India, Pakistan, and Kashmir

#151
#151
05_never_again said:
Russia would have no chance in a conventional war against NATO. That isn't to say they couldn't/wouldn't inflict big losses (they would), but they'd have zero chance of winning a conflict.
Click to expand...

They can absorb big losses as well.

I couldn't imagine what a Soviet-American war would have been like immediately after WWII if it kicked off.
 
#153
#153
Burhead said:
The Indian's MiG-21 Bison upgrade is expected to remain in operational service until 2025, it was the same aircraft that shot down the Pakistani F-16 (which I know isn't the newest) but still is impressive). Like you said the Russian military isn't the same rusting out junk heap that it was in the 1990s. Putin has invested billions into it. It definitely has the power to go toe to toe with NATO (especially in an armor engagement) in a conventional fight but I'm not sure how long the Russians could sustain it though because I'm not sure how good there logistics are.
Click to expand...



India Shows Proof U.S. Made F-16s And AIM-120 Missiles Were Used By Pakistan In Aerial Brawl
 
#154
#154
None taken, GV. I am certainly no expert on russian tech. Just an "airforce brat" if you very, very loosely interpret that moniker. I never lived with my dad or on base, just spent summers with him growing up. My whole family is USAF though...my mom spent most of her early childhood on base in the phillipines because her dad did 26 years and retired a master sergeant, extremely pissed that he never made chief. He loaded bombs on planes during korea and early? Viet nam. Best man i ever knew, think of him all the time. He wore his uniform to my dads funeral, and saluted him as they presented my mom with the flag and fired the rifles. Then a couple months later, he passed too. 2018 was a terrible year for my family.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWR
#155
#155
05_never_again said:
Not like we could, and we'd have the ability to inflict more losses on them.
Click to expand...

The problem was, we could not have hit their industry from anywhere in Europe we controlled. They backed it up past the Ural Mountains which was beyond the range of the B-29s of the time.

Germany was somewhat "easier" to destroy from an industrial standpoint since the factories and whatnot were within range of our bombers.

As for today, I wouldn't bet against Russia...
 
#156
#156
Grand Vol said:
The problem was, we could not have hit their industry from anywhere in Europe we controlled. They backed it up past the Ural Mountains which was beyond the range of the B-29s of the time.

Germany was somewhat "easier" to destroy from an industrial standpoint since the factories and whatnot were within range of our bombers.

As for today, I wouldn't bet against Russia...
Click to expand...
You wouldn't bet against them, what, winning a war against NATO? Just look at the relative amount of resources. How in the hell could they win such a conflict?

I think most people know the United States has the most powerful military on Earth, but I don't think many know just how powerful it is relative to the rest of the world. The US military, especially if in concert with NATO, has a global reach and ability to deliver a blow within that reach that surpasses any other country's ability so far it'll make your head spin. That's a huge reason why Russia resists NATO expansion in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#159
#159
hog88 said:
We don't have the will to absorb the massive losses we would incur.
Click to expand...
If it meant preventing a Russian invasion of Europe, we would. You can find the will to do about anything if the stakes are high enough.

We don't, and shouldn't, have the will to take losses to prevent them from annexing Crimea though.
 
#160
#160
05_never_again said:
If it meant preventing a Russian invasion of Europe, we would. You can find the will to do about anything if the stakes are high enough.

We don't, and shouldn't, have the will to take losses to prevent them from annexing Crimea though.
Click to expand...

As a country I don't think we do. We lose 10-15,000 troops in a couple weeks there would be protests on the street calling for us to let them have it. Could you imagine how the general public would react today to the Normandy invasion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RDU VOL#14 and FLVOL_79
#163
#163
FLVOL_79 said:
Its nice to see our mostly ground support planes being used in dog fighting again.
Click to expand...
If I am not mistaken India is looking to possibly buy F16’s and production line may even be moved to India
I cannot imagine India buying a plane used by their arch nemesis
 
#164
#164
hog88 said:
As a country I don't think we do. We lose 10-15,000 troops in a couple weeks there would be protests on the street calling for us to let them have it. Could you imagine how the general public would react today to the Normandy invasion?
Click to expand...
Depends on what the stakes are. I think the public was aware of what the stakes were of losing WWII and were willing to endure what it took to win. Remember, the United States was coming out of an isolationist period during the 20s, 30s, and 40s. We didn't get involved in WWI until late. We didn't get involved in WWII until Pearl Harbor was bombed and even then some wanted to fight Japan only. Yet we knew what the stakes were.

I think you're dead wrong that the public wouldn't want to fight Russia if they mounted an invasion of Europe, and after 10k losses would say "Who cares, let them have it all the way to Spain." But in no universe is that going to happen, so it isn't even worth debating.

They aren't willing to endure very much when the stakes aren't high or are unclear. Why should they be?
 
#166
#166
05_never_again said:
Depends on what the stakes are. I think the public was aware of what the stakes were of losing WWII and were willing to endure what it took to win. Remember, the United States was coming out of an isolationist period during the 20s, 30s, and 40s. We didn't get involved in WWI until late. We didn't get involved in WWII until Pearl Harbor was bombed and even then some wanted to fight Japan only. Yet we knew what the stakes were.

I think you're dead wrong that the public wouldn't want to fight Russia if they mounted an invasion of Europe, and after 10k losses would say "Who cares, let them have it all the way to Spain." But in no universe is that going to happen, so it isn't even worth debating.

They aren't willing to endure very much when the stakes aren't high or are unclear. Why should they be?
Click to expand...

We have two entirely different reads on the US population.
 
#167
#167
Orangeburst65 said:
If I am not mistaken India is looking to possibly buy F16’s and production line may even be moved to India
I cannot imagine India buying a plane used by their arch nemesis
Click to expand...
Lockheed Martin is developing a highly specialized F16 specifically for India known as the F21.

F-21
 
#168
#168
hog88 said:
We have two entirely different reads on the US population.
Click to expand...
The US population is far less isolationist today than it was during WWII, and we had the will during WWII.

What the population doesn't have the will for are large causalities in conflicts where the ultimate threat posed to the US is unclear, like Vietnam or Iraq.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#171
#171
05_never_again said:
Russia would have no chance in a conventional war against NATO. That isn't to say they couldn't/wouldn't inflict big losses (they would), but they'd have zero chance of winning a conflict.
Click to expand...
Maybe if it was Russia alone. What if China has their back?

The 2nd and 3rd most powerful militaries in the world teaming up would be catastrophic.
 
#172
#172
Oh, and another thought, if we were to get into a ground war with Russia to prevent an invasion, China might seize the opportunity to attack our ships in the South China Sea.
 
Last edited:
#173
#173
Matt2496 said:
Maybe if it was Russia alone. What if China has their back?

The 2nd and 3rd most powerful militaries in the world teaming up would be catastrophic.
Click to expand...
The combined forces of #2 and #4 (Russia is actually #4) pale in comparison to #1 or NATO.

Also, why would China have Russia's back in an invasion of Europe anyway?
 
#174
#174
The United States has a defense budget that is 9.2x bigger than Russia's AND we spend a smaller percentage of our GDP to get there (3.1% vs. 4.3%). They simply are not a "keep you up at night" threat, period. The United States doesn't have one.
 
#175
#175
Grand Vol said:
They can absorb big losses as well.

I couldn't imagine what a Soviet-American war would have been like immediately after WWII if it kicked off.
Click to expand...
doubtful. they have what, half the population? they might stomach losses better than we can, but they can't "absorb" them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 05_never_again
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top