New major military powers

[kato]

I always thought that the U.S, Britian and France pretty much handled this type of mission on their own.

It's really rather restricted, especially as tactical nukes go. Afaik the only NATO members still taking part in "Nuclear Sharing" are Germany and Italy, both using American nukes. It used to be a whole lot more - in particular when the Nike-Hercules networks were still around pre-80s. During that time, about every NATO operator of Nike-Hercules also operated nukes - Greece, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Belgium and Turkey, to be exact.

 

[swerve]

The most logistic problems Europeans would face is the fact that the equipment would not be usable for many army's since most do not use the standard ammunition , not that they would find a hard time supplying the army

You really don't know the first thing about NATO, do you?

For your information, most do use "the standard ammunition". Until it took in some ex-Warsaw Pact members, all the NATO countries combined used fewer calibres for each of artillery, tank guns & mortars than the Russian army on its own, & except for British 120mm rifled tank guns, you'd be hard-pressed to find any piece of ordnance that couldn't use the ammunition of any other of the same type & calibre. There are NATO standards on these things, & most of the European neutrals have, for their own reasons, adopted them.

 

[XaNDeR]

You really don't know the first thing about NATO, do you?

For your information, most do use "the standard ammunition". Until it took in some ex-Warsaw Pact members, all the NATO countries combined used fewer calibres for each of artillery, tank guns & mortars than the Russian army on its own, & except for British 120mm rifled tank guns, you'd be hard-pressed to find any piece of ordnance that couldn't use the ammunition of any other of the same type & calibre. There are NATO standards on these things, & most of the European neutrals have, for their own reasons, adopted them.

And you just don't understand anything do you , tell me how many country's from the former Warsaw pact uses NATO standard ammunition ? Not to mention other country's in Europe that are not in NATO , do I need to remind you we are talking about United Europe for god sakes , not NATO , do you know how many country's in europe would have a problem with that?

 

[Waylander]

The british 120mm problem is fading away with them replacing their L30 rifled gun with the L/55 smoothbore gun.

Do we really need to include every small eastern europe country into that?
Most of europes power does not lies in the east.

 

[kato]

Most EU countries use NATO-standard ammunition and logistics.

You can separate Europe into blocks still with that:
- WEU members (NATO standard)
- former WP having joined NATO (all moving to NATO standard in most regards)
- former EFTA members (NATO standard)
- former neutrals moving towards NATO standard (Finland)
- the rest consisting of the CIS, former Yugoslavia, and Albania.

Also, consider that the EU forms battlegroups with logistics in mind. There won't be any mixing of tanks using 120mm and 125mm in a single battlegroup. Or mainstay assault rifles in both 5.56x45 and 7.62x39.

swerve:
I could call a couple identical-caliber guns that can't use the same ammunition. Especially with regard to low-pressure/mid-pressure/high-pressure/ultra-high-pressure guns in the 90-120mm range. Though a lot of that has been resolved in the last 15-20 years, usually by just switching to NATO standard (example: AMX-10RC originally used a mid-pressure 105mm gun by Giat not compatible with 105mm NATO - by now they've been refitted with new turrets mounting high-pressure 105mm NATO guns).

 

[f-22fan12]

Im sorry but you are so far from reality that its not even funny!




You mean 9700 T-72?
And where did those 2000 T-62's go?

The total number of Eurofighters ordered does not mean anything , currently they have nowhere near that number..

Nobody said Europe Would Defeat Russia , your dreaming , if most 2 people said that it would not be so easy to defeat Europe because the lack of logistics which i have agreed with , but again nobody said Europe would defeat Russia's military.

And yet again the 10th time I say the same thing , this scenario is imposible in every way possible , so why are we even discusing it

2000 T-62s??? You consider THAT a modern tank? nfloorl: That would lose easily in battle. Its obvious.

Enough with the Topic. I still don't like Russia's military though. And no matter what, I'll always denounce its capability.

 

[Waylander]

2000 T-62s??? You consider THAT a modern tank? nfloorl: That would lose easily in battle. Its obvious.

Enough with the Topic. I still don't like Russia's military though. And no matter what, I'll always denounce its capability.

Maybe than you should stay away from a serious discussion...

 

[kato]

2000 T-62s??? You consider THAT a modern tank? nfloorl: That would lose easily in battle. Its obvious.

You know, a lot of countries consider the Leopard 1 (!) modern. Or an "upgrade" to their current capability. Same for the AMX-30 (especially in the B2 version). And a whole lot of countries still drive around in "modern" M48A5 and M60A3 tanks.
Against any of those, i wouldn't necessarily bet against a T-62 if it's upgraded in the same amount as these tanks.

 

[swerve]

And you just don't understand anything do you , tell me how many country's from the former Warsaw pact uses NATO standard ammunition ? Not to mention other country's in Europe that are not in NATO , do I need to remind you we are talking about United Europe for god sakes , not NATO , do you know how many country's in europe would have a problem with that?

You said "most". That is untrue. The non-NATO W. European countries (Sweden, Finland, Switzerland) use mostly NATO-compatible ordnance. Yet again, you display your ignorance. The exceptions are, as I said, the ex-WP countries, & also Albania, & the former Yugoslavia (in part).

You haven't talked at any point about a united Europe before this. You've talked solely in terms of the manpower & weapons holdings of W. European NATO countries, disregarding all the E. European countries. Interesting how you suddenly change your tune now. In the light of this new attitude of yours, we should go back & add the large but decrepit arsenals of Ukraine & Belarus to the European totals. That's another 5500 tanks & 550 combat aircraft, not counting those in store. Now, let's add Turkey, which you have ignored up to this point. Whoops! 4200 more tanks & 445 combat aircraft. Not looking good for you, is it? We've just added almost 10000 tanks & 1000 combat aircraft to the European total.

 

[eckherl]

Most NATO members ammunition is compatible, and the ones joining are working on getting this resolved so that they fit into the grand scheme of things also.

We will see the T-62 and T - 55 soldiering on for quite some time with modifications.

 

[XaNDeR]

You said "most". That is untrue. The non-NATO W. European countries (Sweden, Finland, Switzerland) use mostly NATO-compatible ordnance. Yet again, you display your ignorance. The exceptions are, as I said, the ex-WP countries, & also Albania, & the former Yugoslavia (in part).

You haven't talked at any point about a united Europe before this. You've talked solely in terms of the manpower & weapons holdings of W. European NATO countries, disregarding all the E. European countries. Interesting how you suddenly change your tune now. In the light of this new attitude of yours, we should go back & add the large but decrepit arsenals of Ukraine & Belarus to the European totals. That's another 5500 tanks & 550 combat aircraft, not counting those in store. Now, let's add Turkey, which you have ignored up to this point. Whoops! 4200 more tanks & 445 combat aircraft. Not looking good for you, is it? We've just added almost 10000 tanks & 1000 combat aircraft to the European total.

Turkey is as much asian as european , so i don't know if you can count her in , but this chat consisted about europe vs , why did you not consider other nations outside NATO then? and again ur pointing out the same thing im saying for 4 posts already about former wp. republics and some other country's , and say i am ignorant

 

[Waylander]

With Turkey being a NATO member and trying to join the EU I see them much more belonging to europe than to asia, especially when it goes against russia.

And you should try to get what Swerve has to say.
The main body of the Europe is in NATO or uses NATO compatible equipment with the former WarPac countries now being part of NATO go on getting their armed forces onto NATO standards.

You discuss in a very strange way.
As said before you thrwo in lonely items (like MiG-31) without outlining the bigger picture in which they are used or in what quality and quantity they are fielded or you make bold statements without any serious backup.

Your statement about the lack of european ASW assets and the overall strenght of the russian navy is such a statement.
It is pure BS and one doesn't know were to start.

The russian navy in the black sea is blocked. They are not going to get through the Bosporus.

The russian navy in the baltic sea faces is also blocked. How many surface and sub units do the russians have there which are able to leave the harbor?
Those forces cannot pass the danish isles without getting their asses handed over to them by Polish, German and Danish Naval forces (And I am not even including Sweden or Finland).

Leaves the northern fleet.
How many of their ships can leave the harbor and how much training is done...?
You argue that russian subs are going to mop up the ASW-weak euro navies.
Hmm, let me think about it.
What is your definition of ASW-weak?
Have you tried to count the ASW surface assets as well as the SSKs/SSNs and maritime surveillance planes in european service?

BTW, the B-1B Lancer is an US Bomber. I think you mean the Tu-160 Blackjack. It formes together with the Bears and Backfires the bomb force of russia.

 

[XaNDeR]

With Turkey being a NATO member and trying to join the EU I see them much more belonging to europe than to asia, especially when it goes against russia.

And you should try to get what Swerve has to say.
The main body of the Europe is in NATO or uses NATO compatible equipment with the former WarPac countries now being part of NATO go on getting their armed forces onto NATO standards.

You discuss in a very strange way.
As said before you thrwo in lonely items (like MiG-31) without outlining the bigger picture in which they are used or in what quality and quantity they are fielded or you make bold statements without any serious backup.

Your statement about the lack of european ASW assets and the overall strenght of the russian navy is such a statement.
It is pure BS and one doesn't know were to start.

The russian navy in the black sea is blocked. They are not going to get through the Bosporus.

The russian navy in the baltic sea faces is also blocked. How many surface and sub units do the russians have there which are able to leave the harbor?
Those forces cannot pass the danish isles without getting their asses handed over to them by Polish, German and Danish Naval forces (And I am not even including Sweden or Finland).

Leaves the northern fleet.
How many of their ships can leave the harbor and how much training is done...?
You argue that russian subs are going to mop up the ASW-weak euro navies.
Hmm, let me think about it.
What is your definition of ASW-weak?
Have you tried to count the ASW surface assets as well as the SSKs/SSNs and maritime surveillance planes in european service?

BTW, the B-1B Lancer is an US Bomber. I think you mean the Tu-160 Blackjack. It formes together with the Bears and Backfires the bomb force of russia.

Hm when did i say B-1B Lancer?

There is no doubt in my mind that the surface fleet of russia is in bad shape, but I didnt mention it.
I remember that I highly said that the biggest problem european navy's are gonna face is Backfire's and I dont see what counter they gonna have against them , but you can explain if you know how they can counter it.

And bear in mind that eurofighters countering them is not as easy as it seems , as russians could sneak some subs and target europe airfields with ballistic missiles

 

[Snayke]

So tell me again why the majority of troops in Europe aren't using NATO ammuniation? I'd imagine the NATO armies would make up a large chunk of any European armed forces, hence there's no real problem. And even if some units did not use NATO ammo, it's as simple as switching guns and handing out ammunition. They can use their own ammunition until they are able to switch over to NATO ammo.

 

[swerve]

Turkey is as much asian as european , so i don't know if you can count her in , but this chat consisted about europe vs , why did you not consider other nations outside NATO then? and again ur pointing out the same thing im saying for 4 posts already about former wp. republics and some other country's , and say i am ignorant

I (& most others) have explicitly included non-NATO EU countries. You, on the other hand have discussed this issue in terms of armed forces strengths which were below the strengths of the W. European NATO countries alone.

You shift your ground with every new post. Firstly, you say an undefined "Europe" is much weaker militarily than Russia, because it has far fewer weapons. Your counts of weapons obviously excluded E. European non-NATO countries. Now, in order to justify a claim that your (still undefined) Europe would be weaker because of organisational & logistical incompatabilities, you include those countries. You have thereby invalidated your previous arguments.

Now, put up or shut up. What do you define as the "Europe" which you consider weaker than Russia?

 

[swerve]

...russians could sneak some subs and target europe airfields with ballistic missiles

How many submarine-launched ballistic missiles does Russia have with conventional warheads? Probably zero.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Hm when did i say B-1B Lancer?

Post 213 in this thread...

however Europe has not a single strategic bomber , while Russia has Bear Bombers , capable of 15.000 km range without refuel!
B-1 Bombers , and Tu-22 Backfire's.

ok? Perhaps you meant TU 160 Blackjack???? They do look very similar...

There is no doubt in my mind that the surface fleet of russia is in bad shape, but I didnt mention it.
I remember that I highly said that the biggest problem european navy's are gonna face is Backfire's and I dont see what counter they gonna have against them , but you can explain if you know how they can counter it.

And bear in mind that eurofighters countering them is not as easy as it seems , as russians could sneak some subs and target europe airfields with ballistic missiles

Again it depends on the sircumstances of the deployment. Lets say the Russians were moving down the norwegan coast and the french and british sent an aphibious task force to support the norwegans. Fist of all the russians would have to locate the task force. They have the good old bear D for that with huge endurance, decent ESM and the Big Buldge radar they are capable MPA/maratime ISR assets. I doubt the russians would still have RORSAT's operational (Radar Ocean Reconacence Satelite) so they would be relying on the bears as their primary ISR asset. They could utilise SSN's for the task, which could alert the russians to general location of the task force but this wouldn't be enough for a backfire raid. And i'm pretty sure the russians (or soviet anyway) dectorine was to use airborne sensors for target locations, SSN/SSK are purely intended to attack the target. So they would have to have a few of them out in the north atlantic. The french would have an E2 up over the task force who's emmitions would be detected by the Bear's ESM suite a fair way out, well outside of detection range. But detecting the E2 is no were near enough for a missile shot, let alone a low altitude missile shot. The Backfires would have to use their own search radars which would make them vulnerable for a while. Rafales may have some chance of intercepting the Backfires before they reach launch range but not much. At this range the Backfires could be carrying 2-3 Sunburns, kitchens, Kingfish or whatever AShM's Ivan's using these days depending on their warstocks. With a regiment sized attack your looking at 60~90 incoming AShM's. Thats going to be tough for even Typhe 45's to handle.

But if you move the whole scenario further south into the north sea or mid atlantic, the Backfires can only carry 1 missle each, need to tank twice in the mid atlantic whcih means lots of radio communications that can be detected by ESM and makes the tankers vulnerable to nowegan interception. It also means they have to attack from a single bearing, pretty much due north. With land based E3 cover detection ranges and the radar horizon are greatly increased over just the E2, and Typhoon/Rafale CAP can be positioned "up threat" or north greatly increasing the chance of interception before missle launch range is achieved. And this isn't considering the effect of a reactivation of NAS Keflavik and RAF Typhoons or Tornadoes being stationed there. In such a case any backfire raid or bear D's would have to fight their way into the atlantic and unless Keflavik was eliminated early i dont like their chances. Its a whole different ball game.

As far as a russian balistic missile attack taking out british airfields, its possible i guess, but so is a tomahawk strike against the russian airfields in murmansk. Backfires are more irreplacable than a few typhoons, tornadoes could do the job of bomber killing about as well, badgers on the other hand would be fish in a barell for rafales.

Im afraid its not so simple Ozzy , if i might , considering the logistics that would be involved only the 38th and 39th guard army could theoreticaly go past 100 miles into russia , and since the treaty makes both russian and chinese army to be at least 100 miles from the respetive boarder , means that if china would send their 38th and 39th guard army over the boarder , the russians would already know whats going on , and they would already have divisions and gun batalions ready and they would literaly destroy them

i didn't think i was making a simple statement??? I do believe i said in general terms if the russians could concentrate and logisticly sustain large operations in a limited conflict i would put my money on the russians, i didnt comment on the taticle employment of either side's forces. It seems you made a simple statement asserting that if the chinese attacked, because of the de facto DMZ the russians would be prepared and therefore would decemate the advancing chinese forces..... Which is kind of at odds with what i was saying.

 

[Incognito129]

Sorry, mate, you're talking about a theoretical model which might work when you're modelling it on a computer, but has bugger-all to do with the real world. You've mentioned PPP: do you know what the GDP per capita of Japan is at PPP now? And what it was in 1990? I suggest you go & check, then adjust your theories about convergence. Technological determinism is nonsense. It takes no account of institutional frameworks, resource endowment, nor any of a million human factors. Why hasn't Africa converged on Europe & the USA, for example? Solow may have got a Nobel prize, but that doesn't mean he was infallible, & exogenous growth theory should be taken with a bucketful of salt.

If you don't know what I mean by needing to find a different growth mechanism, you've either not been paying attention in your studies or your teachers should be sacked & replaced by some competent ones. Ever heard of diminishing returns? You should have done. Not much return from an investment in an oilfield which has been sucked dry, is there?

Russias current growth mechanism is the exploitation of natural resources, particularly oil & gas. This has a limited future. Russia needs to find a different source of growth in order to keep growing beyond that limit. There is no sign at present of that happening. How does that sound?

Africa hasn't reached convergence because it doesn't have any capital going towards it.

Solow model is the basis of all macroeconomics. If you had actually studied economics instead of reading about it on wikipedia you'd realize how your argument doesn't even apply here. I dont even know where to begin but wikipedia education doesn't cut it.

What you've mentioned is not a growth mechanism. This term doesn't even get factored into economics. Sure there are different ways countries can reach convergence but its not a growth mechanism, its called specialization. There is only 1 way to grow and that is with investment.

 

[f-22fan12]

The british 120mm problem is fading away with them replacing their L30 rifled gun with the L/55 smoothbore gun.

Do we really need to include every small eastern europe country into that?
Most of europes power does not lies in the east.

I agree, it lies in the West.

 

[f-22fan12]

Maybe than you should stay away from a serious discussion...

Not that serious, just having fun. (about denouncing Russia)