Artillery. Why did Europens abandon their artillery? They are

>thinking they abandoned their artillery

lolno.

They've probably got Maginot Line 3.0 and their arty is hidden as fuck from satellites and observation.

>>31936613

>Says Europeans have abandoned artillery
>Posts Finns with plenty of it
>ihavenofaceforthis.png

>>31936618
Lol no, their artillery is sitting in a warehouse aging while they funnel more money into social cuck programs

>>31936648
Finns are the only exception...

Mostly of Europeans just abbandon their amry since is too burtal and mank liberals faggots cry every time you try to upgrade something, like anon said before they prefer to spend in cuck social program.

>>31937146

As European, this is pretty much true.
The only thing my country (The Netherlands) spends serious money on is the F-35 and lets the rest of the army rot. There's no point in getting ~30 F-35 if we will probably keep around 10 or so operational. It's embarrassing.

Why should Europeans pay for armies when they can hire the US's army?

File: Archerside_artillery_system.jpg (338KB, 791x412px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 791x412px

Sweden has 24 archer trucks that the military owns and another 24 that were norways but they changed their mind so Sweden has 48 Archer trucks currently.

Funny that Swedens army pretty much has given up any semblence of actually being there to protect the country and just went down the "meh might aswell annoy you with hit and runs"

I was in Switzerland a while ago. While visiting a military base, i spoke to some of the personnel there (really cool people btw) and they filled me in on a lot of stuff, including some of their defensive tactics.
Apparently, they still rely heavily on the use of mobile artillery. They have their own version of the m109 they deploy on half a dozen or so formations, with a different approach to what the US does. Instead of setting up semi permanent bases of fire, they coordinate with the infantry with real time interfaces (drones, gps, laser designators) and operate in hit & run maneuvers and disperse formations to avoid counterartillery fire. That, combined with their extremely mobile infantry (i saw loads of jeeps, and the most excellent piranha afvs, in both tank hunter, infantry support, medevac and mobile command centers, basically a moving base of operations) and the very healthy armored force and shock troops. They really seemed to have their shit together.
In my country (Spain) they have some aging paladins and MRLS they in a straight copycat way to the US.
Dunno much about other european countries tho.

TL;DR Do not invade Switzerland, seriously

>>31937237
>instead of setting up semi permanent bases of fire, they coordinate with the infantry with real time interfaces (drones, gps, laser designators) and operate in hit & run maneuvers and disperse formations to avoid counterartillery fire.
Wait, surely the US performs in a similiar manner, right? I mean, it's fucking elementary.

File: 80ef7f5a9f2a107165cd1c0f6631e7b8.jpg (35KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 700x467px

>>31937237#

Pic related
Notice the extended ammo compartment for added autonomy

Technical name is M109 KAWEST

>>31937282
>named for a famous rapper
eurocucks

>>31937260#

Nope. As far as i'm aware, they just set semi permanent bases of fire where they supply the ammo directly (as opposed to the swiss, who pack everything in). I guess it's symptomatic from the kind of warfare the US has been getting into lately. Arty has limited use in counter insurgency roles, and can be but marginally useful in merely defensive roles.
The greater accuracy, mobility and selectiveness of drones and gunships has stripped them of their roles as primary ground destruction tools in a scenario where you wanna limit civillian casualties. I sure do expect them to have alternative guidelines for conventional warfare tho, but then again, maybe they don't. Just like the UK forgot jack all about their MBTs, and now T14 shows up and they scramble to haphazardly bring challenger 2 up to date.

>>31937330
I'm sure it's just for COIN purposes that they keep them semi-permanent. Doesn't make sense in any other way.

>>31937146

Ahaha.

Conventional warfare is dead. Foreign policy for the vast majority of Euro countries is dead. Americans control our skies and our seas. My country alone has more than 3000 US military installations, from small checkpoints to full-fledged air bases. Why even bother, I say.

Why should we bother to waste time and money on useless weapons (I have visited the place were we keep endless rows of rusting Leopards) instead of trying desperately to keep up a failing social state and a disastrous economic crisis?

Most EU countries should cut military services and get at best militarized police or something. No reason to keep around cargo cult organizations that are merely used today as civil protection or as a refugee rescue service.

>>31937349
>Conventional warfare is dead.
What, half a century of peace and there's no more wars ever?

File: shadow_csm_Kan__art__p1035_Coverflow_2ac_eee696d44a.png (154KB, 320x236px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 320x236px

>>31936613
>Switzerland
>We are relevant !

File: as90.jpg (242KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1024x680px

>>31936613

The Royal Artillery would like a word, Anon.

File: Caesar-8x8-Nexter.jpg (324KB, 1296x864px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1296x864px

>>31936613
The fuck are you talking?

File: 1435777159025.png (504KB, 490x537px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 490x537px

>>31937505
>mfw seeing the video for this

Hungary still has a couple thousand artillery pieces.
As I understand it, NATO is trying to replace it with self propelled guns. (Though, I don't think NATO likes Hungary that much.)

>>31937189
>>31937505
Meant to reply to the Archer.

>>31937301
>not wanting to try and shoot a nigger to the moon

>>31937301
literally who?

>>31937380
>may I remind you that we are not relevant
>we are just way too much a pain in the ass to bother with over nothing
WOLVERINES!

File: totally_not_arty.jpg (120KB, 600x377px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 600x377px

>>31936613
>Why did Europens abandon their artillery?
pardon?

File: AS90 gun line.jpg (1MB, 3000x1997px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x1997px

Are you retarded OP?

>>31937301
That came from the U.S

You produced the nigger, you dumb burger...

File: 1443639740283.jpg (6KB, 181x200px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 181x200px

>>31936613
OP confirmed for americuck burger retard

>>31937520
>Says this with out posting the video
fuck u cuck

>>31937657
>>31937495
Decent amount of SPGs but only 105mm field guns, what the fuck

File: 1450483149209.jpg (23KB, 589x367px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 589x367px

What?
France, German, and the UK each have ~100 very modern SPGs.

Sure that isn't very much compared to the US, but that is a general funding problem, not an artillery problem.

>>31937835
Why would you need 155 mm field guns when you have a decent ammount of 155mm SPGs?

>>31937875
>France, German, and the UK each have ~100 very modern SPGs.
kek. Even Ukraine has more artillery, then.

>>31937357
look, idk how old are you but next "Big One" would really be the last, its just too easy nowdays and honestly no oneknows who the fuck packs nuclear warheads(Romania,Bulgaria,Pakistan,India,France etc...basically everyone can get an hold ofAbomb today). There is just no way that one size wouldnt push the button if cornered and that would make chain reaction that would make too much damage to sustain life on Earth(if bees die off 70% of oxygen making flora would be ruined, thus changing the face of earth forever)

File: Ukrainian army.jpg (113KB, 340x603px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 340x603px

>>31938027
>very modern
>Ukraine

>>31937125
This.

If NATO had to go to war on anything but their own terms they would get btfo in a month.

>>31938110
WW2 started with the Axis winning as well. Look at how that turned out.

>>31938031
>(if bees die off 70% of oxygen making flora would be ruined, thus changing the face of earth forever)
This is a total lie, you know. The majority of oxygen is not produced by plants that require pollination by bees. The majority comes from rainforests and ocean algae.

>>31938110
Who is this mysterious power that can somehow counter NATO? The most powerful military alliance on the planet?

>>31937349
>Conventional warfare is dead.
>see this in your neighborhood
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya7II2Dr9CI
>what to do?

>>31938190
Vatnik meme magic is a powerful drug, my friend

>retards that think "unconventional guerilla warface" means conventional war will never happen again

File: 1359836924015.png (2MB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x1080px

Lithuania got 21 pzh2000 and 88 boxers(that not allowed to repair and to send to germany)

NATO is just shit, because it has no reason to exist since fall of soviet union and had to invent enemies to have reason why they to keep NATO

Poland probably has strongest army by readiness and not on paper. Germany maintains barely good enough to look good on paper.

>>31936613
Because liberal cunts never learn from history.

To quote Clausewitz:
"We are not interested in generals who win victories without bloodshed. The fact that slaughter is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms"

Pussyfists and politicians are fools who think that reducing armed forces makes war less likely, when in fact it has the opposite effect.

File: Saunders Team.png (691KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 1280x720px

>>31938983
>Poland probably has strongest army by readiness and not on paper.

>What are France and the United Kingdom

>>31939257
This really
France and UK are your top two here, then you got poles with loads of tanks, and just generally the rest of europe that are otherwise essentially cannon fodder

>>31939323
>poles with loads of obsolete tanks
ftfy

>>31939372
Well, half of them are Leopards and the other half are T-72 upgrades so pretty much in line with what Russia can offer.

>>31938983
>NATO is just shit, because it has no reason to exist since fall of soviet union and had to invent enemies to have reason why they to keep NATO

Vatnik pls

>>31939372
Numbers, France and UK are the big two here, they're your best western military powers, they're just limited in numbers, so you need a lot of bulk, ie the rest of europe, to counter russian bulk
And all France and UK have to do is wait for the rest of the US to show up, while already having loads of US support

>>31939400
The Leopards, sure.
However, Polish T-72M1s are obsolete compared to T-72B (oldest Russian tank in active service).

>>31936613

For number of European countries - they never did.

When it comes to Baltics with Estonia & Latvia it happened circa 1940 - 1941 basically with following developments:
- 1940: Congratulations, your country is now part of Soviet Union. Officers and senior NCO please kneel there so we can shoot you in back of head. Junior NCO & rank and file - welcome to glorious Red Army.
- 1941: Damn Germans are advancing, prepare to retreat to mother Russia with rest of the guns.

Once Baltic states gained their independence Soviet military units went to Russia, taking their heavy weapons with them. Baltic states have acquired some artillery since, but as far as I know they have no live fire training areas large enough for field artillery, which makes developing field artillery quite problematic.

>>31937163
If you mean "beg for the US's continued protection from jobless dune coons because they're broke from importing jobless dune coons" sure.

>>31937237
Too bad they only have about a battalion of them.

Which, in the event of an invasion (the only time they'd shoot at another living thing), is pretty much piss in a hurricane.

>>31937260
We can do both. Firebases are good for COIN.

>>31937349
Have fun when the US pulls out of NATO because you refuse to spend your 2% and you're left completely helpless.

>>31937495
>the entire Royal Artillery in one picture

>>31938983
>NATO is just shit, because it has no reason to exist since fall of soviet union and had to invent enemies to have reason why they to keep NATO
>*Baltic states agree to join Russia*

>>31936613
Because they're American client states
Having too much hardware might make them think they could be independent

>>31937162
Thanks for the dirty cheap Leopards
t. a Finn

>>31939495
Not by a large margin, and they're better crewed and in better working order.

60% of Russia's armor is inoperable currently.

>>31938983
>Nato is just shit
True statement
>because it has no reason to exist
False statement

NATO has a reason to exist--The Russian Federation. Unfortunately, it's shit because it includes non-American countries, and those countries are unwilling to even attempt to pull their own weight. So what you get is American soldiers ordered around by non-Americans outside of the interests of America, and since the only people that give a shit about the outcome of this are at zero risk because they're not fighting, the results are shit.

File: baitgavemecancer.png (65KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 550x550px

>>31937349

>>31939650
>60% of Russia's armor is inoperable currently.
Confirmed for not having watched the videos of Slav equivalent of hillbillies finding abandoned WW2 era soviet armor and getting it operational within the day or so. The aircraft is, however, another matter, that's where the arbitrary number of 60% sounds more or less close to the truth.

>>31936613

They haven't. They retain light airmobile guns and SPGs for close support/firebase/COIN work, and a smaller number of guided rocket arty primarily geared around the depth fire/counter-batt/fucking up that entire armored column role.

The reason they don't have masses and masses of field guns is that in a world of FLIR and fast air, shoot and scoot with field guns won't work. They're just too slow. Even if they evade detection long enough to get rounds off, you only get one mission before soundranging gear and ASP has you nailed and the counter-battery is on the way. In that sense, its not worth retaining a large inventory of field guns. Enough to post in FOBs for low-intensity conflicts will do.

The general decline in the number of SPGs follows a similar pattern, in that everything it can do is done better by fast air and CAS. It is difficult to hide a column of SPGs and their associated logistics, they suffer the same issues with sound-ranging, and whilst they can shoot and scoot better than a towed battery they certainly won't be on station for long in a hot, mobile war against a well equipped opponent; one or two missions and you'll either face CB or have to move to support the advance. So enough to support the forward element, do local CB and blunt a counterattack is 'enough'.

These days the depth fire job is reaching out to 70km, so it is much more attractive to invest the cash in CAS/MLRS systems and keep them well behind walls of SAMs and far out of the range of counter-battery for when you really want to drop the hammer on someone.

It is also worth remembering that volume of fire is only needed when accuracy is lacking. Pretty much all guns these days are computer laid. No more gunnery tables, creeping fire and flinging 200 rounds to blow up an OP. Just a GPS and a good FFO.

Really the decline of artillery systems is reflective of the proliferation of guided munitions, effective air-ground and post cold-war budgets.

>>31939830
They cant even get their stuff operational on parades.

>>31939586
Again, who is going to threaten Europe? Russia? Russia has 1/5 the population, 1/9 the economy, 1/4 the military spending of Europe and far far less soldiers. Europe isn't in danger and has very limited foreign policy interests. So why should the European countries spend more on defence?

>>31940115
Nigger can you not read?
>>31937349
"why even bother with a military"
>>31939586
>"because the US will leave you to die if you get rid of your military"

Also:
>and far far less soldiers
Russia's Army, while small, still outnumbers the combined entire militaries of France, the UK, and Germany. And those are the only modern militaries in all of Europe. And that's just Russia's *ground forces*.

And yes I know numbers aren't the full story but you're flat out fucking wrong on saying they've got "far far less" soldiers.

>>31939830
Confirmed for not having watched the videos of their brand-new "supertank" breaking down and catching fire in the middle of a parade less than 3 months after it was built.

Also, do you really think all those T72's they have mothballed have trained crews? Do you think they have ammo? Fuel?
>inb4 "they'll run on vodka"
A vodka rationing or shortage would literally lead to a coup d'etat within 24 hours in Russia.

>>31940196
Are you really that dense to think that Russia could win a war against Europe? How is Russia supposed to win a conventional war if they have less of EVERYTHING that matters in war? Economy, population, infastrucuture etc. This is not the Warsaw pact we are talking about.

And no Germany, France and Britain aren't the only modern militaries in Europe, they are just the biggest. Russia would still need to beat Poland, Scandinavia, Finland, Italy, Spain etc.

And about fewer sodliers - Europe has about 1,5 million soldiers compared to Russia's 800k.

Europe isn't save because of the US military, Europe is save because there is no neighbouring country big enough to attack it.

>>31937301
KAWEST stands for Kampfwertsteigerung (meaning improved)

>>31936613
>Especially the Baltics, Sweden and Germany make me wonder.
Me too.
Artillery + cheap drones the way they used it in Ukraine is scary shit.

>>31940196
This.
>British Armed Forces: 153,470 active, 81,850 reserve
>French Armed Forces: 208,916 active, 27,785 reserve
>German Armed Forces: 176,509 active, 40,000 reserve
>total: 538,895 active/149,635 reserve for 688,530 total combined
Compared to
>Russian Armed Forces: 771,000 active, 2,000,000 reserve
Sourced from Wikipedia

Also:
>http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing-nato-members.asp
>NATO has 28 member nations. 3 do not maintain ANY standing military.
>NATO total 3.5 million personnel. Of which 2.5 million are US. This leaves the ENTIRE REMAINING 27 COUNTRIES with a combined total of 1 million troops.

>>31940356
Do you really think Russia would have to face the entirety of Europe at the same time?
4 countries have sworn neutrality. 7 are so crippled by debt they could not afford a war, even to save their own soil, without US or Chinese intervention (either monetarily or militarily). At least 1 would refuse to fight due to a super-pussified MoD and PM. So assuming Russia doesn't go full FULDA GAP NAO on multiple countries at once, they probably could.
>Poland, Scandinavia, Finland, Italy, Spain
>modern military
>no tactical or strategic airlift. No mentionable navy. Less than a full wing of fighters, and they're almost all multirole at that. No EW/AWACS.
>modern military

And as far as numbers: See >>31940398
he even sourced them. You're wrong on all points.

>>31940398
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Armed_Forces

Europe is not just Germany, France and Britain and even if Russia had more soldiers, it would still have a smaller industry, could produce less food, draft fewer men and so on.

>>31938031
>if bees die off 70% of oxygen making flora would be ruined, thus changing the face of earth forever
Biosphere already proved that ant populations will step in and pollinate instead.

On the down side Antman's paradise is born.

>>31940398
>Russian Armed Forces
Most of those are conscripts though. NATO armies are much better euipped professionals.

I recommend this article by an expert.

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/02/25/russia_cant_beat_nato--but_putin_may_try.html?_escaped_fragment_=#!

>>31940468
See
>>31940462

>>31940516
>4 NATO armies out of the 28 NATO armies are much better equipped professionals, and one of them isn't European
FTFY

File: Krab_MSPO2010.jpg (142KB, 1024x874px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1024x874px

polan got dem krabs

>>31940534
>number built: 10
>operational: 3
>variants: 3
Irrelevant

>>31937162
>There's no point in getting ~30 F-35 if we will probably keep around 10 or so operational. It's embarrassing.

Yours is a supplementary force by design, it's built for relying upon and aiding a superior force in joint operation.

>>31940550
cause they are the new hot stuff, we still got plenty of danas and gozdziks left

>>31940516
>This, however, is the wrong question. The West’s more pressing concern should be whether Putin, for his own reasons, will force Russia’s military into a clash with NATO regardless of the consequences. The Russian president is a neo-Soviet nostalgist who not only craves revenge for the collapse of the USSR, but who still harbors old-school Kremlin fantasies about the weakness of the decadent West. If Putin’s adventure in Ukraine turns into an attempt to test NATO, his miscalculation will result in global disaster, and so it is imperative that U.S. and Western policy now should be to stop the Russians right where they are and to end Putin’s reckless gambling streak.
Sure seems like an expert with all those hot opinions and rampant speculation in the very first fucking paragraph.

>>31940462
Oh yeah that is a great battle plan - bet on that the enemy refuses to fight.

>Poland, Scandinavia, Finland, Italy, Spain
>modern military

Do you really think that the average Scandinavian division is so much more worse then the average Russian division? And why do you need strategic airlift to defend your own fucking borders? And what happens if the war isn't over in two weeks?

Let me guess, you also think that the US beat Nazi-Germany all by itself eh? USA USA USA !!!111

File: 1441651109353.jpg (27KB, 446x446px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 446x446px

>>31940255
confirmed for having burger for a brain.
watch video again, driver by accident put parking brake and even evacuator could't move, but later it drove away on its own.

and what fire? you mean one from BUK from parade in different city.

>>31940591
Don't mistake an expert opinion for speculation just because it gives you butthurt or something.

> Tom Nichols is Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval War College and an adjunct at the Harvard Extension School.

>>31940595
>do you really think that the average Scandinavian division is so much more worse than the average Russian division?
Doesn't matter, they don't even have 1 division much less enough to form an average. Literally they only have 4 battalions split between 2 regiments.
>and why do you need strategic airlift to defend your own fucking borders?
Because you're in a military alliance whose only hope of survival is mutual aid, which can't happen if NOBODY CAN MOVE THEIR TROOPS AND EQUIPMENT ANYWHERE WITHIN A FUCKING MONTH because nobody has heavy airlift? Or are we doing the whole "they have to fight an alliance whose sum is greater than its parts/every country for himself lmao" thing?
>and what happens if the war isn't over in two weeks?
Well considering most EU countries would be out of ammo in 6 days much less 2 weeks, I'm assuming they're doing better than expected and losing slowly instead of losing rapidly. Remember you're talking about the same countries that couldn't fucking bomb Syria for more than 4 days without having to bum munitions off the US.

Let me guess, you're a die-hard patriot that thinks your single brigade of well-trained-but-unfunded infantry from your shithole flyover country could singlehandedly hold off 2.5 million Russians, right?

>>31940624
Having now read the entire article, I still think that he's full of shit. Also the article's entire theme is "the EU can hold out long enough for Daddy America to come bail them out, IF they work together, and IF they get lucky, with relatively minor permanent damage to infrastructure and only a couple million dead", which is irrelevant to the thread and argument.

>>31940668
What country are you even talking about?

>>31938137
Nato didn't exist until after ww2?
I don't get your point anon.
Germany is part of nato so I don't think ww2 is an accurate comparison.

>>31940678
I still think you're just butthurt for ... reasons.

The article is relevant to discussing Russia's nominal superiority in numbers which you know since you read the etire article.

>>31940698
Sweden.

But if you want to talk about the multi-country NORDEFCO (which extends well outside of Scandinavia), they still only have 8 battalions of Army (5 infantry, 2 armor, 1 support). Which isn't even 2 full divisions.

File: Capture.png (36KB, 645x167px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 645x167px

>>31940710
Are you sure YOU read the article?

Literally the entire thing is "the US needs to bolster EU countries with troops on ground before Russia attacks, it's their only chance"

>>31940255
>Also, do you really think all those T72's they have mothballed have trained crews? Do you think they have ammo? Fuel?
I dunno, they seem to be doing fairly well in Eastern Ukraine.

>>31937162
Lockheed Martin destroyed your army and made your country another vassal state of the US of A. Enjoy being a bitch

>>31940668
Ah okay I can see, you need strategic airlift to get tanks from Germany to Poland eh? Guess we are all fucked then. But you still haven't explained how Europe, despite having much more of everything would lose versus Russia other then that we are all cowardly, cheese eating surrender monkeys who can only be saved by the heroic americans.

>Syria
I never said that Europe had much overseas power projection, but you do not need to have aircraft carriers to defend your own borders. You can go from Granada all the way up to Warsaw without getting your feet wet.

>Ammuniton
Both Russia and Europe would run out of ammo pretty early, but so did the countries in WWI until they changed to war economy. If Russia can't win the war in a matter of weeks (lol), they simply can't keep up with Europes industry.

But hey what are numbers when you have prejudices. When Russia comes, we Europeans would just lay down and wait for our American Overlords to save us.

>>31940115
>things Europeans said about Germany in the 1930's

>>31938983
>Poland probably has strongest army by readiness
Why is this thread full of retards?

>NATO is just shit, because it has no reason to exist
Oh, it's just Russian trolls, nevermind

>>31939400
As far as I remember the Poles have a big problem with ammunition shortages and general quality problems with Polish-made rounds.

So they might have lots of tanks, but not necessarily enough rounds to keep them operational for an extended period of time.

File: 1283828624357.jpg (41KB, 480x499px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 480x499px

>>31940534
>>31940590
>even mentioning this embarrasment

>>31940874
No but you'd need strategic airlift to get tanks from, say, Scotland to Italy if you want them there in a timely manner. Or from Italy to Poland. Or from Britain to [anywhere other than Ireland or France]. Especially if the entire region is being invaded.

>Europe, despite having much more of everything
Except men, ammo, tanks, fighters, helicopters, trucks, ships, guns, and everything else needed to run a war.
>b-but my draftable populations!
By the time France is down to drafting women and faggots Russia is fucking pressganging Mongolians and Worst Koreans. As well as all their POW's, if they take any.

>but you still haven't explained how Europe, despite [bullshit and disproven claims], would lose
Simple: Relatively equal-manpower forces fighting each other. One is a homogenous entity that has trained within itself, the other is a non-homogenous entity that really doesn't train, period. The homogenous entity has a massive advantage in numbers of heavy equipment (Russia operates more T80's alone than all EU countries have tanks total, not counting all the T72's, T90's, and handful of T14's Russia also has. Even if half of them don't run they still have 3x as many operational tanks.) and heavy munitions (more cruise missiles, more rocket artillery, more dumb bombs, more A2G missiles, far far far FAR more AA missiles), and is on the offense against a mostly unaware, un-mobilized opponent.


I'm not claiming Russia is GOOD at fighting, just that it has the materiel and (in theory) logistics to make a hell of a go at the entirety of the EU if America is guaranteed to sit on the sidelines. It would be a literal zerg rush, but it could work.

>>31940590
>new hot stuff
>last one produced in 2011, no more ordered
Sure thing

File: 61IgIqKfWTL._SL1296_.jpg (64KB, 1296x936px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1296x936px

>>31940926
This only applies for the T-72/PT-91 variants I imagine

>>31940985
>2011 is old
how retarded are you sempai
>no more ordered
wrong, we have orders up to 2025

>>31941000
Not according to Wikipedia or any other source I could find (in any language I speak), but then again I don't understand your borking.

Sorry if I missed something.

>>31940992
I remember something about a loading accident in a Leo a couple of years back, but I can't recall any details.

I'm sure the Germans could share if needed, though.

>>31941000
>new hot stuff
>only 10 made, last one made was made 5 years ago
In order for it to be hot it has to be effective. Which 10 of any SPG isn't.

>>31940668
why would you need airlift to move shit around europe

>>31940731
What do you expect a small country like Finland to field, exactly? A 100% militarised society where every single person from 16 to 60 is in active reserve? At least on paper their military is fine, the strongest out of their scandi neighbors for sure. Perfectly adequate for defending their terrain against Russia, especially a Russia that has to fight in eastern Europe as well and worry about China stabbing it in the back.

>>31940731
Sweden has 6 Battalions of mech inf plus one Arimobile light battalion and one motorized battalion.

And 40 light infantry Homeguard battalions.

They also have 100 Gripen C/Ds wich is more and better than anything the Russians has in the area.

>>31940975
>and is on the offense against a mostly unaware, un-mobilized opponent.
How exactly do you presume this is going to happen? Russia manages to mobilise yet literally no one in Europe notices?

>>31941053
Because they don't have the infrastructure to drive it rapidly enough to meet the "2 weeks or less" proposed by the guy arguing on behalf of the EU, and sea shipping would not be safe in time of war. Which leaves flying.
>Oh shit, the Russians just invaded Helsinki!
>b-but all my tanks are in Frankfurt
>Yeah let's just drive the 2100km there through 3 other countries and 2 mountain ranges with no highway-tier passes capable of handling large trucks or heavy vehicles in bad weather! Surely that won't take multiple days, right? Surely they won't arrive too late, right? Right?

>>31941100
For a start, 1% of population serving in the armed forces like other nations? Finland has a population of 5.4 million. At 1% service that's 54,000 active personnel. They don't even have half that.

>>31941129
>Russia has been fucking around and "mobilizing" in the Baltics for 20 years, nobody cared enough to countermobilize
>Russia actively invaded Ukraine, nobody cared enough to countermobilize (including Ukraine)
>Russia, and formerly the USSR, has a 60 year history of randomly massing troops and equipment in various border areas then not doing anything
Pretty sure nobody would take it seriously until well after the invasion had begun. Because that's what history shows us Europe has done, consistently.

>>31941141
You forgot about rail, you know, the most popular and efficient way of moving armor around.

>>31941179
Also what should be the first target of any invasion specifically because of that.

Also it takes multiple days to load vehicles onto railcars.

Also you can't take a train across water, which is required in order to get to Helsinki from the rest of Europe without driving up through Russia (which would, obviously, be hostile).

>>31941141
>At 1% service that's 54,000 active personnel. They don't even have half that.

Finland relies on conscription. Active military means nothing when you do that.

And they have over 300 000 people in their mobilized army.

>>31941193
Also trains are highly susceptible to aerial attack (either missile or airplane or helicopter.

>>31941195
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces
>active personnel: 22,000
Why would you lie on the internet?

>>31939844
Try maintaining CAS consistently at large scale without running out of bombs, planes, money, or weather preventing flight.
People who claim the end of artillery are as stupid as those who claim the end of the tank.

>>31941215

The Army alone has over 160 000 troops. And thats not counting Local Defence troops.

Source? Finnish Armed Forces official website
http://maavoimat.fi/sv/om-oss

>>31940975
>Need Airlift to send troops from Italy to Poland

I'm no longer sure you even know what Europe even looks like. Austria, Hungary and the Czech Republic are all members of the EU and NATO. Why shouldn't Italy be able to use the exisitng infrastructure between these countries to move their troops? Most of Europe is connected by land and the infrastructure is extremly well developed.

> Russia drafts Mongolians and Northkoreans

Eh yeah sure ...

> Russia has more m3n!!!1

No it hasn't and I've shown you the sources already.

> Russia will Zerg Rush just like in my Video gamez!!!1

800k Russians aren't enought to conquer Europe (500 Million people) and it can mobilize an army big enough for an invasion without Europe noticing it.

Unless all Europeans are cowards and idiots, which pretty much your entire argument structure. They aren't, as much as not all Americans are fat, over-patriotic mouthbreathers.

>>31941232

No one is claiming the end of atrillery, but like the tank it is going to become a more niche weapon as new developments emerge to mitigate its effectiveness.

High doubt that either the tank or artillery will ever disappear from the battlefield, but their use may well become more situational and limited than the massed deployments of eras past.

>>31941215
Dont you understand what conscription means?

They train around 20 000 people each year and if SHTF every one that has been trained for the last 15 years is ordered into battle. And that is a shitton of troops. Active personell just means that they also have some full time enlisted troops.

>>31941215
According to this finnish news article, they have 900 000 reservists.

http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/a1429844415501/

>>31941266
>why shouldn't Italy be able to use the existing infrastructure between these countries to move their troops?
Driving would take days if not weeks with distances in the thousands of kilometers. Sea transport would take longer AND be more dangerous, as Russia maintains a large and capable submarine fleet and the only countries even remotely capable of escorting a military ship convoy are the UK and France. Railways take a long time as well due to unload/offload times and are literally stationary targets.

Draft =/=pressganged. They would literally be forced/slave labor, freeing up Russians to take up arms.

>Russia doesn't have more equipment than Europe, I've shown you sources!!!!
No you haven't, you've wildly speculated at what Russia has with no sources and I've proven you or someone with your post style wrong at every step of the way on European manpower and equipment numbers, with sources.
>800k Russians aren't enough to conquer Europe
No, but 2.7 million *before* an emergency draft. Which is what their *current* active+reserve forces are at, might.

>>31941257
That is, however, including inactive reserves.

>>31941305
Doesn't matter if they can't equip them, which they can't. They can't even fully equip the conscripts while they're in training.
Also:
>professional military
>"some fulltime troops"
Pick one.

>>31941342
Inactive =/= active. And about 800,000 of those haven't seen a single piece of military equipment in a decade or longer.

>>31941394
>Doesn't matter if they can't equip them, which they can't. They can't even fully equip the conscripts while they're in training.
This is a absolute bullshit
t. Finn who finished military service a few months ago
Never had to ration ammo in live fire exercises, artillery spends ungodly amounts of ammunition twice a year in lapland, etc
Where are you even getting this info? Russian state media?

>>31936613
Everyone thinks dudelmaoairpower is going to save them

>>31941207
and planes aren't?

File: 501-3.jpg (78KB, 800x483px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x483px

>>31941394

>That is, however, including inactive reserves.
Ofcourse it includes reservists. Thats how conscription works.


>Doesn't matter if they can't equip them, which they can't. They can't even fully equip the conscripts while they're in training.

Source?

I have personally meet both Finnish and other soldiers. The finnish conscripts are very good soldiers and often outmatch other professional troops.

US troops also say they are good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxc0xZt6LQI

>>31941447
>twice a year
laughingsluts.jpg
Maybe when you're blowing the shit out of things twice a month or more the big boys will let you sniff their jockstraps

So what about vehicles? Individual equipment, how're those optics and body armor coming? Food? Do you still have to have someone stay up in your wool-blanket tent to pour kerosene in your 200-year-old cast-iron potbelly stove to keep everyone from freezing to death in their cotton-batting-and-canvas sleeping bags?

>>31941394
>Doesn't matter if they can't equip them, which they can't. They can't even fully equip the conscripts while they're in training.

You are thinking of Sweden, not Finland.

>>31941474
Oh, forgot,

>t. American sent over there to train your worthless fucking conscripts in the science of not killing themselves with their own weaponry (individual marksmanship) in 2014.

They acted professional and disciplined, but the ones I had were nearly done with their conscription and literally didn't know how to take the safeties off their rifles. At least one claimed he'd made it the entire way through conscription up to that point without ever touching a weapon.

>>31941474
Just because they arent as good as some american troops doesnt mean they are bad.

They are fighting drunken slavs with even worse training and equipment if they are fighting anyone.

>>31938137
The allies getting their asses stomped until uncle Sam saved them. So basically NATO

>>31941529
>Just because they arent as good as some american troops doesnt mean they are bad.
Actually, yeah, it does mean exactly that. You're either up to THE STANDARD (American infantry) or you're bad.

Now that doesn't mean that you're less-bad than the Russians. You are less-bad than the Russians. But there's 20,000x more of them, and numbers matter.

>>31941557
>Actually, yeah, it does mean exactly that. You're either up to THE STANDARD (American infantry) or you're bad.
>MUH STANDARD THAT I HAVE DECIDED

>But there's 20,000x more of them, and numbers matter.

But then it wouldnt matter at all even if they were as good as american troops.

Do you really think that the Russians will use their whole army just to invade Finland...?

>>31941394

> Logistics

Yes Russia could probavbly conquer Helsinki before Europe could mobilze an army big enough to strike back. But Helsinki isn't the industrial or political hub of Europe. To make any substantial damage to the european economy, Russia would need to reach the Rhineland and if you think that Russia would have an easier time to maintain supply lines up to there you are delusional.

> Driving would take weeks

And Russia would just teleport its troops? Italy is about as far away of Poland as Russia is.

> Russian navy playing any role

The only major nation without a land connection to Europe is Britatin and Im pretty sure Europe can keep the Strait of Dover free of the Russian navy.

> Russia has more men and can draft them faster

No it has not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Armed_Forces

And you are comparing a population of 140 million to a population of 500 million.

And to say that Russia can reinforce itself with Northkorean troops (lol) before Europe can draft men in it's own borders shows again how stupid you are.

> Russian material advantage

Most of Russias "material" is aged old shit. Europe spends far more money on it's military and if you don't want to say that somehow Russian military equipment is magical twice as good/cheap as european equipment then you are talking out of your ass again.

>>31941474
>So what about vehicles?
There's enough trucks and APCs for everyone plus the obvious civilian requisitions in wartime.
>Individual equipment, how're those optics and body armor coming?
Optics are in all front line units, body armor in most. Situation still improving.
>Food?
I don't see the issue? MREs exist as do field kitchens.
>Do you still have to have someone stay up in your wool-blanket tent to pour kerosene in your 200-year-old cast-iron potbelly stove to keep everyone from freezing to death in their cotton-batting-and-canvas sleeping bags?
The tent is not just a wool blanket, the stove works on wood because you find that literally everywhere, the sleeping bags are rated for way below zero. How do you suggest winter accommodations should be arranged?

>t. American sent over there to train your worthless fucking conscripts in the science of not killing themselves with their own weaponry (individual marksmanship) in 2014.
That's cool. Then you'll know that Americans know nothing about winter warfare, so your comments about food and shelter are based on literally nothing.
>but the ones I had were nearly done with their conscription and literally didn't know how to take the safeties off their rifles. At least one claimed he'd made it the entire way through conscription up to that point without ever touching a weapon.

This seems unlikely (the dude who never touched a gun could have opted for weaponless service but then he would have never been in that training) but it's possible. I've heard a few similar stories from friends who were in supply companies and the like. In every case it's due to lack of facilities or personnel rather than supplies, due to unfortunate personnel cuts.
Which unit were you training? I'd love to look more into it.

>>31941598
>but then it wouldn't matter at all even if they were as good as american troops
That's...pretty much the whole point of my argument, yeah. The fact that they're undertrained and underequipped just makes it worse.
>do you really think the Russians will use their whole army just to invade Finland?
If their goal is to take over the entirety of the EU, they'll use a good portion of it to get it over with quickly and with minimal losses. Especially since it's likely to be either their first stop due to its proximity and convenience as a foothold in northern Europe, or close to it.
>I don't know how many of them it was gonna take to beat my ass, but I know how many they were gonna use
t. Ron White

>>31941649
>there's enough trucks and APC's for everyone
Not...when I was there 2 years ago. The "base" I was on had about 3,000 conscripts and a grand total of 2 trucks, zero armor, and the career NCO's were literally ferrying people to and from the range in their POV's because one of the trucks was broken.
>optics are in all front line units
1 optic per battalion doesn't count. I never saw a single optic in the 2 weeks I was there, and I was training what was supposedly a front line unit.
>MRE's exist as do field kitchens
Never saw an MRE while I was there, they were literally using a horse-drawn wagon with a cauldron of meatless stew in it to feed people, and the portions were meager even according to the conscripts. Not saying they don't exist, but they damn sure aren't used in training.
>the tent is not just a wool blanket
Same material with wooden toggles to form a pseudo-door. Weighs a bajillion pounds and is only vehicle transportable because even when "properly" folded it's 3'x3'x2' and only sleeps 6.
>the stove works on wood
GL cutting firewood in a combat situation

>>31941697
>GL cutting firewood in a combat situation
Dont you sleep in the US?

Just cut some wood before you go to sleep.

>>31941649
>the sleeping bags are rated way below zero
BULLSHIT. I was there in summer (nighttime average of 4*C) and even with a fireguard keeping their stoves stocked people were bitching about being cold. At least in part due to the fact their sleeping bags soaked up water (which was everywhere) like a sponge and basically never dried because they were 3" thick cotton. Also they're huge and heavy.
>How do you suggest winter accommodations should be arranged?
The Bundeshwehr have a good setup with high quality individual sleep systems and 4-season, floored tents that sleep 2. They're comfy down to -40*C and survivable down to -60*C. Without a stove.

>he could've opted for weaponless service
>In every case it's due to lack of facilities or personnel rather than supplies, due to unfortunate personnel cuts.
>"they're a well equipped modern military"
Not helping your case there.

I will give you that the US doesn't know shit about arctic warfare as a whole, which is why I point to the Bundeshwehr as a good example to follow.

I was training with the Valkaala (or similar spelling, your language confuses me) brigade, some company with a lot of umlats in the name.

>>31941737
>hey we're trying to not be seen by the enemy, we're in a *combat situation*
>BETTER CUT DOWN A BUNCH OF TREES AND LIGHT SOME FIRES! SURELY THE ENEMY WILL NOT SEE US, HEAR US, OR SMELL OUR WOODSMOKE FROM LITERALLY MILES AWAY!

>>31941782
It worked well for the last 100 000 years of warfare and the russians are also doing it.

Also the stove is inside the tent so it most likely will not be seen and chooping up wood can be done very silent. Usually wood is delivered by the supply units who has chopped it up further away. Also, you dont smell that from 15 meters away, let alone a mile.

>>31941833
Could certainly smell the green, wet pine from a long way off during the summer. Winter when it's nice and dry and dead, probably not.

The tents let a lot of light through. Enough to be visible from at least 4 miles with PVS14's (where the American camp was) or a good couple hundred yards with bare eyes on a normal night.

Depending on wind direction we could smell the stoves from our camp.

>>31941697
>Not...when I was there 2 years ago. The "base" I was on had about 3,000 conscripts and a grand total of 2 trucks, zero armor, and the career NCO's were literally ferrying people to and from the range in their POV's because one of the trucks was broken.
Sounds quite unusual, which base?
>1 optic per battalion doesn't count. I never saw a single optic in the 2 weeks I was there, and I was training what was supposedly a front line unit
Sounds like one of the northern units. They get that stuff later than those in the south, as frankly no one expects much action north of the waist due to the terrain.
>Never saw an MRE while I was there, they were literally using a horse-drawn wagon with a cauldron of meatless stew in it to feed people, and the portions were meager even according to the conscripts. Not saying they don't exist, but they damn sure aren't used in training.
The older models of field kitchens have a wooden stove, but they're not horse drawn. Shit food sounds like absolute bullshit though, as food is one of those things paid most attention to due to laws and how devastating it could be to morale.
As for existing, I have visited my supply company and seen their (diesel) kitchens, refrigerator vans etc. Also eaten MREs plenty of times (disadvantage being they're not self heating, as those types of MREs don't work in cold weather).

>>31941873
>Same material with wooden toggles to form a pseudo-door. Weighs a bajillion pounds and is only vehicle transportable because even when "properly" folded it's 3'x3'x2' and only sleeps 6.
Ah, I know which one you mean, I have not actually slept in that one, only the larger PJ-tent and the tiny guerrilla tent. However a properly insulated and water resistant tent that's used year round is going to be heavy.
>GL cutting firewood in a combat situation
You're not sleeping in a tent when in combat. And it's superior to complicating logistics with diesel stoves when firewood is plentifully available and exists in massive stockpiles.

It sounds like you were training some backwater unit at Kainuu or something. It's unfortunate that you only got to see the worst side, as I can promise you it's not like that elsewhere. It's unfortunate that a situation like that exists but I'll take your word for it and ask around to confirm for the future.
I'm not trying to be a nationalist chest thumper, but I was impressed when I served 2015-2016 as I had thought the situation would be far worse.
It's been nice having this conversation and I only wish you had revealed which unit you were training in 2014. Good night.

>>31941881
>you are not sleeping in a tent when in combat
Funny because that's what they're training to do and it's in their written doctrine.

>>31941697
>>31941881
>>31941873
II/08, Kainuu Brigade, Kainuu Jaeger battalion NCO. I cannot fathom a situation like the one this fellow is pulling from his arse. The whole brigade was motorized with Sisu Nasus and Sisu trucks. Back then we did indeed have only one VV2000 per infantry squad and I had to lug around some crappy Swiss model of 1987 on me, but at least we could supply every platoon with infrared sights. All radios were of the brand new stuff. All men had at least flak vests, but no real armor. Artillery units had the latest stuff with positioning systems that could work without GPS when needed. Anti-tank company used Spikes in most platoons but one trained with NLAW. KVKK's were being replaced with PKM's.

Of course we did indeed have some lack of equipment. Men only had flak vests and no real body armour. We still trained with M87 carrying system with that crappy battle belt. But still, it was adequate.

>>31940398
>http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing-nato-members.asp

HAHAHAHHA

That site is ran by idiots who know about military issues as much as any 12 year old CoD player.

>>31941207
Less
Railways just sit there and I suspect their locations and pathways are well know.
It wouldn't be very hard to launch a few short ranged missiles to take them out

>>31937146
Finland spends pretty much the same amount on defense as other European countries, between 1 and 1.5% of the GDP.

I really hate yurocucks sometimes. Give 'em hell Vlady!

>>31940975
>Russia is homogeneous
Nigga what?

>>31937260
>>31937330
lol cute

Here is what happens. In a few hours or maybe days, the US airforce and navy drops more ordenance than your country has had in its national stocks since its inception. Your arty lays in smouldering heaps. Then the US army sets up semi-permanent fire bases and uses them to kill what remains of your conventional forces, as well as you cute, but ultamately useless civilian resistance. Then we will occupy you for 20 years, as we have no idea what to do once we win.

Source: Army

>>31937541
fuck nato

>>31942596

Plus bit more in lost economic activity due to majority of males doing conscription.

>>31937330
> The greater accuracy, mobility and selectiveness of drones and gunships has stripped them of their roles as primary ground destruction tools
no. quite the opposite. the proliferation of drones has made both perfect artillery mission recon and instant BDA possible for even non state actors, let alone any country ever.
artillery (of the mobile kind) is the supreme killer on the modern battlefield
OTOH, if you're immobile, you're dead. the artillery firebase is a thing of the past. M777 is as obsolete as bayonnets.

>>31947093
>OTOH, if you're immobile, you're dead. the artillery firebase is a thing of the past. M777 is as obsolete as bayonnets.

Whole point of M777 Light Weight Howitzer is mobility. It can be airlifted to places where no SPG can get.

Modern artillery is developing into two directions. Light weight systems expeditionary warfare against non-state actors and more sophisticated systems for more conventional warfare. Also simplifying ammunition logistics and R&D for precision guided munitions by reducing calibers. 122mm and 105mm are probably on way out.

I though howitzers were the way to go... or they can't be mass produced/replaced quickly?

>>31947249
>I though howitzers were the way to go

They are

>>31947156
I meant mobility as in shoot and scoot. Operational mobility counts for nothing if you die to a Grad barrage five minutes after opening fire yourself.
> Light weight systems expeditionary warfare against non-state actors
yeah even that party is pretty much over. fucking lebanese hezbollah can and does fly drones over Israel. all they need is one Tochka or Grad from somewhere.
> simplifying ammunition logistics and R&D for precision guided munitions by reducing calibers
by which you mean reducing the number of different calibers, yes?

>>31947249
the "new" meta is SPGs for general use and rocket artillery for counterbattery

>>31940363

Combat value improvement to be exact.