What would a third world war really look like?

NewGamer11 said:
I don’t think tank numbers will count for much. If Russia tried to tank rush Western Europe they would have to wait for anti-aircraft cover. I don’t think they would have air superiority so the tanks would be easy meat for Apaches and bomber aircraft.
Click to expand...
They have an awesome amount of AA though - I guess we'll see how well the new stuff performs over Syria in the next few weeks
 
BongoHunter said:
They have an awesome amount of AA though - I guess we'll see how well the new stuff performs over Syria in the next few weeks
Click to expand...

Yeah, for a defensive situation but not sure how they would bring it forward if they want to go on the offensive.

I don’t think either side would want to ‘occupy’ any other land though like in WW2, especially long term. Maybe Russia would.
 
Rroff said:
Good thing we have the likes of Brimstone then.
Click to expand...

Also, given the state of the Russian economy and the apparent military budget it is simply impossible for them to maintain large stocks of working tanks etc ready for deployment.

They may have the numbers on paper but i bet in the order of 25% of it is actually combat ready.
 
Russia won't move a muscle until their nukes are off the ground, if somehow they believe they can win if the devastation is simply too much for the West to contend with, then that's really rather sad and disappointing.

Remind me again why we didn't force Russia into the EU during 1991?
 
For us, it looks like throwing in a few storm shadow safe in international airspace and scuttling back to Cyprus.

Can’t help thinking the Syrian regime will see this as getting off lightly.
 
After all that bluster it does seem like a token gesture. But personally I’m quite pleased about that. Especially after hearing Russia had moved personnel into Douma last night.

Was dreading a shock and awe type response. Always imagined Trump wanting that badge to rival Bush.

Let’s see what happens next. As far as I’m am aware no ‘launch sites’ were hit. So no sinking of allied ships or downing of planes. That was the escalation factor. Had that happened. Not sure what options Russia has now.
 
Secret_Window said:
What happened to the S-400 anti-aircraft systems? All I kept hearing was that they would intercept and stop everything, but that doesn't appear to be the case, what happened?
Click to expand...
did work so they sent for this guy
russian-heavy-weapons-platoon.jpg
 
Secret_Window said:
What happened to the S-400 anti-aircraft systems? All I kept hearing was that they would intercept and stop everything, but that doesn't appear to be the case, what happened?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Strong suspicion is that Russia were forewarned about what would happen by the US and switched off the systems. Either that or they're not all they're cracked up to be.
 
NewGamer11 said:
Exactly. Strong suspicion is that Russia were forewarned about what would happen by the US and switched off the systems. Either that or they're not all they're cracked up to be.
Click to expand...

They said on sky news this morning, that was exactly what happened (Russia informed).
 
Rilot said:
I'm close enough to AWE to be killed in the first strike. Oh well.
Click to expand...

I used to live about halfway between the Greenham Common Airbase and the Tadley AWE. Even though the Airbase is now gone I imagine the surrounding area's including Newbury, Basingstoke & Reading will be screwed in the event of any major Nuclear attack.
 
Why are people so annoyingly biased? (I know Brexit has released some of that pent up patriotic ****, but please... dont)

The older S-200 systems the Syrians use shot down 70% of the missiles, so why would you say that the S-400 would be categorically worse?... the S-200 is the one we have all the details on and we still lose most of our strikes...

For the record, no i'm not "Shilling", this is a very serious failure of the cruise missile technology if a **** system we have everything on is able to destroy most of our mission, you shouldn't be ecstatic and foolish trying to paint Russian systems as trash.
 
StriderX said:
Why are people so annoyingly biased? (I know Brexit has released some of that pent up patriotic ****, but please... dont)

The older S-200 systems the Syrians use shot down 70% of the missiles, so why would you say that the S-400 would be categorically worse?... the S-200 is the one we have all the details on and we still lose most of our strikes...

For the record, no i'm not "Shilling", this is a very serious failure of the cruise missile technology if a **** system we have everything on is able to destroy most of our mission, you shouldn't be ecstatic and foolish trying to paint Russian systems as trash.
Click to expand...

70%? saw the claim of 71 out of 103 but more reliable sources were claiming under 15 were shot down.
 
Well, it would appear Russia said as much, which probably means that's too high, but the "allies" as it were could either be truthful or not want the actual capabilities of the enemy system to be revealed...

Well i guess it's inconclusive then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom