quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

If carriers are such a necessity, why would Russia let their only carrier go to hell.

Money. As in, they don't have enough.

Carriers are wickedly expensive; that is why so few countries have them. I think the fact that the Ruskies are still spending so much to maintain and operate their one carrier is a pretty good argument as to why carriers are so important today (if they really weren't important, they would spend this money elsewhere). The Ruskies have let pretty much EVERY branch of their military, to one degree or another, go to crap. Nobody in the Ruskie military has all the money they need to properly train, equip, and maintain their hardware. The only reason their space program survived is cash from the West (heck, their main spaceports actually had the power shut off several times because they weren't paying their electric bills, shortly after the collapse of the USSR).

Your answer summarizes it pretty well - money. I think most of the money is spread between the carrier and it's supporting ships, submarines, and associated supply lines. That just made me realize how expensive it must be to have a single carrier group out at sea. Talk about a burn rate.

quote:

Originally posted by tanksoldier:
You do realize that article actually uses a lot of words to say exactly NOTHING, right?

We have virtually no maneuver forces in Western Europe, we have virtually no stockpiles, we haven't practiced reinforcing Europe in almost a quarter century. A USMC MEU up in Norway would make exactly ZERO difference if the Russians decided to take Europe, less difference even that that Stryker brigade. That's the reality.

That Norwegian stockpile is only one of several.

According to this recent report, they're currently finishing up prepositioning the gear for an armored brigade in Western Europe, with plans to expand it to a full division by 2021.

https://www.army.mil/standto/2017-08-03

It seems that someone up there has decided to make rebuilding the prepositioned stockpiles and regaining these lost capabilities a priority, after recognizing the need to have additional deterrence against Russian aggression.

quote:

with plans to expand it to a division by 2021

...and an armored division would be what to the Russians?

In 1991 when I sat in the Fulda Gap waiting for the Soviets we had 2 armored divisions, 2 infantry divisions, 2 armored cavalry regiments and various and sundry support formations, plus the allied contingents... and expected to hold the Soviets for less than a week.

What is one division, a reinforced brigade until 2021, going to do?

quote:

Originally posted by tanksoldier:

What is one division, a reinforced brigade until 2021, going to do?

IMO all they are is 'trip-wires', in the hopes that the Russians wouldn't want to directly engage with us for fear of "something bad" happening in response.

quote:

Originally posted by tanksoldier:
What is one division, a reinforced brigade until 2021, going to do?

It's another step in the right direction.

Take what we and our allies already had in Europe.

Then we moved "just one armored brigade" in to Eastern Europe.

Then we send "just one combat aviation brigade" to Germany.

Now we're putting "just one armored division" in reserve.

It may still be a shadow of what we had at the height of the Cold War, but it beats spitballs and harsh language, right?

quote:

It may still be a shadow of what we had at the height of the Cold War, but it beats spitballs and harsh language, right?

Agreed.

And it's not like the Russians are at a Cold War state of readiness either.

quote:

http://www.military.com/daily-...-threats-russia.html

What are a few dozen Apache's going to do? (And I am the Apache guy, here).

We have approximately two Brigades of Armor in Europe, same in Poland and some scattered elements in the Baltic states. And most of that armor is not main battle tanks. It's Strykers.

Latest read is during the cold war, we had 300,000 troops over there. Today it is 30,000.

My bet back then, with all the elements in place as Tank Soldier described, was that the Soviets would be enjoying beaches on the Atlantic in 30 days.

Russia just conducted exercises with 100,000 troops near the border, with more armor than all of Europe possesses combined.

Everybody got jumpy fast.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
It may still be a shadow of what we had at the height of the Cold War, but it beats spitballs and harsh language, right?

It IS spitballs and harsh language.

We have one Stryker equipped cavalry regiment. In four years we MIGHT have a mechanized infantry division.

quote:

That Norwegian stockpile is only one of several.

...and there's no idea what's in it, if anything.

The USMC doesn't have a bunch of tanks and other mechanized equipment to put in there.

The point is, Russian and Putin are laughing at us and with good reason. Reductions were inevitable, and admittedly began under Bush the Younger, but the previous administration gutted our ability to confront Russia on any meaningful level.

Here are some rough numbers regarding main battle tanks (MBTs).

Austria = 56 Leopards
Belgium = 0
Czechoslovakia – 100 T-72’s
Denmark = 57 Leopards
England = 227 Challengers
Finland = 240 Leopards
France = 200 Leclercs
Germany = 250 Leopards
Italy = 200
Norway = 45 Leopards
Poland = 584 T72’s, 247 Leopards, 232 PT91’s
Russia = 20,500, T72 and up.

Add up all the possible combatants that might oppose a Soviet surge, you've got about 2,000 vehicles, spread all over Europe.

Safe to assume about 50% are combat ready at any given time.

So, the Russians have 10,000 operational MBT's versus 1,000 spread over Western Europe.

How many Abrams tanks do we have in Europe?

Not enough to make a spit of difference.

Got to love the Poles. They remember.

quote:

Originally posted by Jager:

You're a long time member here, also. I've got no bone to pick with you. I appreciate your knowledge base and sharing. The difference I think is thou protesteth a bit too much here with a yard that requires some cleaning.

BTW, this is where I get "Ching-Chong" from:

China Lee

You're really reaching.... Between my description of a awful women on an airplane, to the stereotypical elitist Marin County resident's commentary on minorities intruding on their bucolic country life, to the actual first-stop that Army CID looks when Afghani trainees go AWOL while training in Georgia..none of that comes close to your use of a racial ephitat.

Then you double-down, by saying Kim Jong-Un is the same as RADM Willis Lee's nickname? A nickname that's over 100-years old?! Common' I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. Your original post while factual was a bit emotional, you got carried away and you touched the rail. Forgivable, absolutely but, good grief, own it, you went over the line.

Done with this subject, this thread doesn't need any more off-track discussions.

You're reading comprehension is lacking.

I was referring to the communist leadership of China and their militaristic expansion in the South China Sea.

You're the one who's reaching. Or triggering.

From San Francisco (go figure).

The Rear Admiral got his nickname from his accepting a post in China, pre-WWII. As far as I'm concerned, no harm, no foul. Want to rewrite the history books?

"Racial epithet". Heck, you can't even spell it.

And you don't even know what one is by definition.

The word you may have been looking for is "slur".

"Ching Chong = Mocking the language of or a person of perceived Chinese descent."

Ooh, I slurred the expansionist Chinese leadership.

I'm sure they appreciate you standing up for them.

Maybe you can rush over to this thread:

Mysoginy

Jim might need a little reminder about respect for the ladies...

Or this one:

Wang

Let us know how counseling Monk goes. He even included the Germans. Now I'm offended.

SO, what happened to Russia's dilapidated aircraft carrier?

SJW and snowflakes should sidebar it, IMO.