Russian floating junk heap

[Tahuyaman]

Good. Then we agree that there is clearly no need to fear or arms race with them, correct? no need to play proxy war games?

Proxie war? Who, where?

[bulletbob]

Good. Then we agree that there is clearly no need to fear or arms race with them, correct? no need to play proxy war games?

a military that is ready and well armed and trained is better than one that is not.

[bulletbob]

The military are like condoms better to have a good one and not need it then to not have one and need it or have a cheap on and it bust or one to small

[Mini Me]

Admiral Pissoff is not amused! He telegraphed General Jakoff about it!

[Rooster]

Their fighting vehicles were junk.

The Russian T-34 tank was fast and maneuverable. It cost the Russians tanks but they threw them at the German panzers
where their maneuverability and speed made them formidable opponents. The T34's would seek to get behind the Panzer and put a round into his engine compartment. The Panzers were better tanks, but the Russians had made sloping armor, which we all use today, for crew protection. A panzer could hit a Russian tank art 1000 meters, but the T-34's had to get behind the Panzer to make a kill shot.
Russia had many tanks and crews, so they could afford the bad tradeoff that ensued and the T-34's were much cheaper to manufacture.
So, when you talk about "best" tanks or "junk" tanks all this has to go into the equation.
Germany had quality equipment and training but they lost the war.

[Ethereal]

There was talk during the cold war that a lot of the Soviet stuff was show and not actual field-worthy stuff. I don't know but that's what they used to say.

The military-industrial complex is always talking out of both sides of its mouth.

On the one hand, they portray Russia as an existential threat that must be confronted at every opportunity.

On the other hand, they regularly mock and diminish the military prowess of Russia.

So which one is it? Is Russia's military pathetic and outdated or is it an existential threat to the entire free world?

The military-industrial complex cannot seem to decide, so they just vacillate back and forth between those two contradictory positions.

[Tahuyaman]

Idiots say idiotic things.

[Ethereal]

Anyway, Russia doesn't care about achieving conventional naval parity with the US. They know it's impossible. They also know that as modern battles become more asymmetric, the utility of carrier strike groups and other large naval formations is rapidly decreasing. That's why Russia has been focusing much more on its missile technology, which they believe will serve as a cost-effective counter to the extremely cost prohibitive weapons systems that the US relies on to project power across the world. They are designing their missile systems specifically with US platforms in mind. Ideally, they would like to advance their missile technology to the point where one or two missiles can feasibly disable or even destroy a US super carrier.

[bulletbob]

The military-industrial complex is always talking out of both sides of its mouth.

On the one hand, they portray Russia as an existential threat that must be confronted at every opportunity.

On the other hand, they regularly mock and diminish the military prowess of Russia.

So which one is it? Is Russia's military pathetic and outdated or is it an existential threat to the entire free world?

The military-industrial complex cannot seem to decide, so they just vacillate back and forth between those two contradictory positions.

Its both

[bulletbob]

Anyway, Russia doesn't care about achieving conventional naval parity with the US. They know it's impossible. They also know that as modern battles become more asymmetric, the utility of carrier strike groups and other large naval formations is rapidly decreasing. That's why Russia has been focusing much more on its missile technology, which they believe will serve as a cost-effective counter to the extremely cost prohibitive weapons systems that the US relies on to project power across the world. They are designing their missile systems specifically with US platforms in mind. Ideally, they would like to advance their missile technology to the point where one or two missiles can feasibly disable or even destroy a US super carrier.

Aircraft carriers are important because they allow you fast deployment to any area of the world and a true edge in a conventional type non nuke war.
This allows up a true edge. Russia at one time had a huge navy but due its economic system failing and the break up of the old Soviet union they no longer could afford it. Now russia has decided short range battle feild nukes are the way to go these would be used aginst nato.our carriers are not just because of russia . America has treatys and intrests around the world even in space.