Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Please feel free to cite those figures.Both soldiers and equipment.Three fold superiority of what?Tha Nato defense plan for Europe bases on nuclear weapons. As it is largely known that the Nato has no chance against the threefold Russian superiority and it would wait for the Russian gatherings in Germany and nuke them.Tanks are still important, but nuclear weapons are what gives the Russians strategic credibility. A theoretical nuclear bombardment of Warsaw was part of their tactical exercises during the recent Russian war games.The OP isn´t about a Russian war on the west but about the world´s best rated tanks that a incapable of defeating other tanks. German medias chose to take Russian tanks as example due to their general fear mongering since the crisis started in Ukraine.OP is a fallacy since the Russian economy would collapse if it chose to wage war on the west.
Yeah, we know it.I cuss the German Shits.
I just explained that it doesn´t matter if the few German tanks can destroy Russian tanks or not.Please explain the contradiction. I can´t find it.The OP isn´t about a Russian war on the west but about the world´s best rated tanks that a incapable of defeating other tanks. German medias chose to take Russian tanks as example due to their general fear mongering since the crisis started in Ukraine.OP is a fallacy since the Russian economy would collapse if it chose to wage war on the west.
Too bad your own OP contradicts your deflection!
"Honestly, if the Russians would attack, any resistance with 328 tanks is suicide whether they are able to destroy Russian tanks or not."And so does your post #6!
"The Jelzin times are over and the Russian army´s stroll through Europe would be a piece of cake."
You said..."The OP isn´t about a Russian war on the west "
But you contradicted that by saying this in the OP..."if the Russians would attack".
Why else would the Russians attack unless there was a war on the west?
You then compounded your contradiction with this statement..."the Russian army´s stroll through Europe".
What would that be except an invasion which would be an act of war?
The world saw that Russia can occupy foreign territory without any response from Nato.Please feel free to cite those figures.Both soldiers and equipment.Three fold superiority of what?Tha Nato defense plan for Europe bases on nuclear weapons. As it is largely known that the Nato has no chance against the threefold Russian superiority and it would wait for the Russian gatherings in Germany and nuke them.Tanks are still important, but nuclear weapons are what gives the Russians strategic credibility. A theoretical nuclear bombardment of Warsaw was part of their tactical exercises during the recent Russian war games.The OP isn´t about a Russian war on the west but about the world´s best rated tanks that a incapable of defeating other tanks. German medias chose to take Russian tanks as example due to their general fear mongering since the crisis started in Ukraine.
Wet dreams.The French Army is right next door and, despite what you will doubtless hear as a response following this post, they can defeat Russian tanks. Their helicopters alone would rapidly neutralize a 'panzer' advance? Their Air Force would prevent Russian air dominance.
That, without mentioning that the Americans would be all over such a preposterous Russian undertaking.
In this case, then, the German armor would be reserved for counter attack against infantry, etc., and would probably confront very few T90s or other.
A normal person is still unable to discover a contradiction here.I just explained that it doesn´t matter if the few German tanks can destroy Russian tanks or not.Please explain the contradiction. I can´t find it.The OP isn´t about a Russian war on the west but about the world´s best rated tanks that a incapable of defeating other tanks. German medias chose to take Russian tanks as example due to their general fear mongering since the crisis started in Ukraine.
Too bad your own OP contradicts your deflection!
"Honestly, if the Russians would attack, any resistance with 328 tanks is suicide whether they are able to destroy Russian tanks or not."And so does your post #6!
"The Jelzin times are over and the Russian army´s stroll through Europe would be a piece of cake."
You said..."The OP isn´t about a Russian war on the west "
But you contradicted that by saying this in the OP..."if the Russians would attack".
Why else would the Russians attack unless there was a war on the west?
You then compounded your contradiction with this statement..."the Russian army´s stroll through Europe".
What would that be except an invasion which would be an act of war?
You asked for an explanation of your contradiction.
A normal person would be polite and say thank you.
No, you don't seem to understand. I asked for actual figures, not more opinions.The world saw that Russia can occupy foreign territory without any response from Nato.Please feel free to cite those figures.Both soldiers and equipment.Three fold superiority of what?Tha Nato defense plan for Europe bases on nuclear weapons. As it is largely known that the Nato has no chance against the threefold Russian superiority and it would wait for the Russian gatherings in Germany and nuke them.Tanks are still important, but nuclear weapons are what gives the Russians strategic credibility. A theoretical nuclear bombardment of Warsaw was part of their tactical exercises during the recent Russian war games.
Read here:
NATO Is In No Position to Protect Eastern Europe From Russia The New Republic
Facts aren´t opinions. I am not going to post any figures because they differ on each source.No, you don't seem to understand. I asked for actual figures, not more opinions.The world saw that Russia can occupy foreign territory without any response from Nato.Please feel free to cite those figures.Both soldiers and equipment.Three fold superiority of what?Tha Nato defense plan for Europe bases on nuclear weapons. As it is largely known that the Nato has no chance against the threefold Russian superiority and it would wait for the Russian gatherings in Germany and nuke them.
Read here:
NATO Is In No Position to Protect Eastern Europe From Russia The New Republic
You think, that old Russian tanks with cheap Iraqi ammunition are a good comparison for this case?Did anyone else notice what happened to Russian tanks when confronted by French and American forces in
Iraq I?
Evasive and non responsive. I think we're done here.Facts aren´t opinions. I am not going to post any figures because they differ on each source.No, you don't seem to understand. I asked for actual figures, not more opinions.The world saw that Russia can occupy foreign territory without any response from Nato.Please feel free to cite those figures.Both soldiers and equipment.Three fold superiority of what?
Read here:
NATO Is In No Position to Protect Eastern Europe From Russia The New Republic
Yeah, you have proven to be misinformed and politically incited.Evasive and non responsive. I think we're done here.Facts aren´t opinions. I am not going to post any figures because they differ on each source.No, you don't seem to understand. I asked for actual figures, not more opinions.The world saw that Russia can occupy foreign territory without any response from Nato.Please feel free to cite those figures.Both soldiers and equipment.
Read here:
NATO Is In No Position to Protect Eastern Europe From Russia The New Republic
We'll start with some actual figures.Yeah, you have proven to be misinformed and politically incited.Evasive and non responsive. I think we're done here.Facts aren´t opinions. I am not going to post any figures because they differ on each source.No, you don't seem to understand. I asked for actual figures, not more opinions.The world saw that Russia can occupy foreign territory without any response from Nato.Please feel free to cite those figures.
Read here:
NATO Is In No Position to Protect Eastern Europe From Russia The New Republic
Go to other websites and see other figures. When the Russians invade Europe, how many American soldiers and weapons are there for the defense, by the way?We'll start with some actual figures.Yeah, you have proven to be misinformed and politically incited.Evasive and non responsive. I think we're done here.Facts aren´t opinions. I am not going to post any figures because they differ on each source.No, you don't seem to understand. I asked for actual figures, not more opinions.The world saw that Russia can occupy foreign territory without any response from Nato.
Read here:
NATO Is In No Position to Protect Eastern Europe From Russia The New Republic
World Military Strength Comparison
A normal person is still unable to discover a contradiction here.I just explained that it doesn´t matter if the few German tanks can destroy Russian tanks or not.Please explain the contradiction. I can´t find it.Too bad your own OP contradicts your deflection!
"Honestly, if the Russians would attack, any resistance with 328 tanks is suicide whether they are able to destroy Russian tanks or not."And so does your post #6!
"The Jelzin times are over and the Russian army´s stroll through Europe would be a piece of cake."
You said..."The OP isn´t about a Russian war on the west "
But you contradicted that by saying this in the OP..."if the Russians would attack".
Why else would the Russians attack unless there was a war on the west?
You then compounded your contradiction with this statement..."the Russian army´s stroll through Europe".
What would that be except an invasion which would be an act of war?
You asked for an explanation of your contradiction.
A normal person would be polite and say thank you.
Yeah, you have proven to be misinformed and politically incited.Evasive and non responsive. I think we're done here.Facts aren´t opinions. I am not going to post any figures because they differ on each source.No, you don't seem to understand. I asked for actual figures, not more opinions.The world saw that Russia can occupy foreign territory without any response from Nato.Please feel free to cite those figures.
Read here:
NATO Is In No Position to Protect Eastern Europe From Russia The New Republic
German Leopard 2 A6's were used extensively in Afghanistan and proved to be one of the best tanks in the world. Since the Russian upgrade of a small percentage of it's T-72 to either T-80's or T-90's, NATO, including Germany have been upgrading the Leopard to the A7+ series. In addition the fleet of leftover Russian tanks in Poland are steadily being upgraded to the now called P-91 model which is compatible with the Russian T-90. NATO tanks are as good or better than anything Russia can produce. The catch is that Russia can only afford to upgrade and produce the newer versions in limited quantities while it's main force includes older versions, even T-64's and 55's. NATO tends to upgrade in large quantity and their entire fleets.Did anyone else notice what happened to Russian tanks when confronted by French and American forces in
Iraq I?
NATO s Military Capabilities in Europe Should Deter Russian Aggression - US NewsGo to other websites and see other figures. When the Russians invade Europe, how many American soldiers and weapons are there for the defense, by the way?We'll start with some actual figures.Yeah, you have proven to be misinformed and politically incited.Evasive and non responsive. I think we're done here.Facts aren´t opinions. I am not going to post any figures because they differ on each source.No, you don't seem to understand. I asked for actual figures, not more opinions.
World Military Strength Comparison