|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
First off, let's look at Russian and Chinese capabilities. Just a few years ago, Russia annexed the Crimea, and they recently blockaded the port of Mairupol, impounded Ukrainian naval vessels, and shut Ukrainian traffic out of the Sea of Azov. NATO didn't/won't do anything about it. If Ukraine can't extinguish a long-running ethnic Russian separatist insurgency (which benefits from thinly-veiled Russian military support), how could it stop a full-scale Russian invasion without direct NATO intervention? Russia could retake the Baltic States in a matter of a few weeks and there's not much NATO could do to stop it. Estonia has no air force. The U.S. simply doesn't have enough pre-positioned heavy combat units in Europe to respond quickly enough and with adequate force, to turn back a Russian invasion. This isn't just some amateur military-buff's assessment- US military think-tanks have concluded as much. So that's where T2020 could start. The Baltic. Russian retakes Estonia and Latvia and NATO takes a belated stand on the Lithuania side of the Poland-Lithuanian border. Boom! WWIII. With the U.S. embroiled in a large-scale conventional war in the Baltics, China makes its play for Taiwan (and/or North Korea launches a second war of reunification) or, if that's too bold for your tastes, the Spratly Islands, attacking Vietnamese and Filipino navy vessels that arrive to assert their respective territorial claims. The Chinese navy is growing faster than the USN. The USN is aging and it's newest [littoral combat] vessels have been beset by all sorts of mechanical and systems and structural problems. The Chinese have a large and formidable coastal defense force and are rapidly developing a capable blue water navy. Any naval war fought in either/both of the China Seas will mean that the Chinese have interior lines of supply and access to numerous land-based aircraft. Their new anti-carrier ballistic missile could be a game-changer. In a similar vein, the Russians are rolling out hypersonic SSM/ASMs. Meanwhile, the USN still relies on the 40-year old Harpoon ASM. I've already touched on some US weaknesses above. Here are some more. The US still has the largest military budget in the world, but instead of investing in new and improved major systems like replacements for its aging Ticonderoga class guided missile cruisers, or M1 MBTs, or F-16s, most of that money is spent to pay for its long-running "War on Terror"- and most of that is for upkeep and maintenance on old, hard-working systems. The USAF is currently facing a pilot shortage. The F-35 is a highly problematic airframe/avionics platform and there's not enough money in the budget to restart F-22 production. Instead, the USAF is looking at a program to replace it's 40-year old F-15 fleet with a new, upgraded model, the F-15X. The workhorse of the USAF, the F-16 is also getting old (airframes are approaching the end of their serviceable career). Meanwhile, the Chinese air force is steadily growing and modernizing. It's catching up qualitatively too- they're starting production of their own stealth fighter. Lots of U.S. tanks and IFVs have a lot of hard miles on them, from deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, with replacements nowhere in sight. Thousands of new-ish MRAPs aren't going to help much in a conventional war against a modern foe like China or Russia. These threads include links to various articles, mostly about Russian capabilities vis-à-vis the Baltics and NATO, some of which are referenced above: https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....2030#post61416
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Ok, so the US military isn't likely to be beaten on the battlefield....
So don't try to. Use economic warfare for a few years first to cripple the economy and make the US unable to sustain a large military. Use social/cultural warfare to destroy the populations will to fight, even reduce their acknowledgement of the NEED to fight. There's lots of ways to beat the US besides shooting at them. They just take a bit longer...
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
The Russian GDP, which is smaller than Spain's, is going backwards. They can't afford to outfit themselves with a division of their T-14s and have the Armata variants in the same division. Honestly, they have very little projection ability. Not only that but they don't want to. Crimea was transferred to Ukraine by Nikita Kruschev in 1957 from Russia and the Russians wanted it back. Ukraine has gone neo-fascist and actually is oppressing the Donbass Russians (I have a friend who is Ukrainian who tells me that their revolution was hijacked by the thugs from groups like the Azov Battalion and they now run the defence ministry). Russia, no good guy either, is just settling scores in its neighbourhood. They aren't interested in the old soviet defence-in-depth perimeter the soviets set up after The Second World War
For expansionism, as many people said, they key area is The South China Sea. However this area doesn't give us the armoured war that we are kind of after so it looks like we're going to have to fight on the Chinese mainland. I assume that Taiwan will be 'bounced' in a time coinciding with hawk governments on both sides. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Sources?
Quote:
The Russians don't need a division of Armata MBTs to retake the Baltic States. They could do it without a single T-14. They have an overwhelming military superiority over all three Baltic States combined. Yes, the Baltics are part of NATO, but NATO is a hollow shell of its former, Cold War self. The US has no prepositioned heavy divisions in Europe. The UK has one aircraft carrier and a steadily shrinking, aging navy. The German military is in decline. It can barely field a single squadron of combat ready aircraft, and major defects have been found in its Puma IFVs, it's newest destroyers, its E90 transports, and the G36! The Russians have been flexing on the Baltics for the last several years. They've been projecting military power in the Baltic to the point that Finland is considering joining NATO. They could reconquer the Baltics and NATO couldn't stop them. There's your T2020-'25 right there. Seriously, don't take my word for it. Read some of the articles I linked to in the other thread I shared. I posted those a couple of years ago and, since then, not much has changed. If anything, with Brexit, NATO is more disfunctional that it was then. Quote:
Putin longs for the days of Soviet (ne Russian) influence, in Europe and beyond. That's why he continues to flex on the Baltics, and support the Assad regime in Syria. Quote:
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Note the media isn't exactly unbiased...
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Seriously, though- you guys are intelligent. Are you not following current events? Do you seriously believe Putin's propaganda? I can't believe that we're having this debate. Anyway, I don't need the media to tell me what Putin's mindset is. Just take a look at his behavior, including but not limited to:
Putin claims that most of this behavior is defensive in nature. He sees NATO and the US as an existential threat to Russia. This is clearly a Cold War mentality. So to is the concept of self-defense through the acquisition of buffer states (like Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, etc.), massive military- conventional and nuclear- strength, and power projection. Bottom line Leg, are you saying that Putin doesn't long for the days of Soviet (ne Russian) power and influence in Europe and beyond? And you would know this how exactly?
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module Last edited by Raellus; 01-05-2019 at 09:51 AM. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Makes a little more sense I think and certainly allows more time to set up the needed conditions.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
It's worth looking at what's happening with NATO in Romania and Bulgaria at the moment as a possible contribution to any casus belli, particularly in light of Russian jets buzzing NATO warships in the Black Sea.
|
#10
|
||||||
|
||||||
I agree with some of this Raellus but I think you are being too critical of US capabilities.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
To fully engage the US Navy out in the Pacific the Chinese need aircraft carriers and submarines, and a lot of them. The Chinese carriers are not capable of taking on US Navy carriers for a whole load of reasons, but principly because they don't have naval aircraft to compete with US Navy aircraft and their movement would be tracked by US intelligence resources particularly orbital satellites. US submarines or strike aircraft would blow them out of the water before they got in sight of Taiwan or the Philippines. Chinese submarine are also not a match for US submarines, and are also noisy and easy to track. The Chinese DF-21D anti-carrier ballistic missiles threat is more an illusion than reality. The Russians tried this in the 1970's, gave up and switched their focus to the Tu-22M Backfire with supersonic nuclear missiles. China needs a powerful OTH radar, recon satellites, recon aircraft and submarines to all work in tandem to track the US carrier and hit it while its standing still about 1,700 miles offshore, and hope that the US carrier is not sailing full steam at 30 knots, and that all the US escorts with multiple anti-ABM missiles and ECM are asleep and that there is no clutter over the area. The OTH radar of questionable capabilities that China has constructed with Russian assistance in the Gobi desert would be vaporised long before the US sends its carriers in range of Chinese forces in wartime. The Harpoon is an old missile but is still highly capable but it is now being replaced. The Freedom and Independence Class LCS are being fitted with new Norwegian NSM missiles. All US Navy combat aircraft and USAF and Marine aircraft are capable of firing the air launched AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER anti-ship cruise missile. It is an advanced anti-ship missile with a range of 170 miles and is considered the most accurate in US Navy service. The even more advanced AGM-158C LRASM or JASSM is currently entering service with a range of 300 miles, and potentially 1,000 miles, with US Navy aircraft. The AGM-158C can also be ship-launched and will probably be fitted to the Zumwalt Class destroyer and other ships. The Russians have had supersonic cruise missiles since the 1970's, they armed them with nuclear warheads as it was the only way they could attack a US Navy aircraft carrier and destroy it. But if you use a nuclear warhead against US forces you also risk a retaliatory American nuclear strike on you. Quote:
The F-15X is in my opinion a good idea as its in the same class as the ex-Soviet Flanker variants which are the main BVR combat aircraft of the Russian, Chinese and many other air forces. An upgraded F-15C with a new airframe, more powerful engines, new sensors and the latest missiles would be a very effective way of countering the proliferation of Flanker variants around at the moment other than building more F-22's which would be a problem in itself as they would need an upgrade themselves which would not be cheap. As regards to China well they can't build reliable jet engines because they weren't able to steal the technology from America and Britain that is needed to build them. Basically they haven't been able to copy the metallurgical and engineering processes needed, or can they manufacture the crystal nickle-steel that is needed to sustain them for 2,000 hours plus without fail. Chinese jet engines burn out after about 40 hours and fall out of the sky. China uses Russian engines which are not as good as American or British engines but still way better than Chinese ones. Until they manage to build a reliable jet engine I will reserve my opinion of Chinese aircraft. Quote:
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
War is the absence of reason. But then, life often demands unreasonable responses. - Lucian Soulban, Warhammer 40000 series, Necromunda Book 6, Fleshworks Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
DU Armor Additions
From a Quora article about the DU armor on the US M1 Abrams...
(Why is depleted uranium used in the Abrams new armor) "The biggest drawback to DU armor was noticed during “blue on blue” fire during the Gulf War and the Iraq war - a DU penetrator passing through DU armor meant that higher levels of DU were present in the atmosphere of the tank immediately after it was hit, exposing the crew to higher levels of inhaled DU. So the greatest exposure was to tank crews was to those who were in a DU-armored tank hit with a DU round. Non-DU rounds (such as those used by the Iraqi army) were much less penetrating." I found this in a Reddit article: Solid uranium isn't all that pyrophoric, because that reaction is based on surface area. Uranium shavings or powder, like what you might get when machining it, are the real danger; that's why you operate the machines under oil or a non-oxygen gas (nitrogen and argon are common choices, I think). However, a sheet of uranium isn't going to be very enthusiastic about catching on fire, because only the very surface is subject to pyrophoricity. (Since I am not a scientist, I make no claims about this; just passing it on. The article includes a picture of where the DU armor is (turret front).) Uncle Ted Last edited by unkated; 01-09-2019 at 01:08 PM. Reason: Added quote from second article |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
The Australian M1 Abrams do not have the DU armour composite, it was explicitly mentioned in the request by Australia that the tanks use conventional composite armour (i.e. non-DU armour).
Can't remember the source for that info but it was mentioned in a few of the defence magazines I was reading at the time of the Abrams purchase and there's likely to be something online about it. Last edited by StainlessSteelCynic; 01-09-2019 at 03:56 PM. Reason: clarification |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I've suspected for some time that the Aussie tanks have DU armour and what has always made me think that is the weight of the tank they bought from the US. Here is a detailed explanation about why the Australian M1 Abrams are fitted with DU armour from someone who knows. https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Austr...y-Abrams-tanks |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
War is the absence of reason. But then, life often demands unreasonable responses. - Lucian Soulban, Warhammer 40000 series, Necromunda Book 6, Fleshworks Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Good information Paul. Did you find any info about if the Aussie Abram's also have DU armor?
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
the updated M1A2C would have DU and TUSK maybe TUSK II
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
04/08/2004 MSPA 40804/04 Chief of Army Media Briefing Session M1A1 Abrams integrated management (AIM) MAIN Battle tank <snip> BRIGADIER MICHAEL CLIFFORD DIRECTOR GENERAL PREPAREDNESS AND PLANS, ARMY ARMY HEADQUARTERS <snip> WE ARE BUYING 59 TANKS AS PART OF ONE OF THE WORLD'S LARGEST AND MOST PROVEN TANK FLEETS. IMPORTANTLY HOWEVER THE ABRAMS IS PART OF A LONGER TERM STRATEGY ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT. LAND 400 IS THE PROJECT WITH A YEAR OF DECISION OF 2011 THAT WILL MOVE US TOWARD A COMMON FLEET OF ARMOURED VEHICLES, TOWARD A SYSTEM OF COMBAT VEHICLES. THE ABRAMS IS JUST ONE STEP ON THIS JOURNEY. THE ABRAMS ALSO PROVIDES US WITH ACCESS TO THE CUTTING EDGE OF NON DEPLETED URANIUM ARMOUR TECHNOLOGY. <snip> MEDIA QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS BRIEFING ON THE M1A1 ABRAMS INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (AIM) MAIN BATTLE TANK LIEUTENANT GENERAL PETER LEAHY: Ladies and gentlemen, do you have any questions? <snip> QUESTION: If we're not getting DU armour what sort of armour are we getting. COLONEL HAYWARD: Armour technologies are sensitive in a classified area. The armour that we are getting is an advanced non-DU armour. We have had a look at destructive testing of this armour and we have sent across an Australian scientist to have a look at it, and it provides us an excellent level of protection. QUESTION: It's basically [indistinct] armour isn't it? COLONEL HAYWARD: It's an advanced non-DU armour that provides us an excellent level of protection. <snip> QUESTION: Neil James from Defender. Nick just stole my first question, in fact. I've got two questions. The first one is, is the new improved armour as good as depleted uranium armour - yes/no? GENERAL LEAHY: Duncan, you want to take that? COLONEL HAYWARD: The armour that we're getting is very close to depleted uranium armour. In some aspects it is better against some types of threats. But I'm unable to discuss those in this forum. QUESTION: Okay, let's assume that the new armour is not as good as depleted uranium armour. Is the only reason we're not getting depleted uranium armour because of political concerns in Australia, and therefore are we running the risk of Australian soldiers being endangered in the future because political considerations prevent them having the best protection? GENERAL LEAHY: Oh, I think Neil, you know me well enough that I wouldn't endanger our soldiers lives for a reason like that. We're getting very good armour. One that I have every confidence in, and one that I'd be happy for our soldiers to fight behind. <snip> Full transcript here: - https://www.defencetalk.com/military...-be-used.2160/ 'The Age' newspaper Australia picks US tanks to 'harden' force By Mark Forbes Defence Correspondent Canberra March 10, 2004 American-built M1 Abrams battle tanks valued at $550 million will spearhead a "hardened" Australian Army role in major overseas conflicts alongside the US. Cabinet's national security committee last night agreed to buy 59 reconditioned, 68-tonne Abrams, ahead of British Challengers and German Leopards. The decision will be announced today. Senior Defence sources said the war in Iraq had reaffirmed the belief that tanks were essential in modern conflicts to protect infantry troops. Last November, The Age revealed that the military had settled on buying the Abrams, with Defence Minister Robert Hill, force chief Peter Cosgrove and army chief Peter Leahy backing the US tank over its rivals. The Government's about-face on buying heavy armour is intended to strengthen the US alliance by boosting "interoperability" for future Iraq-style conflicts. Its 2000 Defence white paper argued against "the development of heavy armoured forces suitable for contributions to coalition forces in high-intensity conflicts". In an indication of the strategic importance of the move, the US Administration will sell the tanks directly to Australia at a substantial discount. The Australian Abrams, to be based in Darwin, would facilitate training between the two forces and access to ongoing development. It could also allow Australian crews to fight in pre-positioned US tanks. The Abrams will be modified for Australian requirements, including replacing its depleted uranium armour with ceramic plating. Critics claim the Abrams are unsuitable for operations in the Pacific region and are too heavy to be airlifted. The tanks must be transported by sea. Late last year General Leahy predicted that new tanks should be in service by July. He attacked critics of the planned tank purchase and said he had looked for a manoeuvrable, mid-weight, well-protected tank. "Frankly, it's not there," General Leahy said. "So what we need to do is to respond to the current threat environment... where protection is, quite frankly, achieved by heavier armoured vehicles." Last edited by StainlessSteelCynic; 06-27-2019 at 02:24 AM. Reason: adding more |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Going back to the original question of what's needed, one of the things that should have been in the previous editions (but wasn't) are active defense for tanks - systems like Drozd, Arena, Malachit, and Trophy.
It would be also interesting to me to see the up-gunned tanks being worked on (the Rheinmetall 130mm L/51, the 2A83 152mm L/45) and possibly some of the old guns that were being developed before APFSDS ammo became prevalent, like the XM291 140mm L/47 and the Leopard 2-140 L/50. For small arms, one fairly recent development is Serbia's adoption-for-testing of the Zastava M17 in 6.5mm Grendel (essentially an AK platform, with 20-round straight mags and 30-round bananas). I recently found a photo of an information card from a trade show in Belgrade, and according to that it's 3.7 kg empty, has a telescoping stock with an overall length of 88-94.5 cm, barrel length of 41.5 cm, has over-and-under Pic rails on the handguard, and accepts either a .165 kg 20-round or .22 kg 30-round mag. Running it through FF&S, I get: Wt 3.7 kg, Mag 20 or 30, ROF 5, Dam 3, Pen 2-Nil, Blk 6, SS 3, Brst 7, Rng 50. There's mention of barrel lengths being available for CQB, Assault Rifle, and DMR use, but no other barrel lengths are specified on the sheet I've seen.
__________________
The poster formerly known as The Dark The Vespers War - Ninety years before the Twilight War, there was the Vespers War. |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Unkated -- That second link pretty much had the information I needed (though I don't normally trust just one source if I can avoid it). But thanks!
__________________
War is the absence of reason. But then, life often demands unreasonable responses. - Lucian Soulban, Warhammer 40000 series, Necromunda Book 6, Fleshworks Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
|
|