I doubt there’s going to be much in the way of tank vs. tank confrontations. Weren’t sensor-fuzed weapons like the CBU-97 invented for the purpose of taking out large numbers of tanks from the air at a time?
Anyone who claims they know how well a weapon system will work in battle is lying (and probably trying to sell you a weapon system). These guesses are made based on trial runs which have very little connection with genuine wartime conditions. The only way you find out how well your weapons work is to use them in a war.
It’s not always about having the most high-tech systems either. There have been plenty of examples of high-tech systems that can’t function effectively in field conditions and need to be replaced with more old-fashioned systems that work more reliably.
So much wrong here, I almost don’t know where to begin.
The T-34 and KV-1 were in service at the start of the war, not after years of warfare and came as quite a nasty surprise to the Germans during Barbarossa who previously had no idea the Russians had tanks that heavy.
You mean the export models lacking such niceties as DU ammunition and crewed by one of the worst armies in history didn’t stand up well? Color me unsurprised. Why is it every time someone says Western tanks they really mean Western tanks from the mid-late 80s onwards? All this talk of the great superiority of Western tanks starts with the M-1 and contemporaries. What about the M-60? The M-48?
Hardly a surprise since Iran also had 454 AIM-54 Phoenix missiles for their F-14s, which completely outranged anything Iraq had. Oh, and one was lost to a MiG-21:
The F-4 and F-5 are hardly “much older” planes than the F-14. The F-4 was barely older and the F-5 was its contemporary, remaining in production until 1987, the F-14 until 1991.
Anyone who underestimates the sophistication of Russian and Chinese mail line aircraft is in for a major awakening. I have no idea what the US has hidden under the cloak of secrecy in the electronics area, but aircraft to aircraft, the Russian planes will hold their own and then some. Our own F-22 was a bust, and I’m hearing the F-35 is equally bad when it comes to air combat. Doesn’t a Mig hold the world altitude record for an aircraft that took off under it’s own power, at something over 120,000 feet? I’m not sure the U2 can even go that high.
In what sense?
That’s not really relevant to combat.
We can deploy exactly 1740 tanks, by counting up the number of Heavy/Armored Brigade Combat Teams in the Army (13)and National Guard (7) and multiplying by 87 each (29 tanks per battalion, 3 battalions per heavy BCT).
There are also some 4000-ish tanks stored in the desert, awaiting refurbishment.
So like DinoR was saying, trained crews are going to be the important thing, although I disagree about one thing, and think that they’re the key in any timeframe- it almost certainly takes longer to train a competent tank crew than it does to build a tank, and probably costs more money too.
Things like the super secret radar evading coating being defeated by rain.
*However, rain caused “shorts and failures in sophisticated electrical components” when F-22s were posted to Guam.[196]
*
It is foreseeable that an all-weather aircraft may occasionally see rain.
It is when you wonder why your U2 is missing.
Morgenstern : IIRC the T-72s (and 68s ?) also had autoloaders, but they were plagued with jamming problems and had the additional drawback that the shells had to be stored all around the turret cupola, hence the characteristic (and spectacular) ejection of the whole turret (cum gunner…) whenever enemy fire caused one shell to detonate prematurely and start a domino reaction.
I expect they’ve hammered out these “kinks” by now though - IIRC the T95 while based on the T-72 chassis has a whole new turret, and it includes pretty strong active countermeasures (beefy IR jammers, automated smoke projectors, ablative armour plates and even some anti-antitank missile projectile thingies)
[QUOTE=Dissonance]
You mean the export models lacking such niceties as DU ammunition and crewed by one of the worst armies in history didn’t stand up well? Color me unsurprised.
[/QUOTE]
Also the export models fighting under 100% US air supremacy, constant sat surveillance relayed in not-quite-but-almost-real-time, AND with a heavy numbers disadvantage… which is sorta kinda relevant, y’know, peripherally :rolleyes:, to the whole tank-on-tank duel topic.
The Iraqi T-72s could have been hardened uranium tanks from Mars firing Sun-hot plasma, they’d still have gotten rolled in these conditions, c’mon.
[QUOTE=adaher]
Then there’s Israel’s 80-1 shootdown rate in the Lebanon war against Syria’s air force. I realize there’s a difference in training, but how much better are the Russians? 20-1? 10-1? Either way it’ll go badly for them.
[/QUOTE]
Well, for one thing they don’t use Mig-21s anymore, their planes have gasp actual onboard radars ! And fuel ! And even mid-range missiles (mid-range IR missiles that don’t rely on radar at all, even) ! That hit things !
Turns out, those are all apparently good things to have, I 'unno. Mig-21s are hella cheap though, and they’re p. cool against defenceless Kurds.
Also the Russians have their own AWACS copies. And y’all don’t have the reach advantage of the Phoenix no more. And the Su-27 is on par with the F-22 re: manoeuvrability and speed (while also being able to carry more stuff). And they used to be (dunno if that’s still true) leagues ahead of the US in the “firing missiles other than straight forward” department, which is pretty good in a dogfight - not that dogfight are really a Thing any more, but still.
With the A-10 mothballed, the Russians also have a very definite edge when it comes to ground pounding (don’t say “F-35”. Just don’t :)).
So, yeah. Bottomline : Russian Air Force ? Emphatically not Iraqi. Lots more force multipliers. Plus an air defence apparatus worth a fuck, worth at least 4 or 5 fucks in fact.
I feel forced to give **adaher **another explanation of why F-14 vs. MIG-21 is not representative : that’s like boasting that an NBA pro has outdunked Tiger Woods. It’s expected, sure, it’s also not indicative of the worthlessness of Tiger Woods.
The Mig-21 is first of all a beast of a different era (they were flying over Viet-Nam, son. And kicking y’alls asses at that, one might add) and was built for shotgun-range dogfighting and rapid interception. At which task it is somewhat good - not excellent by modern standards, but a good driver could give anyone a run for their money… provided the engagement started somewhere around point blank 
(or at least visual range).
The F-14 was built almost specifically in a “fuck dogfights, seriously” direction. Its entire point and design was to identify, paint and shoot down targets long before aerodynamic characteristics or eyesight could even come into play. It’s a missile boat, and a pig of a missile boat at that. But it did succeed in its narrow scope. Against warplanes from an earlier era.
But again, that’s like pitting a modern F1 race car against one of these. Sure, they’re technically both “F1 race cars”… but they’re really not.
Anyone who underestimates the Russian air force, and the caliber of pilots it has is in for a major surprise. The US and Russia have been playing one upsmanship since the Mig 15 outclassed the F-80s in Korea. (leading to the F-86) The Russians are a formidable force to say the least.
Indeed. Comparing the Israeli-Arab conflicts to a USA-Russia conflict is just bananas. There is no comparison at all between Arab armed forces and Russia’s.
Anyway, the problem is not so much kill ratio as the sheer lethality of a NATO-Russia battlespace. Both sides would lose the great majority of their combat airplanes, and lose them quickly. Any air-to-air advantage NATO would have, and I doubt it’s that massive, would be matched by Russia’s very impressive air defence capabilities.
Consider this; in the Gulf War, the Iraqis shot down 44 Allied aicraft, at least 43 of them with surface to air weapons (one F-18 might or might not have been shot down by an Iraqi fighter; it’s not precisely known.) The Russians could do a hell of a lot better than 44. 440 is a closer guess, I’d suspect, with surface to air weaponry alone.
Both sides will run out of the combat aircraft they have in theatre very, very quickly.
As Russia has shown us, it is not so clear what constitutes an act of war anymore. Crossing the line may not be the same thing as crossing the border. In fact the Soviet motherland itself at its borders violated without a nuclear scale conflict: Sino-Soviet border conflict - Wikipedia
I think the real trigger of war will boil down to perceived intention. If there is a perception that the Russians are going after the governing body of say Estonia, that seems a true act of war. But a minor border conflict, perhaps an occupation of land on some semi-legitimate grounds, maybe not so much. I believe we can already see this from the episode of the Estonian official being kidnapped.
That is it in a nutshell. Air superiority will come down to who has the greater supply of more accurate SAMs.
One thing you’re missing is that the US Army is quite a bit bigger than the Russian Ground Forces- 540,000 men to 285,000. The reserve picture is somewhat murkier, with the US fielding another 500,000 reservists and National Guardsmen, and the Russians claiming 2 million reservists, most of which are probably just former service people kept on the books without any follow-on training.
Add to that the fact that the US forces are veterans for the most part, and that the Russian ones are composed of something like 1/3 single-year conscripts, and you have both a qualitative and quantitative advantage for the US troops, before you start comparing weaponry. I suspect that US leader development and officer training is better than the Russians’ as well.
Hey, if he isn’t all that eager to do something that will cause Putin to vapourize me and everyone I know to ashes, that’s ok with me, thanks. I’m totally find with him being “craven” in risking millions of lives not including his own.
You’re forgetting China and North Korea, who probably wouldn’t be far behind any Russian activity. And we know that nutsack in NK has a million man army.
What, are they going to join in? Create trouble of their own?
A lot of your assumptions are very thin.
Technological quality is significantly more important than personnel quantity. This isn’t a “He who has the most wins.”
To prevent everything blowing up in our faces into a war that kills civilization, let’s wire everything to blow so that our enemies are too scared to do anything.
This doesn’t seem like a wise course of action.
And personnel *quality *is more important that either. You know: training, doctrine, organization, motivation, senior leadership, junior leadership and other stuff you can’t easily quantify. The Iraqi Army had plenty of tanks and planes a couple of months ago, but that didn’t stop them from running from ISIS.