Georgia appeals for help over Russian "invasion".

And what's stopping the Russians from using Guerrilla Warfare themselves? Russian VDV paratroopers and Siberian Regiments are some of the best Unconventional Warfare units in the world. If the cold of the biting Russian winter doesn't kill you, a well placed shot from an SVD will.

You seem to be forgetting that most countries in the modern world do NOT want to be nuked by Russia. American foreign relations are incredibly poor so the only countries that I can imagine helping are England and Germany. Poland and Ukraine both have grudges against Russia but their militaries are pitiful compared to Russia's (this is coming from a resident of Poland).

Bigg_Boi

And Russia does NOT want to be nuked in retaliation. Jeez...you act like Russia is the only country that has firepower. Guess what...lots of others do as well. And again....Russia cannot fight the world...even with a few of your 12 countries.

[QUOTE="SAURON221"]

Ignorance such as yours makes me sigh. First off were not being miserably destroyed by farmers with bolt action rifles. Secondly that's something called guerrilla warfare. No country does good against guerrilla warfare. If America were to face a regulated army such as Russia there is no doubt in my mind we would be superior. In cases such as Iraq were not being miserably beaten were doing just fine, and actually winning if you were to check the latest news on it.

loco145

Napoleon and the Wehrmacht were superior, perhaps much superior. They still lost, big time.

[QUOTE="SAURON221"]

Ignorance such as yours makes me sigh. First off were not being miserably destroyed by farmers with bolt action rifles. Secondly that's something called guerrilla warfare. No country does good against guerrilla warfare. If America were to face a regulated army such as Russia there is no doubt in my mind we would be superior. In cases such as Iraq were not being miserably beaten were doing just fine, and actually winning if you were to check the latest news on it.

loco145

Napoleon and the Wehrmacht were superior, perhaps much superior. They still lost, big time.

Exactly. Both the French and the Nazis were considered "unstoppable" before they tried to invade Russia. In both cases, it led to the fall of the invaders Empire.

[QUOTE="SAURON221"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="loco145"] Well, thinks will get very ugly from there. Russia isn't a slouch, the migthiest force that western countries have faced in recent times was Argentina and the Royal Navy still lost several ships there.Bigg_Boi

Your ignorance is laughable. Ever heard of the Commonwealth of Independent States? The spiritual successor to the Soviet Union? Russia easily has 12+ countries to call for aid if the situation calls for it.

Anyways, America is in NO condition to start another war. Especially one against another superpower. American troops are failing miserable fighting against farmers with bolt action rifles, imagine how badly they'd get destroyed facing countless well armed professional Russian soldiers.

Ignorance such as yours makes me sigh. First off were not being miserably destroyed by farmers with bolt action rifles. Secondly that's something called guerrilla warfare. No country does good against guerrilla warfare. If America were to face a regulated army such as Russia there is no doubt in my mind we would be superior. In cases such as Iraq were not being miserably beaten were doing just fine, and actually winning if you were to check the latest news on it.

Didn't you read my other post? Just because a military is big doesn't mean it can't engage in Guerilla Warfare. Ever heard of the Russian Partisans during WW2. They were used when the Soviet Military was at it's largest in history.

If we were in a war with Russia that was big like it would be there would be pretty much no holds bar. Unlike Iraq where we are acting as a police force we would be non stop bombing. It would be a very different war. I am much happier to be on the American side in a war with the Russians. It has the greatest all around military of any nation hands down in my opinion, and in many others.

[QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="SAURON221"]

Ignorance such as yours makes me sigh. First off were not being miserably destroyed by farmers with bolt action rifles. Secondly that's something called guerrilla warfare. No country does good against guerrilla warfare. If America were to face a regulated army such as Russia there is no doubt in my mind we would be superior. In cases such as Iraq were not being miserably beaten were doing just fine, and actually winning if you were to check the latest news on it.

LJS9502_basic

Napoleon and the Wehrmacht were superior, perhaps much superior. They still lost, big time.

Quite the contrary, Napoleon had made sure that all of his forces were well supplied during the beginning of the campaign. In fact, it was only during Napoleon's retreat when his troops abandoned the supply wagons that his forces suffered. A mixture of Cossack raids and scorched earh sealed Napoleon's fate.

As for Hitler he was simply far too ambitious.

[QUOTE="SAURON221"]

Ignorance such as yours makes me sigh. First off were not being miserably destroyed by farmers with bolt action rifles. Secondly that's something called guerrilla warfare. No country does good against guerrilla warfare. If America were to face a regulated army such as Russia there is no doubt in my mind we would be superior. In cases such as Iraq were not being miserably beaten were doing just fine, and actually winning if you were to check the latest news on it.

loco145

Napoleon and the Wehrmacht were superior, perhaps much superior. They still lost, big time.

They weren't destroyed by the Russian army alone, the long trek from their native countries coupied with the Russian environoment is what killed them. Napoleon and his army starved to death after Moscow was burnt to the ground and the Nazis slowly froze to death.

[QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="SAURON221"]

Ignorance such as yours makes me sigh. First off were not being miserably destroyed by farmers with bolt action rifles. Secondly that's something called guerrilla warfare. No country does good against guerrilla warfare. If America were to face a regulated army such as Russia there is no doubt in my mind we would be superior. In cases such as Iraq were not being miserably beaten were doing just fine, and actually winning if you were to check the latest news on it.

Bigg_Boi

Napoleon and the Wehrmacht were superior, perhaps much superior. They still lost, big time.

Exactly. Both the French and the Nazis were considered "unstoppable" before they tried to invade Russia. In both cases, it led to the fall of the invaders Empire.

We have very advances cold warfare technology. When I say cold war I mean as in temperature is cold and this is what we use. ever since the possibility of Russia ( back when they were soviet union as well), and America going to war we started the development of these weapons. Both the French and the NAZI's underestimated the harsh winters I doubt the Americans would make this mistake.

And what's stopping the Russians from using Guerrilla Warfare themselves? Russian VDV paratroopers and Siberian Regiments are some of the best Unconventional Warfare units in the world. If the cold of the biting Russian winter doesn't kill you, a well placed shot from an SVD will.

You seem to be forgetting that most countries in the modern world do NOT want to be nuked by Russia. American foreign relations are incredibly poor so the only countries that I can imagine helping are Englandand Germany. Poland and Ukraine both have grudges against Russia but their militaries are pitiful compared to Russia's (this is coming from a resident of Poland).

Bigg_Boi

That'd be only if Germany is attacked or threatened severly.

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

And what's stopping the Russians from using Guerrilla Warfare themselves? Russian VDV paratroopers and Siberian Regiments are some of the best Unconventional Warfare units in the world. If the cold of the biting Russian winter doesn't kill you, a well placed shot from an SVD will.

You seem to be forgetting that most countries in the modern world do NOT want to be nuked by Russia. American foreign relations are incredibly poor so the only countries that I can imagine helping are England and Germany. Poland and Ukraine both have grudges against Russia but their militaries are pitiful compared to Russia's (this is coming from a resident of Poland).

LJS9502_basic

No matter how well "prepared" you are the weather will always be a decisive factor here.

Quite the contrary, Napoleon had made sure that all of his forces were well supplied during the beginning of the campaign. In fact, it was only during Napoleon's retreat when his troops abandoned the supply wagons that his forces suffered. A mixture of Cossack raids and scorched earh sealed Napoleon's fate.

As for Hitler he was simply far too ambitious.

Bigg_Boi

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="SAURON221"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="loco145"] Well, thinks will get very ugly from there. Russia isn't a slouch, the migthiest force that western countries have faced in recent times was Argentina and the Royal Navy still lost several ships there.SAURON221

Your ignorance is laughable. Ever heard of the Commonwealth of Independent States? The spiritual successor to the Soviet Union? Russia easily has 12+ countries to call for aid if the situation calls for it.

Anyways, America is in NO condition to start another war. Especially one against another superpower. American troops are failing miserable fighting against farmers with bolt action rifles, imagine how badly they'd get destroyed facing countless well armed professional Russian soldiers.

Ignorance such as yours makes me sigh. First off were not being miserably destroyed by farmers with bolt action rifles. Secondly that's something called guerrilla warfare. No country does good against guerrilla warfare. If America were to face a regulated army such as Russia there is no doubt in my mind we would be superior. In cases such as Iraq were not being miserably beaten were doing just fine, and actually winning if you were to check the latest news on it.

Didn't you read my other post? Just because a military is big doesn't mean it can't engage in Guerilla Warfare. Ever heard of the Russian Partisans during WW2. They were used when the Soviet Military was at it's largest in history.

If we were in a war with Russia that was big like it would be there would be pretty much no holds bar. Unlike Iraq where we are acting as a police force we would be non stop bombing. It would be a very different war. I am much happier to be on the American side in a war with the Russians. It has the greatest all around military of any nation hands down in my opinion, and in many others.

And what exactly would the other nations do when America invades? The US is already considered a warmongering, oil thirsty, delusional nation with a laughable government, imagine what would happen if the US invaded another nation. Most US citizens find the concept of invading IRAN far too much. Imagine what the public's opinion would be when Russian bombs start raining down.

No matter how well "prepared" you are the weather will always be a decisive factor here.

AgentA-Mi6

[QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="SAURON221"]

Ignorance such as yours makes me sigh. First off were not being miserably destroyed by farmers with bolt action rifles. Secondly that's something called guerrilla warfare. No country does good against guerrilla warfare. If America were to face a regulated army such as Russia there is no doubt in my mind we would be superior. In cases such as Iraq were not being miserably beaten were doing just fine, and actually winning if you were to check the latest news on it.

Superbored

Napoleon and the Wehrmacht were superior, perhaps much superior. They still lost, big time.

They weren't destroyed by the Russian army alone, the long trek from their native countries coupied with the Russian environoment is what killed them. Napoleon and his army starved to death after Moscow was burnt to the ground and the Nazis slowly froze to death.

I agree the nazis lost because even though they had generals hitler was the one wearing the trousers and he sent he split up the troops he had 3 million but sending some to Stalingrad some to Moscow and some to Leningrad was over ambitious if hiter spearheaded into Russia to Moscow with troops protecting the flanks and hitler would have had a fighting chance. The long time it took hitler allowed the Russians to develop more t-34's and crush the Germans

[QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

No matter how well "prepared" you are the weather will always be a decisive factor here.

LJS9502_basic

Eitherway, the Nazis didn't lost because of the winter.

And what exactly would the other nations do when America invades? The US is already considered a warmongering, oil thirsty, delusional nation with a laughable government, imagine what would happen if the US invaded another nation. Most US citizens find the concept of invading IRAN far too much. Imagine what the public's opinion would be when Russian bombs start raining down.

Bigg_Boi

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

Quite the contrary, Napoleon had made sure that all of his forces were well supplied during the beginning of the campaign. In fact, it was only during Napoleon's retreat when his troops abandoned the supply wagons that his forces suffered. A mixture of Cossack raids and scorched earh sealed Napoleon's fate.

As for Hitler he was simply far too ambitious.

LJS9502_basic

Yet again you are wrong. Napoleon made VERY frequent stops in occupied nations (Poland being the most well documented). It was Napoleon's inability to cope with guerrila warfare and cold weather that lead him to defeat. Once his supplies were destroyed y Cossacks, there was nothing but scorched earth left.

As for the "modern advances", weather still plays an important role in warfare. Especially since the US troops would have to adjust from scorching desert warfare to sub-zero cold.

[QUOTE="SAURON221"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="SAURON221"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="loco145"] Well, thinks will get very ugly from there. Russia isn't a slouch, the migthiest force that western countries have faced in recent times was Argentina and the Royal Navy still lost several ships there.Bigg_Boi

Your ignorance is laughable. Ever heard of the Commonwealth of Independent States? The spiritual successor to the Soviet Union? Russia easily has 12+ countries to call for aid if the situation calls for it.

Anyways, America is in NO condition to start another war. Especially one against another superpower. American troops are failing miserable fighting against farmers with bolt action rifles, imagine how badly they'd get destroyed facing countless well armed professional Russian soldiers.

Ignorance such as yours makes me sigh. First off were not being miserably destroyed by farmers with bolt action rifles. Secondly that's something called guerrilla warfare. No country does good against guerrilla warfare. If America were to face a regulated army such as Russia there is no doubt in my mind we would be superior. In cases such as Iraq were not being miserably beaten were doing just fine, and actually winning if you were to check the latest news on it.

Didn't you read my other post? Just because a military is big doesn't mean it can't engage in Guerilla Warfare. Ever heard of the Russian Partisans during WW2. They were used when the Soviet Military was at it's largest in history.

If we were in a war with Russia that was big like it would be there would be pretty much no holds bar. Unlike Iraq where we are acting as a police force we would be non stop bombing. It would be a very different war. I am much happier to be on the American side in a war with the Russians. It has the greatest all around military of any nation hands down in my opinion, and in many others.

And what exactly would the other nations do when America invades? The US is already considered a warmongering, oil thirsty, delusional nation with a laughable government, imagine what would happen if the US invaded another nation. Most US citizens find the concept of invading IRAN far too much. Imagine what the public's opinion would be when Russian bombs start raining down.

First of the world would more then likely support it sense Russia has begun entering other independent nations. Secondly I would doubt greatly a Russian fighter/bomber attacking U.S. soil other than Alaska. If they did do this public support of the war would increase exponentially.Like I said though, Americas defenses are just to great for that to happen. America no longer fights wars on there own soil, Russia would be defending in there own country.

I agree the nazis lost because even though they had generals hitler was the one wearing the trousers and he sent he split up the troops he had 3 million but sending some to Stalingrad some to Moscow and some to Leningrad was over ambitious if hiter spearheaded into Russia to Moscow with troops protecting the flacks and hitler would have had a fighting chance

alexmurray

Actually, he tried first to capture Moscu but was defeated and pushed back. Then he went after Stanlingrad.

[QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

No matter how well "prepared" you are the weather will always be a decisive factor here.

LJS9502_basic

Russians are accustomed to it, Americans are NOT even with the appropriate clothing.

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

And what exactly would the other nations do when America invades? The US is already considered a warmongering, oil thirsty, delusional nation with a laughable government, imagine what would happen if the US invaded another nation. Most US citizens find the concept of invading IRAN far too much. Imagine what the public's opinion would be when Russian bombs start raining down.

LJS9502_basic

If no country is helping Georgia now, then none will help the US. NATO and the UN are too afraid to do peacekeeping and supply missions let alone a full scale war against the largest nation in the world.

Yet again you are wrong. Napoleon made VERY frequent stops in occupied nations (Poland being the most well documented). It was Napoleon's inability to cope with guerrila warfare and cold weather that lead him to defeat. Once his supplies were destroyed y Cossacks, there was nothing but scorched earth left.

As for the "modern advances", weather still plays an important role in warfare. Especially since the US troops would have to adjust from scorching desert warfare to sub-zero cold.

Bigg_Boi

Uh..for the record...not all our military personnel are in the desert.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

And what exactly would the other nations do when America invades? The US is already considered a warmongering, oil thirsty, delusional nation with a laughable government, imagine what would happen if the US invaded another nation. Most US citizens find the concept of invading IRAN far too much. Imagine what the public's opinion would be when Russian bombs start raining down.

Bigg_Boi

If no country is helping Georgia now, then none will help the US. NATO and the UN are too afraid to do peacekeeping and supply missions let alone a full scale war against the largest nation in the world.

The Un cant do anything all you need to stop a resolution is a veto from one of the permanent members US,UK,France,China and Russia and Russia will veto every time

Russians are accustomed to it, Americans are NOT even with the appropriate clothing.

AgentA-Mi6

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="SAURON221"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="SAURON221"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="loco145"] Well, thinks will get very ugly from there. Russia isn't a slouch, the migthiest force that western countries have faced in recent times was Argentina and the Royal Navy still lost several ships there.SAURON221

Your ignorance is laughable. Ever heard of the Commonwealth of Independent States? The spiritual successor to the Soviet Union? Russia easily has 12+ countries to call for aid if the situation calls for it.

Anyways, America is in NO condition to start another war. Especially one against another superpower. American troops are failing miserable fighting against farmers with bolt action rifles, imagine how badly they'd get destroyed facing countless well armed professional Russian soldiers.

Ignorance such as yours makes me sigh. First off were not being miserably destroyed by farmers with bolt action rifles. Secondly that's something called guerrilla warfare. No country does good against guerrilla warfare. If America were to face a regulated army such as Russia there is no doubt in my mind we would be superior. In cases such as Iraq were not being miserably beaten were doing just fine, and actually winning if you were to check the latest news on it.

Didn't you read my other post? Just because a military is big doesn't mean it can't engage in Guerilla Warfare. Ever heard of the Russian Partisans during WW2. They were used when the Soviet Military was at it's largest in history.

If we were in a war with Russia that was big like it would be there would be pretty much no holds bar. Unlike Iraq where we are acting as a police force we would be non stop bombing. It would be a very different war. I am much happier to be on the American side in a war with the Russians. It has the greatest all around military of any nation hands down in my opinion, and in many others.

And what exactly would the other nations do when America invades? The US is already considered a warmongering, oil thirsty, delusional nation with a laughable government, imagine what would happen if the US invaded another nation. Most US citizens find the concept of invading IRAN far too much. Imagine what the public's opinion would be when Russian bombs start raining down.

First of the world would more then likely support it sense Russia has begun entering other independent nations. Secondly I would doubt greatly a Russian fighter/bomber attacking U.S. soil other than Alaska. If they did do this public support of the war would increase exponentially.Like I said though, Americas defenses are just to great for that to happen. America no longer fights wars on there own soil, Russia would be defending in there own country.

And what exactly makes the US "uninvadable?"I'm sure it's a mixture of American war movies and Republican propaganda. Russia would actually be much more difficult to invade since you'd have to go through many other nations to reach Russia. Even if they agreed to let US soldiers pass, Russia would have plenty of time to prepare.

Attacking Russia through Alaska is probably the dumbest idea ever conceived. If you think the Russian winter is bad in the west, imagine how cold it is on the east! The Russians would simply wait for the Americans to wear themselves out by slogging through the snow and then attack.

On the other hand, America has the entire west coast open to attack. All it takes is a few Russian missile submarines and BOOM! There goes the Mid-West!

If no country is helping Georgia now, then none will help the US. NATO and the UN are too afraid to do peacekeeping and supply missions let alone a full scale war against the largest nation in the world.

Bigg_Boi

[QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

Russians are accustomed to it, Americans are NOT even with the appropriate clothing.

LJS9502_basic

You're going off topic... Russians would have once again the advantage here.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

No matter how well "prepared" you are the weather will always be a decisive factor here.

AgentA-Mi6

Russians are accustomed to it, Americans are NOT even with the appropriate clothing.

You honestly think that the U.S. military doesn't have cold-weather gear?

Comeon now, NATO have yet to defeat the Taliban and you are saying they can take out Russia?loco145

neither could russia in the 80's

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

Yet again you are wrong. Napoleon made VERY frequent stops in occupied nations (Poland being the most well documented). It was Napoleon's inability to cope with guerrila warfare and cold weather that lead him to defeat. Once his supplies were destroyed y Cossacks, there was nothing but scorched earth left.

As for the "modern advances", weather still plays an important role in warfare. Especially since the US troops would have to adjust from scorching desert warfare to sub-zero cold.

LJS9502_basic

Uh..for the record...not all our military personnel are in the desert.

There is something called a surface to air missile that can REALLY screw up those supply drops. Serbian SAMs managed to down a stealth fighter, an almost unattainable feat, with only a basic SAM. Also, the units in the desert would be the only ones with combat experience! The others would be green as hell and would definitely have a very hard time.

You're going off topic... Russians would have once again the advantage here.

AgentA-Mi6

And I'll take that as an admission you were incorrect about Russians and the cold.

[QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

No matter how well "prepared" you are the weather will always be a decisive factor here.

trix5817

Russians are accustomed to it, Americans are NOT even with the appropriate clothing.

You honestly think that the U.S. military doesn't have cold-weather gear?

To equip the hundred of Thousands it would require to invade Russia? yes.

[QUOTE="loco145"]Comeon now, NATO have yet to defeat the Taliban and you are saying they can take out Russia?alexmurray

neither could russia in the 80's

The Soviets did a MUCH better job then the US is doing now in Afghanistan. The US is failing even with an entire coalition force helping them. The Soviets managed to do the same job better by themselves. It was the Soviet Union's piss poor economy that led to their withdrawal.

Anyways, the same could be said of America's war in Vietnam.

To equip the hundred of Thousands it would require to invade Russia? yes.

loco145

That would be incorrect.

Comeon now, NATO have yet to defeat the Taliban and you are saying they can take out Russia?loco145

Please, you try to destroy an organization that hides itself among the civilian population and engages mainly in guerrilla warfare.

[QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

You're going off topic... Russians would have once again the advantage here.

LJS9502_basic

And I'll take that as an admission you were incorrect about Russians and the cold.

Russia's environment is still quite different then the US's. It's like comparing a cold desert to a mountain top.

[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

No matter how well "prepared" you are the weather will always be a decisive factor here.

loco145

Russians are accustomed to it, Americans are NOT even with the appropriate clothing.

You honestly think that the U.S. military doesn't have cold-weather gear?

To equip the hundred of Thousands it would require to invade Russia? yes.

They will just buy some the Us has the highest military spending in the world, and the Us would win the T-90 is a okay tank but most Russian tanks are T-72 and look what happened to them in the gulf war

BTW, America is already trying to get out of one war against those farmers with bolt action rifles. 3 American troops a month is considered unacceptable. Imagine when thousands of American soldiers are dying fighting against Russia. America is not ready for war politically or militarily.

Bigg_Boi

Still wrong...

First off, these aren't farmers with bolt action rifles. Most of these attacks are by foreigners (as in non-Iraqi) with explosives usinde suicide attacks or IDEs. Second, we havn't been losing miserably. In fact, we haven't been losing at all for the past year or so. Keep up with the news. And third, only a small fraction of the US's military is in Iraq. If Russia wants a serious war with the US, it would lose.

[QUOTE="loco145"]

To equip the hundred of Thousands it would require to invade Russia? yes.

LJS9502_basic

That would be incorrect.

This is were Russia's advantage with the cold weather and environment comes into play again. It would be a logistical nightmare to equip that many troops with sufficent cold weather gear. Especially if they had to supply them in the field.

[QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

No matter how well "prepared" you are the weather will always be a decisive factor here.

trix5817

Russians are accustomed to it, Americans are NOT even with the appropriate clothing.

You honestly think that the U.S. military doesn't have cold-weather gear?

They can mass produce that cold-weather gear, No doubt.Americans are not Physically nor psychologically accustomed to the extreme cold nonetheless... They would suffer the cold worse then man who endured those temperatures for years.

AIR battles is the U.S biggest advantage here.

F22 Raptor is invincible.

Russia's environment is still quite different then the US's. It's like comparing a cold desert to a mountain top.

Bigg_Boi

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="loco145"]

To equip the hundred of Thousands it would require to invade Russia? yes.

Bigg_Boi

That would be incorrect.

This is were Russia's advantage with the cold weather and environment comes into play again. It would be a logistical nightmare to equip that many troops with sufficent cold weather gear. Especially if they had to supply them in the field.

Do you think the Us would send troops without the cold weather gear thats what hitler did and look how well that turned out

This is were Russia's advantage with the cold weather and environment comes into play again. It would be a logistical nightmare to equip that many troops with sufficent cold weather gear. Especially if they had to supply them in the field.

Bigg_Boi

I remember a few days ago, a poster, who was actually lives in Georgia, I think Tbilisi, posted what was going on. Anyone know if he's ok?hockey73

I hope he is, he hasn't post anything for a while though...

They will just buy some the Us has the highest military spending in the world, and the Us would win the T-90 is a okay tank but most Russian tanks are T-72 and look what happened to them in the gulf war

alexmurray

The Iraq army was one of the most incompetent armies in the world, they couldn't even advance petty meters against the severely ill armed Iranian militias in the 80s. They had to gas the entire border to avoid an invasion in the end :?

[QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

No matter how well "prepared" you are the weather will always be a decisive factor here.

alexmurray

Russians are accustomed to it, Americans are NOT even with the appropriate clothing.

You honestly think that the U.S. military doesn't have cold-weather gear?

To equip the hundred of Thousands it would require to invade Russia? yes.

They will just buy some the Us has the highest military spending in the world, and the Us would win the T-90 is a okay tank but most Russian tanks are T-72 and look what happened to them in the gulf war

Do not try to argue with someone that has a very complete knowledge of Russia's miltiary gear. First of all, the T-72 export model (the one usd by Iraq) is missing half (if not more) of the features that a Russian T-72 has. The Iraqies didn't even have reactive armor on their T-72s! Also, Russia has around three times as many tanks as the US has.(23,000 to approximately 6000).

Also, Russia's T-55s (upgraded of course) are considered around the same as most modern MBTs.

I remember a few days ago, a poster, who was actually lives in Georgia, I think Tbilisi, posted what was going on. Anyone know if he's ok?hockey73

[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

No matter how well "prepared" you are the weather will always be a decisive factor here.

AgentA-Mi6

Russians are accustomed to it, Americans are NOT even with the appropriate clothing.

You honestly think that the U.S. military doesn't have cold-weather gear?

They can mass produce that cold-weather gear, No doubt.Americans are not Physically nor psychologically accustomed to the extreme cold nonetheless... They would suffer the cold worse then man who endured those temperatures for years.

AIR battles is the U.S biggest advantage here.

F22 Raptor is invincible.

You act as if it isn't cold anywhere in the U.S.

[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

No matter how well "prepared" you are the weather will always be a decisive factor here.

AgentA-Mi6

Russians are accustomed to it, Americans are NOT even with the appropriate clothing.

You honestly think that the U.S. military doesn't have cold-weather gear?

They can mass produce that cold-weather gear, No doubt.Americans are not Physically nor psychologically accustomed to the extreme cold nonetheless... They would suffer the cold worse then man who endured those temperatures for years.

AIR battles is the U.S biggest advantage here.

F22 Raptor is invincible.

The Russian SU-47 is just as powerful.