Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
I doubt that Sparky has defected to Russia, but he has long been frustrated with Army's resistance to adopting the Gavin name for the M113, and this does appear to be an application of Sparky's research into JATO powered M113s.
There is also that older picture of Sparky's cat in scaled testing:
I doubt that Sparky has defected to Russia, but he has long been frustrated with Army's resistance to adopting the Gavin name for the M113, and this does appear to be an application of Sparky's research into JATO powered M113s.
There is also that older picture of Sparky's cat in scaled testing:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]42602[/ATTACH]
Note To Self: Do not be drinking bottle water while looking at WAB. I just spewed water all over my monitors and keyboard.
Sparky...geebus!
“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
To a point that has to be accurate. We can't base our opinions on 20-30 years ago though, because then we become our own problem. American tank crews didn't fare well in a recent Nato tank training exercise....not even coming in the top 3.
Which would lead me to suspect that recent conflicts have caused a lack of funding in Tank warfare training for the US tank crews???
Apology's, above post was in reply to Tankie's post "Armata or ANY Tank is as good as the crew ,never forget that , 3k kills , 1st done by chally 1 1st gulf war 1991/2 , i believe firmly that the best tank trained crewmen are NATO trained , Brits being the cream of the crop of course ."
To a point that has to be accurate. We can't base our opinions on 20-30 years ago though, because then we become our own problem. American tank crews didn't fare well in a recent Nato tank training exercise....not even coming in the top 3.
Which would lead me to suspect that recent conflicts have caused a lack of funding in Tank warfare training for the US tank crews???
They were not training against Russians. Also, they are not sending their best teams. Look back, afaik, US never "won" these tourneys, yet whenever a need arise they do their job. Germans and Danes by their sheer numbers will be a breakfast for the RA sans NATO (US) AF.
No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
They were not training against Russians. Also, they are not sending their best teams. Look back, afaik, US never "won" these tourneys, yet whenever a need arise they do their job. Germans and Danes by their sheer numbers will be a breakfast for the RA sans NATO (US) AF.
Absolutely, I agree with you on the numbers issue. Europe doesn't stand a chance on its own. My question is more to do with resources due to recent conflicts that the US has been heavily involved in...Have they and UK etc allocated enough to training and maintaining a healthy deterrent to counter a very sizable Russian armored component?
Absolutely, I agree with you on the numbers issue. Europe doesn't stand a chance on its own. My question is more to do with resources due to recent conflicts that the US has been heavily involved in...Have they and UK etc allocated enough to training and maintaining a healthy deterrent to counter a very sizable Russian armored component?
Toby, I'm curious about that too. It seems that if they are trying to allocate adequate resources, that they're not doing a good enough job. Russia has massive military capabilities.
Toby, I'm curious about that too. It seems that if they are trying to allocate adequate resources, that they're not doing a good enough job. Russia has massive military capabilities.
Certainly on land Russia has a massive armoured capability. One which is not being addressed By Germany or the UK or France...Poland sounds seriously worried as do the Baltic countries, who can blame them?
To a point that has to be accurate. We can't base our opinions on 20-30 years ago though, because then we become our own problem. American tank crews didn't fare well in a recent Nato tank training exercise....not even coming in the top 3.
Which would lead me to suspect that recent conflicts have caused a lack of funding in Tank warfare training for the US tank crews???
I assume you're referring to the Strong Europe Tank Challenge?
The US tankers that participated came from the 7th Infantry Regiment, of the 3rd Infantry Division because they were already in Europe for Atlantic Resolve. It wasn't like we flew in a crack team from the the 1st Armored just to make the US look good.
A handful of guys placing behind the Germans or other NATO members in a 3 day exercise isn't anything to be ashamed of, nor is it indicative of the performance of the myriad Armored divisions the US fields. Believe it or not, the other members of NATO make good equipment, train hard, and are quite competent in their own right. The US tank crews who participated undoubtedly learned a lot and are now better for the experience.
This isn't the sort of thing you can use to generalize the state of US Armored divisions.
Certainly on land Russia has a massive armoured capability. One which is not being addressed By Germany or the UK or France...Poland sounds seriously worried as do the Baltic countries, who can blame them?
Are Germany, UK, France, etc. assuming that US will act as a strong enough deterrent for them? It seems that constructivist theory could adequately explain that if it's the case. But it seems not to make sense. What do you think?
Are Germany, UK, France, etc. assuming that US will act as a strong enough deterrent for them? It seems that constructivist theory could adequately explain that if it's the case. But it seems not to make sense. What do you think?
I can only speak from a UK stand point. I think recent conflicts have distracted us from taking Russia seriously as a threat. Consequently resources have been diverted else where. I'm speaking purely in terms of Arms procurement
I can only speak from a UK stand point. I think recent conflicts have distracted us from taking Russia seriously as a threat. Consequently resources have been diverted else where. I'm speaking purely in terms of Arms procurement
I guess they can base their emphasis on arms procurement on Russia's strength and deterring them or they can base their emphasis on arms procurement on probability of conflict with Russia or others.
I assume you're referring to the Strong Europe Tank Challenge?
The US tankers that participated came from the 7th Infantry Regiment, of the 3rd Infantry Division because they were already in Europe for Atlantic Resolve. It wasn't like we flew in a crack team from the the 1st Armored just to make the US look good.
A handful of guys placing behind the Germans or other NATO members in a 3 day exercise isn't anything to be ashamed of, nor is it indicative of the performance of the myriad Armored divisions the US fields. Believe it or not, the other members of NATO make good equipment, train hard, and are quite competent in their own right. The US tank crews who participated undoubtedly learned a lot and are now better for the experience.
This isn't the sort of thing you can use to generalize the state of US Armored divisions.
I think the Tank just got prioritized yet again in it 100 year history...UK Challenger 2 although limited in numbers is now getting a refit and there is only one reason for that "Russia"
I guess they can base their emphasis on arms procurement on Russia's strength and deterring them or they can base their emphasis on arms procurement on probability of conflict with Russia or others.
To decrease the probability of conflict you have to demonstrate intent.
Comment