks about your excellent tactics, but not that does not speak that all this was possible in the USSR.
Speaking that war in Iraq has shown opportunities of the USSR, you resemble the person who beats the teenager, and then speaks that it also is ready to beat any adult person.
About 105mm gun. This gun could struggle easily with Т-55, Т-62 and Т-72A. However to 1985 in the USSR have started to be made T-72B, T-80B, (and it is fast and T-72BV T-80BV T-80U), and against them on greater distances 105мм gun was weak. Therefore it has been replaced on 120мм gun.

__________________

Bella

This is for the military pros!
Head-to-head, how would the Russian tank divisions, and artillery, deal with a American assault from UAV's armed with hellfire missiles, B-2 bombers, and A-10 Thunderbolts? Their combined use and effectiveness has showed to be devastating in the past with the Abrams to clean up.

Thanks!

T_igger_cs_30

__________________
FEAR NAUGHT

I don't work here ...I am an analyst!

Stan187

What time period do you mean? I'm guessing today since you mention UCAVs, but where is the prospective battleground, since the US and Russia today aren't really projected to fight anytime soon.

Bella

Sorry! Yes, in today's period of time. The battleground would be a mixture of open field and forest. Cover would be open to very dense.
Also, the area would be neutral, with no home field advantage to each side.

Thanks!

Stan187

A good answer requires a better setup. The more you can flesh it out, the better someone can answer you. There is no homefield advantage? Then what are they fighing over. Someone is usually defending and someone attacking, it makes a bit of a difference. Think about it, for example if you're using A-10s to hit Russian armor... If Americans are defending, it is a lot easier to keep friendly casualties down by hitting Russian follow on forces. But if Americans are attacking and there are some brigade size groups well behind the front line and intermixed with Russian reserve elements, then it changes how the A-10 operates, its priorities, what it can and can't shoot at. Try to understand, if a question is not extremely specific, an answer can turn out to be a short essay, there are just THAT many factors involved, and we're not getting into the meat and potatoes, which is to say disputing my opinion with someone else's.

braindead

In today´s context - if US has currently what ~ 20 Predator -derivative UAV-s ? that can carry say 2 Hellfire-s each , then a Russian tank division would not even notice them .
Never ever is B-2 bomber (with it´s price tag) going to do tactical bombing in such situation . This is like using Keyhole satellite to take picture of your familiy picnic.

__________________
....

T_igger_cs_30

VarSity

Wasnt the B2 only mega expensive because they built so few of them?

I though the idea was for there to be many hundreds and thus get the costs down.

Triple C

I suspect B2's primary mission was nuking. It definately makes a good first strike weapon.

__________________
What benefits the body is called medicine; what benefits the soul, discipline.
-Augustine of Hippo

Silent Hunter

The B-2 had c.135 planned, but only 21 were built, hence the big per-unit cost (much of the cost was R&D). It was originally designed for nuclear attack, yes. I believe crews still train for that.

Bad Karma

Firral.

мой русский учитель был tankist.
Morale основан на он сказал.

I do not understand as you can compare these two armies!!! The army of Iraq has what similarity to army of the USSR???

- только, такие же оружия. ничего больше. я знаю его точно такие же, однако, я знаю ваши возможности вашей армии. вы только знаете ваше правительство сказало вам.

Silent Hunter

He's not comparing them. He's commenting that the Soviet military was far superior to that of the Iraq and that just because you beat a teenager, it doesn't mean that you can take on an adult.

Firral

Give those nevertheless in English (though I probably very badly write).
I have already explained to you why the weapon was not that in the USSR. Besides, the army had absolutely other level of preparation and a moral spirit. And it is very important.
In occasion of that that you know, and that I know.
In the first (contrary to opinion in the West) - I have access to any resources on the Internet, any TV to programs and any books. I do not understand, why I know " only what has told to me, my government "? Times of the Iron Curtain has ended 18 years ago!!!
Secondly, I doubt of your knowledge because of your statement about the weapon of Iraq too as in the USSR that time. It more resembles propagation of your government, than on an objective estimation of a situation.