RAF scrambled to intercept Russian bombers.

Over Clocker · 14 Dec 2008 at 23:11

Exactly my point. The russians have a lot of equipment, but equipment that has been sitting around for the last 25 years with no maintenance, no money, soldiers not being paid for 3 to 4 months sometimes.

25% of their military budget gets lost in corruption. Many new projects are promised and none of them really delivery. The last big one, SU-35 has been out for 16 years and only 12 have ever been built!!

Tefal · 14 Dec 2008 at 23:15

Over Clocker said:
Exactly my point. The russians have a lot of equipment, but equipment that has been sitting around for the last 25 years with no maintenance, no money, soldiers not being paid for 3 to 4 months sometimes.

25% of their military budget gets lost in corruption. Many new projects are promised and none of them really delivery. The last big one, SU-35 has been out for 16 years and only 12 have ever been built!!

You don't need high end equipment to win though. All it does is reduce your losses.

Over Clocker · 14 Dec 2008 at 23:19

No but you do need at least some working equipment!!

They can't fly at night.
Most of their ships and subs cannot go to sea.
Most of their fighters cannot fly.
Most of their bombers cannot fly.
3500 military staff a year in Russia commit suicide or are killed by bullied due to the conditions there.

Tefal · 14 Dec 2008 at 23:24

Over Clocker said:
No but you do need at least some working equipment!!

They can't fly at night.
Most of their ships and subs cannot go to sea.
Most of their fighters cannot fly.
Most of their bombers cannot fly.
3500 military staff a year in Russia commit suicide or are killed by bullied due to the conditions there.

ok Vietnam

Can't fly at night
Did they even have a navy after the first few weeks?
Don't think they had any fighters or bombers in the latter half of the war

But they have plenty of working tanks, aa guns, assault rifles, machine guns grenades, mortars, trucks, jeeps, half-track, troops, and artillery.

Over Clocker · 14 Dec 2008 at 23:28

That's completely different though.....

First of all, that was the USA fighting a mainly land battle on foreign soil, second of all, Vietnam had massive USSR backing!

Third of all, I will need to do some more reading and get back to you!

meghatronic · 14 Dec 2008 at 23:29

Tefal said:
ok Vietnam

Can't fly at night
Did they even have a navy after the first few weeks?
Don't think they had any fighters or bombers in the latter half of the war

But they have plenty of working tanks, aa guns, assault rifles, machine guns grenades, mortars, trucks, jeeps, half-track, troops, and artillery.

Unfair comparision. We were talking about Russia invading us...... Fair comparison would be Vietnam invading America.

EdGey · 14 Dec 2008 at 23:30

in all seriousness, if russia was to try and invade the UK i think we'd win. that is if they managed to get to us without getting lost.

--------------

although i do think its terrible how un-equiped our soldiers are. i think we need to seriously up the budgets for our forces.

Spitfir3 · 14 Dec 2008 at 23:32

Tefal said:
ok Vietnam

Can't fly at night
Did they even have a navy after the first few weeks?
Don't think they had any fighters or bombers in the latter half of the war

But they have plenty of working tanks, aa guns, assault rifles, machine guns grenades, mortars, trucks, jeeps, half-track, troops, and artillery.

Totally different.

Bombers and fighters were really inefficient in that war.. B52's carpet bombed them daily but due to the terrain etc they bombed trees. It's not as if they were fighting tanks out in the open.

meghatronic · 14 Dec 2008 at 23:33

EdGey said:
although i do think its terrible how un-equiped our soldiers are. i think we need to seriously up the budgets for our forces.

Good luck with GB in power, and his succesor will be too skint to do it. GB has failed at every turn to fulfil the military covenant. Almost treasonous imho.

Tefal · 14 Dec 2008 at 23:34

meghatronic said:
Unfair comparision. We were talking about Russia invading us...... Fair comparison would be Vietnam invading America.

Err no most people just seem to be having a go at Russia's equipment, so if thats all you're basing it on then it doesn't matter either way.

+ any European war with Russia is going to be mainly land based.

Russia would be able to steam roll most of Europe through sheer force of numbers, it;s why there where so many plans etc for burying nuclear weapons to slow them down long enough to get America's army here.

Plus it does have a lot of very well trained troops, who've had a lot more combat experience, and urban warfare experience than most European countries bar us.

2StepSteve · 14 Dec 2008 at 23:34

If these bombers came right above our soil do you really think we would have the balls to shoot them down? US - i'd say yeah without question. The UK? We would rather give them then a polite 'hello sir how are you today?' and perhaps offer them a cuppa.

Luseac · 14 Dec 2008 at 23:35

EdGey said:
although i do think its terrible how un-equiped our soldiers are. i think we need to seriously up the budgets for our forces.

So do I, unfortunatly we now live in a culture where it's not acceptable to spend lots of money on the military. Labour backbenchers would rather see the money being spent on a new climate change committee than 4 new aircraft carriers, which would be at least twice as awesome as anything a climate change committee can do.

Spitfir3 · 14 Dec 2008 at 23:35

Over Clocker said:
Exactly my point. The russians have a lot of equipment, but equipment that has been sitting around for the last 25 years with no maintenance, no money, soldiers not being paid for 3 to 4 months sometimes.

25% of their military budget gets lost in corruption. Many new projects are promised and none of them really delivery. The last big one, SU-35 has been out for 16 years and only 12 have ever been built!!

Yep and the equipment age really does matter.. their fighters are modern platforms (equal to a lot of the wests stuff) but their avionics suites certainly aren't. I wouldn't be suprised if they still run 'steam gauge' instruments on a lot of their fighters. Hopeless if they came up against our stuff.

Tefal · 14 Dec 2008 at 23:36

2StepSteve said:
If these bombers came right above our soil do you really think we would have the balls to shoot them down? US - i'd say yeah without question. The UK? We would rather give them then a polite 'hello sir how are you today?' and perhaps offer them a cuppa.

no but we might try to force them down.

meghatronic · 14 Dec 2008 at 23:36

Tefal said:
Err no most people just seem to be having a go at Russia's equipment, so if thats all you're basing it on then it doesn't matter either way.

+ any European war with Russia is going to be mainly land based.

Russia would be able to steam roll most of Europe through sheer force of numbers, it;s why there where so many plans etc for burying nuclear weapons to slow them down long enough to get America's army here.

Plus it does have a lot of very well trained troops, who've had a lot more combat experience, and urban warfare experience than most European countries bar us.

Okay... but how the **** are they going to get here (to UK)?

Tefal · 14 Dec 2008 at 23:38

meghatronic said:
Okay... but how the **** are they going to get here (to UK)?

Once they've taken Europe?

Well sit in France shell the living **** out of us/the raf/the navy etc. or do it the easy way and use tactical nukes to clear a path.

meghatronic · 14 Dec 2008 at 23:38

2StepSteve said:
If these bombers came right above our soil do you really think we would have the balls to shoot them down? US - i'd say yeah without question. The UK? We would rather give them then a polite 'hello sir how are you today?' and perhaps offer them a cuppa.

Thing is, if someone burst into your home while you were there and had a nosy... but didn't do anything violent, would you ask him to leave with a polite "hello sir how are you today", or would you break our your flame-thrower and roast him?

I think they would be escorted by typhoons and given every opportunity to land or **** off before they were forced down. And hopefully the pilots returned to Russia safely. We're British, not American.

meghatronic · 14 Dec 2008 at 23:40

Tefal said:
Once they've taken Europe?

Well sit in France shell the living **** out of us/the raf/the navy etc. or do it the easy way and use tactical nukes to clear a path.

The thread established the no nuke rule.

It would take them ages to get to France through Europe - as I've assumed they've declared war on the whole of Europe... so that would slow them down no end (militaries, resistance, insurgency). Their navy wouldn't get close, so they'd have to go through France... and they still wouldn't get close. By then, US/Aus/everyone else would be here.

neoboy · 14 Dec 2008 at 23:49

Ah so we're back from Argentina to silly scenarios now

meghatronic · 14 Dec 2008 at 23:51

neoboy said:
Ah so we're back from Argentina to silly scenarios now

I think people just have a hard time accepting Britain can still - and always has - punch(ed) WAY above it's weight.

The media and weak governments are changing out attitudes to be anti-military/etc... I think that has a lot to do with it. Squaddies round here getting spat at because they "invaded Iraq"... I mean, seriously, wtf?