Could NATO soldiers actually fight on a conventional war against

>>32132125
Your English is WAY too bad. Your shits retarded. Go away.

>>32132125
>you have to remeber that the average soldier in 1944 was a christian farmer who loves the king
So which Euro country are you from, Anon? And yeah, NATO soldiers should be fine. Training is leagues better today than seventy years ago.

>>32132125
>massive superiority
>Falklands

Uh.

>>32132125
Yeah, sure. With modern training, as long as they get through their first battle and casualties, they'll do fine.

>>32132139
yes, training is better

but most of the people is atheist and isnt as patriotic as back then

they dont believe they should give their lives for their country

this is my opinion

>>32132148
>they dont believe they should give their lives for their country
Yeah, neither did people back then.

>>32132148
The average faggot is, yeah. But soldiers of volunteer armies have a tendency to be patriotic and one's religion doesn't really factor in so long as their will is iron.
Again, which European country are you from, Anon? Romania?

>>32132157
italy

btw the so called volunteers, half of them are there for the money

and in case of war with russia or civil war or whatever, you would need conscription anyway since professional army is small

>>32132163
>italy
Ah, that was going to be my second guess. I can see now why you think NATO soldiers won't be worth shit.

>>32132125
>without massive superiority like in iraq or falklands
In what way did the UK have massive superiority? I was always under the impression that both the UK and Argentina were fairly evenly matched and if anything, the UK was at a had a lot going against them.

>you have to remeber that the average soldier in 1944 was a christian farmer who loves the king

Jesus those are some rose tinted glasses you've got on

>>32132125
Bombs and bullets don't care whether you want to be there or not.

Not well at all. Current NATO commanders have no comprehension of combined arms operations, little if any experience with the extreme battlefield stresses caused by overrun units, and no capacity to sustain heavy casualties. There are entire generations of officers who truly believe that stomping insurgent = actual warfare. That mechanized engagements belong to WW2. That mortar fire is artillery barrage. That jamming Taliban's walkie-talkies qualifies as electronic warfare. And that air superiority in any future conflict is a given.

There's no military in NATO seriously contemplating coming war against high-end opponent.

>>32132307
>There are entire generations of officers who truly believe that stomping insurgent = actual warfare.

No, there aren't.

>>32132307
>There's no military in NATO seriously contemplating coming war against high-end opponent.

Yeah, nobody invests in submarines, satellites, fixed defensive facilities and all the other things that would be used in a state vs state war.

>>32132307
Dude, you don't know how stupid you seem. Do you?

>falklands
>massive superiority

m8 modern average soldiers [I don't know about conscripts] are much superior to olden time averages.

back then they sent all the stupidest people to the infantry because in industrial wars with statistical weapons, smart people there just didn't provide the marginal productivity they could elsewhere.

today, the hardcore dudes sign up for the spots where man-on-man [lol] combat occurs, because there's less challenge anywhere else thanks to the technological disparity.

What does this mean?

Units in the 1940s were considered combat ineffective at 30% casualties. Modern first-worlders (as in the falklands) don't reach that point until the 50% mark.

In sum: ordinary moderns are 1.66x mentally tougher than their granddaddies.

You have to remember that modern LIC's are a continual grind. WW2 troops got rotated off the line for r&r almost twice a month into rear areas where artillery, booby traps, and enemy spies were freakishly rare instead of business as usual. The intensity may be higher occasionally, but that's not how most people break down.

>>32132326
Doesn't combat ineffectiveness have more to do simply with the fact that you can't wage effective combat when you've lost a third of all troops?

>>32132345
Yes; but morale is also a significant component.

File: 1476072474434.jpg (111KB, 750x734px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 750x734px

>>32132125
>you have to remeber that the average soldier in 1944 was a christian farmer who loves the king

>>32132163
>italy
No wonder you think everyone will just run away. Not everyone is like you, anon.

>>32132125
>Could NATO soldiers actually fight on a conventional war against another country (without massive superiority like in iraq or falklands)?

Well... fat luck but there ain't no country against which NATO wouldn't have "massive superiority".

>And Im not talking about special units such as paras or rangers
>But the average soldier and maybe conscripts

We have very few conscripts.
Most of our soldiers are professionals, better individually equipped than any other armed force.

Add to this a reliable support chain, an enormous stockpile of weapon plateforms and a rather efficient training structure, all supported by a military budget so large it eclipses the rest of the world combined and an peace time economic capacity that is barely tapped by the military.

>Could they stand an enemy tank charge or being bombed by enemy planes without leaving or killing themsleves?

They might not endure everything... but still, they are professionnals who know they can depend on the rest of the army to have their back.
Each soldier knows that, if attacked, his section is only 15 to 20 minutes away from getting a massive air or artillery support.


>you have to remeber that the average soldier in 1944 was a christian farmer who loves the king

And by king, you mean "country".
Also, by 1944, the "farmboy conscript" stereotype as just that in the West : a stereotype.
Most conscripts had urban background, both in the USA and in Western Europe.

>while on 2024 it will be an urban atheist hipster who has studied sciences and history

And that hipster won't be in a professional army.
Or at least not in the infantry or other frontline arms, unless he is conscripted, which won't happens unless the war goes REALLY badly.

He might be a drone pilot, though...

>>32132307

Truth

File: grilled_chicken_3.png (493KB, 1806x929px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 1806x929px

Not only does NATO have massive superiority, it has enough bombs, conventional and nuclear, to finish Russia in every way imaginable.

There would be NOTHING left if it wasn't for the sympathy normal, non-slavic people with intelligence feel.

>>32132125
>falklands
Mate, Britain was lucky most of the decent argentinians were holed up on a mountainside incase the Chileans launched a ground offensive.

File: grilled_chicken_2.png (382KB, 956x614px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 956x614px

>>32132307

Oh well, generations change, whoever learned to kill insurgents in 2003 has a modern counterpart, a young person learning to use high-end weapons systems to put down slavs and kill their leadership with a *push of a button* when they get the order.

There's only 140 million problems to be solved, NATO can handle that any day like it's another day at the assembly line.

>>32132584
It really doesn't matter if you believe in god or not if you are fighting for your life.
All that counts in battle is your combat experience, your equipment and whether you can rely on your comrades to have your back.

>>32134940
>>32132125
The Scots Guards came off public duties, got their kit together and pulled off Tumbledown - despite being outnumbered and lightly equipped compared to the dug in forces they were facing. They weren't spearhead at the time. They hadn't done a Banner tour since 79/80, with a stint in Germany prior to public duties.

In practical terms a lot of the junior Guardsmen had a similar level of experience to the Argentine conscripts and still came out on top.

File: 1423477127767.jpg (80KB, 634x636px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 634x636px

>massive superiority
>Falklands

British and Argies had the same destroyers
Argentina had better AShM and A2A fighters

>>32132148
>mass conscription vs. professional army
People may not be as patriotic or rustic (main problem IMO) as they were a hundred years ago, but the military is made with people that voluntereed for this kind of shit.

Besides, armies are made to make normal citizen into soldiers. That's the main goal of training.
So efficient training = valorous soldiers
Do NATO soldiers have efficient training? Depends on the country.

On a sidenote, a study a few years ago showed that soldiers might not love the flag as much has their ancestors did, but other things have taken its place: comrades, unit....

>>32132307
>That mortar fire is artillery barrage
I don't know which country has a doctrine that deems M240s or RT F1s to be unfit for artillery barrage.

File: just melt my deck up fam.jpg (916KB, 1525x1141px) Image search: [Google]

916KB, 1525x1141px

>>32135165

well the bongs had much better A2A fighters/interceptors in the F4K/M(a naval phantom with jacked up suspension and more powerful afterburning engines) armed with BVR Skyflash missiles but they couldn't deploy them to the theatre because the RN sold their CATOBAR carriers for scrap metal

the RN taskgroup relied on SSNs rather than AShMs for anti-ship duty which worked perfectly because after the Belgrano was destroyed no argentine ship(doubly so their carrier which would have also been destroyed if HMS Spartan had caught up with her in time) would leave the safety of port

>>32134914
>>32134962
This particular fatnik, top kek.

>>32132125
The days of tank charges or millions of conscripts are over. Small professional militaries are what's best and that's what NATO countries have. For proof read any intellectual journal on the subject of military.

>>32136335

I bet someone said the same thing around 1914. (Not the tank part, obviously.)

When peace has been going on for so long, it's hard to believe war can return on a large scale. A few years ago, I believed it couldn't. Nowadays I'm not so sure...

it doesn't matter if I'm a "urban atheist hipster who has studied sciences and history", if somebody wants to but a tank shell into my house, there's gonna be shooting

>>32132125
Atheist hipster with science and history
Not
>liberal arts
>women studies

>>32132125

>who has studied sciences and history

I love how this is being portrayed as a negative.

>I know stuff about the natural world and the history of man
>How do I shot rifle

File: Far-called, our navies melt away.jpg (241KB, 1024x799px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1024x799px

>>32132125

>(without massive superiority like in iraq or falklands)?

>falklands

>massive superiority

Read about the war, nigga. The Argentinians were at parity or had superiority over the British in a lot of ways, and weren't too far behind them anywhere else.

The Argentine military dictatorship had purchased plenty of high-end gear from the United States and the UK itself over the past decade or so. They had better nightvision equipment (in the form of smaller, more efficient starlight scopes) than the British did. They had not only the same anti-ship missiles but the same surface combatants - which was a huge advantage in and of itself, since their pilots could train for attack runs on the Type 42s they were going to be facing. The Argentine Air Force was flying proper jets with MRAAMs against a handful of British VTOL carrier aircraft. The British were operating at the absolute limit of their logistical capability, and could not sustain heavy losses without aborting the operation.

Britain still had an advantage overall, but it wasn't nearly as lopsided as people assume it was, mostly because the main body of the RAF was too far away to matter so the Fleet Air Arm had to conduct an entire air campaign by itself.

>>32136759

Don't forget the average soldier in 1944 was a conscript, whereas they're fucking volunteer professionals.

>>32132307
Truth.

Everyone else is fucking dumb and would hang themselves when the first casualties are piling up when NATO actually tries to fight Russia or China. Kek, or even Iran.

>there are people on /k/ who actually believe in the "professhunal armee"-meme
Your armies consists solely of spics, Negros and cousin fuckers from some hick town, where as our military consists of the best and the worst, so it evens out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbjmuENPpd4

>>32132125
>while on 2024 it will be an urban atheist hipster who has studied sciences and history


So? Cannon-fodder's still cannon-fodder. I'd wager that a physics degree would be a lot more useful than one might think in modern combat considering all the ballistics involved

>>32132345
No, because you could just combine squads until you have a 30% smaller force that's operating at peak efficiency. But that's not the way the world works, and the psychological implications of having a third of the people you've lived and worked with and around for the past however long all die in a short period of time mean that a large portion of your unwounded soldiers are crippled as well.

>>32132148
are you vatnik?

At least in the UK, the kind of people who study African-trans-feminist-islam are mutually exclusive from the kind of people who volunteer for the army. It's not simply a matter of only elite units, most of those who enlist and make it through training will have a mental state of mind suitable for warfare.

A better question would be, what would happen if mass recruitment, or even conscription had to occur? I would suspect that there would need to be careful selection of those for front line duty, and those for other parts of national service, as a smaller proportion of those today are both physically and mentally suitable for the job. However, there would be plenty of jobs in; logistics, repairs & maintenance, factory work, construction, and merchant marine. If the enemy were an existential threat, I would be pretty confident, to be honest.

>>32132125
>Could NATO soldiers actually fight on a conventional war against another country
Why would they want to do that?
Why would anyone fight in a war where he doesnt have a big advantage?
We just put sanctions on them and someone lowers the oil price and thats all you need to do.

>>32132246
Well they seemingly had superiority in professionalism and balls, as that's all that carried them through.

Both concepts alien too Italians.

File: 1380776982299.gif (1020KB, 400x229px) Image search: [Google]

1020KB, 400x229px

>>32132307
>>32138732

You keep forgetting the fact that NATO and the US has no serious peer at all.
The vast majority of the Chinese army consist of soldiers who get to fire 12 shots between two shooting sessions during their training.
The russian "army" is a pathetic joke consisting of raped and malnourished conscripts their tanks are 99,9% T-72+++ models whoo all would be raped by even a baseline Leo 2A4, has no airforce worth mentioning and their so called "jammers" can barely jam commercial walkies-talkies and $199 drones bought of the internet.

>>32142586
What a load of bullshit. Do you really believe that?

>>32132163
>Italy
Well, that explains it spaghettio

File: original-800x520.jpg (374KB, 800x520px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 800x520px

>>32143062
Believe what?
The fact is that gay rape is endemic in the russian army, drones has fooled russian jammers so hard they have been able to fly right above them and except for about handful of T-14, the rest of russias tanks are T-72 derivatives.
Pic related, russian """jamming"""" in action.

http://www.pravdareport.com/society/stories/15-02-2007/87441-army_prostitute-0/
Russians are better sex slaves than soldiers.

>>32143225
Are you retarded?
Like, seriously. Posts like this show vatniks are not just a Russian problem.
I won't even try to correct you, go fucking educate yourself and don't rely on snippets of information that confirm your bias.
Russian military has it's faults, but only a fucking CoD kiddie would deny they are a potent force.
And their potential is even bigger than their mere strength simply because European armies are totally gutted and USA is across the sea.
Russians have huge material and manpower reserve on top of that. Even if their equipment is inferior as you claim, they simply have far more of it than European armies.
And if you think European armies are an example of organization and competence, you have been living under a rock last 10 years.

>>32132125
no of course not only russia can fight a war because of their superiority in all forms of everything, no one else can even consider standing up against them.

>>32143279
Russias logistics are absolutely shit tier. Look at their "participation" in Syria, their abilities to supply anything in Ukraine or Georgia and compare it to even France or the UK, both of which are able to project power far further from their borders and more importantly keep up a rapid tempo.

>>32132163

This is an interesting point. Besides France and the UK, which are probably both at the top, what is the rest of Europe's power-ranking in esprit de corps for the NATO European armed forces. Poland I guess would be near the top?

>>32143326
Have you been paying attention to syria at all? Their logistics are clearly good enough to supply the force they have, and allow them to have a huge impact on SAA operations and how successful they are.

>>32143279
Not once did I mention any European nation as a force worth mentioning, only as a part of NATO riding on the logistics backbone of the US can UK, France or maybe even Germany and Poland contibute in a meaningful way.
That doesn't change the fact that russia is a mere shadow of the Soviet days. Today they might be stronger than European militaries since they exist more on paper than in reality but compared to the US, russia is a shit.
They are plauged by corruption, morali issue, lack of technological prowess and a myriad of other problems and only the most die hard vatnik would argue otherwise.

>>32143384
>have a huge impact

Not really. If you look past the propaganda they've been even less effective than western 'bombings'

>>32136086
The argies had a few " Exocet "
If they had more they would have won the conflict by simply sinking most Brit ships

>>32143461
Are you dumb? The SAA had been reeling from defeats in Ildib, and probably would not have been able to survive into 2016. The Russian have not only stopped the string of defeats, they have reversed many of the rebels gains, and taken back a large amount of territory. It's very disingenuous to say it's "propaganda".

>>32143326
>Russia has shit tier logistics
Russia routinely successfully conducts the biggest training excercises across all of it's territory and all of it's branches.
You have to be retarded to think it's possible to pull excercises with anything even close to those numbers and equipment if they'd have bad logistics.

>Syria
There is no reason to think that their task force in Syria is not well equipped and supplied.

>>32143461
Nigger they turned the tide completely. SAA was almost on the verge of defeat. They'd probably hold out for some time, but no way it would make such big territory gains as it did under Russian support.
And literally no one ever bitched that Russia wasn't doing shit. Hell, the US media was bitching because they were bombing everyone opposing Assad, not just the extremists like everyone else.

>you have to remeber that the average soldier in 1944 was a christian farmer who loves the king
>1944
>King
We stopped loving the king in 1776. For most it was even earlier.

>>32143566
>Russia routinely successfully conducts the biggest training excercises across all of it's territory and all of it's branches.

They have one big exercise a year, and it requires a full year to just get the equipment in place for them. You don't really buy into the whole "PUTIN JUST ORDERED AN EXERCISE ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND EVERYBODY IMMEDIATELY GOT THERE IN 2 HOURS!" bullshit, do you?

>Nigger they turned the tide completely. SAA was almost on the verge of defeat.

Is this a joke? You're really dumb enough to believe syria general threads, aren't you?

>>32143612
>Is this a joke? You're really dumb enough to believe syria general threads, aren't you?
Assad was getting his shit pushed before the Russia intervention though.

Literally turned the tide and taught the SAA how to fight.

And shills back then called the ruskies to be get BTFO.

>>32142470
>those who enlist and make it through training will have a mental state of mind suitable for warfare.
I have found that to be definitely the case. After they have enlisted, they will eventually turn in to people recognizing the need for an effective fighting force. Even if they cannot argue the case perfectly, they are stubborn in their belief that it is necessary to have a capable military even if they are no longer a part of it.
They also tend to have different concepts of when it is acceptable to take or give lives.

>>32143326

>Logistics are shit tier
>WHY ARENT THEY ENTIRELY COMMITTED TO BOMBING BROWN PEOPLE LIKE WE ARE?

Because Russia has a massive landmass empire to manage with China on the opposite end and constantly hankering for Siberia.

They can't realistically commit to ANY sort of non-national conflict. All they've done this time is send a token amount of aid and used a bunch of iron bombs from surplus to aid Syria. They've turned the tide and caused enough of a stir that Turkey is crying that the Kurds and SAA aren't dead yet so they can roll in and play clean up.

>>32143485

Argies were constantly trying to buy more Exocets though. Britain just had agents fucking with their acquisitions department by pretending to be MDMA and French sellers for months before the conflict ended.

Argies tried to play a game they couldn't prepare for. They should have been buying Exocets or whatever they could get before the invasion. Not fucking after it.

>>32143612
So do you believe the SAA was winning before the intervention, or are you just a retard?

>>32143668
SAA was holding out just fine and the rebels were losing steam as their last big attack had flat out failed well before Russia decided to "save the day". Their air support has somehow managed to be even less of a factor in Syria than the wests, which is pretty fucking impressive. The only thing of merit they did was give Assad and friends equipment and teach them to not be fucking retards with their tanks.

>>32143756
>SAA was holding out just fine and the rebels were losing steam as their last big attack had flat out failed well before Russia decided to "save the day". Their air support has somehow managed to be even less of a factor in Syria than the wests, which is pretty fucking impressive.
Needing sources, brah.

>>32143756
They had just come out of their biggest ass kicking yet in Idlib, and they were definitely on the ropes. If they hadn't been, Iran and russia would not have stepped yo their involvement like they did in late 2015. Unless you know something they don't, which I doubt.

>>32132125

The whole Eastern Block of NATO is ready to invade each other.

So some should be able to win.

>>32132148
Religion doesn't factor in provided you aren't adhering to some stupid dogma that also involves nationalism somehow i.e. Nazis.

>>32143663
The argies (besides the assholes in government) didn't see the war coming, it was a last ditch effort to save a crumbling dictatorship,but backfired

>>32132125
Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world and got thier fucking shit rocked. If you don't think that's a real conventional war, you don't know what conventional warfare is

European NATO couldn't take Albania the way it is now.