It's interesting that, with the exception of Kamchatka and the far northeast of Russia, most of it is empty to sparsely populated. Lotsa valuable resources under it though...
Russia Invades Ukraine XVIII
- Thread starter 81usaf92
- Start date
Exactly. That is what China sees.
In my work at NATO, I discovered that China has declared itself a "near arctic" country. When I read that, I thought, "Near? In what sense? On the same planet as the arctic?" That designation gives them the warrant to nose around the area.
This is an interesting take.
Ukraine's defense industry says the fight against Russia has shown it that the West's approach to weapons is all wrong
During the Second World War, the Germans made some highly capable tanks. The Panther was their most capable main battle tank. The Germans made 5,995 of them.
The comparable American tank, the Sherman, was not as good as the Panther, but it was easy to maintain and fix. The US made 49,000 of them. The comparable Russian tank, the T-34C was comparable and the T-34/85 were arguably batter than the Panther. The Soviets made 84,000 of them.
Total those up and you have 133,000 Allied tanks vs 5,995 German ones. Throw in the German Pzkw Mark IV tank production (8,500) and the Germans were still outnumber over 9 to 1 in main battle tanks.
Spoiler alert: German lost the Second World War quite badly.
NATO would be wise to bear that in mind.
There is obviously a limit. If you have the worst tank in the world, and you opponents have bows and arrows, even one very bad tank will always win. The question revolves around how much better is country A's weapons vs Country B's weapons, and how many each has. The Russians have traditionally come down on the side of lots of decent weapons and the US increasingly on the side of very very few weapons of very very high quality (and huge price tag).
Ukraine's defense industry says the fight against Russia has shown it that the West's approach to weapons is all wrong
During the Second World War, the Germans made some highly capable tanks. The Panther was their most capable main battle tank. The Germans made 5,995 of them.
The comparable American tank, the Sherman, was not as good as the Panther, but it was easy to maintain and fix. The US made 49,000 of them. The comparable Russian tank, the T-34C was comparable and the T-34/85 were arguably batter than the Panther. The Soviets made 84,000 of them.
Total those up and you have 133,000 Allied tanks vs 5,995 German ones. Throw in the German Pzkw Mark IV tank production (8,500) and the Germans were still outnumber over 9 to 1 in main battle tanks.
Spoiler alert: German lost the Second World War quite badly.
NATO would be wise to bear that in mind.
There is obviously a limit. If you have the worst tank in the world, and you opponents have bows and arrows, even one very bad tank will always win. The question revolves around how much better is country A's weapons vs Country B's weapons, and how many each has. The Russians have traditionally come down on the side of lots of decent weapons and the US increasingly on the side of very very few weapons of very very high quality (and huge price tag).
Last edited:
Patton was once asked about the superiority of the Panzer Mark IV over the Sherman. Patton replied "Sir, my tanks are not intended to fight other tanks." But, I'd add, that same superiority plus the V2 plus the first jet fighters instilled that same attitude you're referring to that no one was going to have something bigger and badder. Throw in the MiG vs. the Sabrejet...
The F-35 ($81M) is superior to the P-51 Mustang (which cost around $50,000 1942 or $1M in today's currency) to manufacture. And that is before you actually start flying the aircraft and the dollar cost per flight hour is going to be horrendous.
My fear is that we have gone so far in the price-quality climb that if a drone were to attack a parked F-35 and destroy it, now we have lost the equivalent of 80 P-51s.
Last edited:
Imagine how the Russkis feel, with all those SU-57s dead on the ground and no way to replace them? One incident of the last few days almost escaped attention. A Ukrainian F-16 from the Netherlands originally, armed with our intermediate range air-air missile, and with the help of the Swedish-version AWACS plane, took out a Russian SU-27 significantly inside Russia in the Kursk region. Possibly the reason that fighter has been seen so rarely in the war has to do with the fear of loss. There were hints this was not the first incident of its sort. If the tactic works against the Russian glide-bomb planes, and with the ground war essentially stalled, it just boils down to how much punishment from Russian rockets and drones Ukraine can endure...
I have heard the President of Finland speak a couple of times and I really like this guy.
President of Finland
President of Finland
F16 did not have that kill. It was later confirmed that it was an anti air battery ( either Patriot or S-300) that took down Russian fighter, which btw was an advanced Su 35.
F16 still does not have confirmed kills in that war
I appreciate that this guy does not freak out. He is paying attention, but he "ain't skeered."
During the Winter War, one Finn said of the invading Russians, "There are so many of them. Where will we find places to bury all of them?
One of my good friends is Finnish, seeing their president speak with this level of composure is unsurprising. The Russians won't mess with Finland.
There are lots of ways to figure cost.
So a question on the price of the F-35, TW. Do you know if the $81M cost is on the margin, or fully loaded?
As in, does it cost $81M to produce the next one? Or does that number include an allocation of the sunk costs of R&D and development of manufacturing capacity?
He'd mop the floor with any of the current candidates in either party for our 2028 Presidential election. Can he be President of Finland and run for President here? We need somebody like him.
No because we let morons vote and morons do not like intelligent articulate people. They prefer their own kind.
I had a Russian friend try to tell me that the Finns were Nazis in WW2.
He didn't want to hear that Finland used the crooked cross symbol(swastika) before the Nazis ever existed, and was the reason why their airplanes had the symbols on them.
And he didn't want to discuss why the Finns turned to Germany for help when the Soviet Union tried to invade Finland.
The Finns kicked their behinds, and will probably do so again if Vladimir feels a froggy.
(We go to Earlham, IA occasionally for a cool breakfast place. There is a farm on the drive into town with a silo that is crowned with swastikas. It's family of proud Finns. https://www.dreamstime.com/editoria...on-county-ceramic-sil-was-built-image85520702
Blow up the image and you will see the symbols.
Teaching history in Russia is driven by propaganda
The moron has to have a moron to vote for. We should not let morons run for office...
Its why we really need a formidable third party to step forward. Deadlock and polarization between 2 parties is ruining this country.
Its why we really need a formidable third party to step forward. Deadlock and polarization between 2 parties is ruining this country.
Latest threads
-
-
-
Texas Hill Country flooding...
- Started by TIDE-HSV
- Replies: 10
-
40th Anniversary Redux: The Rick Camp Game (Braves vs Mets)- Started by selmaborntidefan
- Replies: 7
-
-
