Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Tranche 7

[Padnak]

Against any army in Europe they'd probably win, same goes if they fought the Chinese (unlikely as it is, it could still happen for some unforeseen reason)

the only nation that would do what you described to them would 'Murica

[Questers]

Britain and Poland are quite capable of taking Vlad on conventionally.

[Padnak]

Britain and Poland are quite capable of taking Vlad on conventionally.

I thought we established before that Britain isn't in Europe because its special lol

I didn't think Poland was all that much of a military power, but hey

[Triplebaconation]

Britain and Poland are quite capable of taking Vlad on conventionally.

Even if the effete "Royal Hussies" managed to stand up to thousands of ARMATA terror tanks (any year now), the Russians would just unleash their secret weapon - BMP-3s with traverse and elevation indicators.

On the plus side the Chunnel would make Dunkirk easier.

[The Kievan People]

Does anyone know anything about the Chinese http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZBD-97 aside from the Wikipedia link?
Google keeps turning up nothing useful when ever I try to find it.

It's an odd duck. I half think that it was originally intended as a Naval Infantry because it's large size (some stats claim it is almost identical to the BMP-3 in size, but this is hard to swallow), light weight, water jets and bow ramp all suggest swimming performance was a very big factor in the design. Which would be very unusual for an army IFV. And the trade offs are significant. It has a big profile, very little armor and limited gun depression. It probably swims better than almost any other general purpose IFV or APC though.

The newer ZBD-08 eliminates the water jets and bow ramps, has added additional armor, looks to have a slightly lower profile and is generally better adapted for land combat rather than amphibious landings.

[Questers]

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/dont-m ... e1e101196d

Poland is a serious thing.

[Padnak]

Doesn't the ZDU-08 have some sort of fancy inflating pontoon looking things it uses to get across water? I remember seeing a picture of something like that, but given china and its need to develop 9000 different vehicles I could be mistaking it with something else

[Korva]

Doesn't the ZDU-08 have some sort of fancy inflating pontoon looking things it uses to get across water? I remember seeing a picture of something like that, but given china and its need to develop 9000 different vehicles I could be mistaking it with something else

Korean K21 has pontoons.

[Padnak]

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/dont-mess-with-poland-2ae1e101196d

Poland is a serious thing.

Poland can into defence of Europe

[The Kievan People]

I thought we established before that Britain isn't in Europe because its special lol

I didn't think Poland was all that much of a military power, but hey

They have same number of tank brigades as Russia. Four.

Russia has a big edge in the number of motorized brigades, 34 to Poland's 6, but the Russian forces are currently ~20-30% under strength because of the demographic crisis and a fair number of these brigades are likely both undermanned and equipped with ancient equipment. On paper the Russian army also has fifteen more brigade "mobilization bases" (1 tank, 14 Motorized) but seeing as they cannot even find enough quality manpower to fill out the active forces, these brigades could likely only be mobilized by scrapping the very bottom of the barrel.

Russia would certainly be able to defeat Poland alone. Russia has important advantages, like large stockpiles of munitions, that most NATO members lack. But even the addition of two or three NATO divisions to the equation, plus American supplies, would likely make it impossible for Russia to win barring some truly superb Generalship. They wouldn't even be able to achieve the magic 3-to-1 ratio without mustering their entire army on the Polish border, which is implausible for many reasons. Including that it would leave the Russian far east enormously vulnerable to an attack by PACOM. In the air they would likely be outnumbered. At sea, if America is involved, it is not even a meaningful contest.

Basically Russia is encircled by NATO, which threatens them in eastern Europe, Scandinavia, the Caucasus and Black sea, and the far East. And given the gargantuan disparity between the USN and the Russian Navy, Russia's only real non-nuclear defense against potential US intervention and an attack from the sea is to station significant land and air forces in every theater, preventing them from concentrating their forces in any conflict where the US might plausibly become involved. A war with Poland obviously meets this criteria.

Russia's rearmament plan, if it succeeds, will swing the land and possible air balance more in it's favor. But the naval balance will remain overwhelmingly tilted towards America and this will remain a real big headache for any Russian leader contemplating a major conventional conflict with NATO. The USSR had enough divisions to fight NATO in every direction at once. But Russia does not and for both demographic and economic reasons probably never will.

Poland's trump card is that they can devote all of their limited resources to the east. Can they beat the whole Russian military? No. Can they beat the force that Russia would likely be able to muster against them? Plausible. Unless Russia goes nuclear that is.

[Padnak]

-snip-

Interesting

I suppose Russias vast size is more of a determent then it is a benefit, if only because it means their more limited (relative to the amount of territory they have to protect) can't be concentrated

Speaking of a war on the sea, I know that during the cold war the soviet sub fleet was quite the thing, how is the current Russian sub fleet? I would imagine its in pretty rough shape but it would make a bit of sense if it fared better then the surface fleet (with Russia placing as much stock in nuclear weapons for defence as they do)

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/dont-mess-with-poland-2ae1e101196d

Poland is a serious thing.

Poland stronk maybe I should start rooting for them instead of the Czechs in international competitions.

[The Kievan People]

Speaking of a war on the sea, I know that during the cold war the soviet sub fleet was quite the thing, how is the current Russian sub fleet? I would imagine its in pretty rough shape but it would make a bit of sense if it fared better then the surface fleet (with Russia placing as much stock in nuclear weapons for defence as they do)

Not what it used to be. The USN has 53 SSNs. Russia has 16. Only one of which was not laid down in the USSR. They also have 17 conventional attack submarines.

American submarine building did not slow appreciably after the end of the Cold War so their fleet is highly modern. The oldest Los Angeles was commissioned in 1981. Russian submarine building nearly stopped after the end of the USSR and virtually everything commissioned between 1991 and the late 2000s was laid down prior to the break up.

[Oaledonia]

I have no idea what my armored doctrine is going to be called, but it'll be a "two-tier" armored core consisting of MBTs and tank destroyers.

[Rich and Corporations]

Russia would certainly be able to defeat Poland alone.

The Polish plan against the Germans was to forfeit the country west of the Vistula and use the river as a defensive point. Against Russia it would be the reverse. The terrain is favorable for Poland.

Chechnya revealed Russia's weakness. Versus modern AT infantry, Russia would easily fall.

like large stockpiles of munitions,

Obsolete munitions. And friction is a thing. Tank rounds get improperly stored and become wet, reducing their velocity by 100 fps.

magic 3-to-1 ratio

The Nazis had a magic 1 to 1 ratio against the French and British.

Can they beat the whole Russian military?

Yes.

I have no idea what my armored doctrine is going to be called, but it'll be a "two-tier" armored core consisting of MBTs and tank destroyers.

Mine is two-tier of tank-IFVs and 70 tonne tanks.

[Oaledonia]

Russia would certainly be able to defeat Poland alone.

The Polish plan against the Germans was to forfeit the country west of the Vistula and use the river as a defensive point. Against Russia it would be the reverse. The terrain is favorable for Poland.

Chechnya revealed Russia's weakness. Versus modern AT infantry, Russia would easily fall.

like large stockpiles of munitions,

Obsolete munitions. And friction is a thing. Tank rounds get improperly stored and become wet, reducing their velocity by 100 fps.

magic 3-to-1 ratio

The Nazis had a magic 1 to 1 ratio against the French and British.

Can they beat the whole Russian military?

Yes.

I have no idea what my armored doctrine is going to be called, but it'll be a "two-tier" armored core consisting of MBTs and tank destroyers.

Mine is two-tier of tank-IFVs and 70 tonne tanks.

The IFVs go with the MBTs, mine isn't going to be good at all

[Krazakistan]

Russia would certainly be able to defeat Poland alone.

The Polish plan against the Germans was to forfeit the country west of the Vistula and use the river as a defensive point. Against Russia it would be the reverse. The terrain is favorable for Poland.

Chechnya revealed Russia's weakness. Versus modern AT infantry, Russia would easily fall.

like large stockpiles of munitions,

Obsolete munitions. And friction is a thing. Tank rounds get improperly stored and become wet, reducing their velocity by 100 fps.

magic 3-to-1 ratio

The Nazis had a magic 1 to 1 ratio against the French and British.

Can they beat the whole Russian military?

Yes.

I have no idea what my armored doctrine is going to be called, but it'll be a "two-tier" armored core consisting of MBTs and tank destroyers.

Mine is two-tier of tank-IFVs and 70 tonne tanks.

I would argue that Chechnya revealed that Russia's weakness (at the time) was incompetent leadership and piss poor coordination between military and government forces.

[Yukonastan]

Russia would certainly be able to defeat Poland alone.

The Polish plan against the Germans was to forfeit the country west of the Vistula and use the river as a defensive point. Against Russia it would be the reverse. The terrain is favorable for Poland.

Chechnya revealed Russia's weakness. Versus modern AT infantry, Russia would easily fall.

like large stockpiles of munitions,

Obsolete munitions. And friction is a thing. Tank rounds get improperly stored and become wet, reducing their velocity by 100 fps.

magic 3-to-1 ratio

The Nazis had a magic 1 to 1 ratio against the French and British.

Can they beat the whole Russian military?

Yes.

I have no idea what my armored doctrine is going to be called, but it'll be a "two-tier" armored core consisting of MBTs and tank destroyers.

Mine is two-tier of tank-IFVs and 70 tonne tanks.

In the scheme of things, is 100 fps really such a loss?

[Rich and Corporations]

100 fps really such a loss?

It's a drop of a few feet after a few hundred yards, so kinda.

I would argue that Chechnya revealed that Russia's weakness (at the time) was incompetent leadership and piss poor coordination between military and government forces.

So.

It's organized like most armies in the world?

[Krazakistan]

100 fps really such a loss?

It's a drop of a few feet after a few hundred yards, so kinda.

I would argue that Chechnya revealed that Russia's weakness (at the time) was incompetent leadership and piss poor coordination between military and government forces.

So.

It's organized like most armies in the world?

Besides it's need of modernization, yeah.

Edit: did not see the word " organized."

Russia has, to my understanding, moved to more of a western style of organization with their transition to the brigade system. They're still diffferent from NATO organization, for sure, but they are similar in a few aspects.

[Yukonastan]

100 fps really such a loss?

It's a drop of a few feet after a few hundred yards, so kinda.

I would argue that Chechnya revealed that Russia's weakness (at the time) was incompetent leadership and piss poor coordination between military and government forces.

So.

It's organized like most armies in the world?

How much is a few feet really?
I can understand if you aim at the tracks, but is a few feet really that much of a problem when flanking a tank?

[Rich and Corporations]

I can understand if you aim at the tracks, but is a few feet really that much of a problem when flanking a tank?

When vertical dispersion is also a few feet, it means that from a 100% of hitting the target, it might drop to 50%... or less.
Modern munitions make it harder for crews to figure out and correct for trajectory drops.

[Neo-Bolshevik Eurasia]

Deleted.

[Afro-Euasia]

The mogolian type 1-70 battle tank and the Flying horse guntruck

[Questers]

Kyiv does make a good point re munitions. I will use Britain as an example because I know more about it and its the most likely Euro country to assist Poland militarily.

The RAF has on paper enough Eurofighters to turn any Russian concentration of aircraft to scrap. On paper. In reality tho, the Typhoon fleet is not in a good shape. Parts are being cannabalised. How many ASRAAM or AMRAAM does the RAF have in stock? How much spares for its aircraft? Etc.

All countries have paper and reality strengths and weaknesses. That said - I do not think Russia could mass enough conventional forces to take Poland if Poland was supported by at least one other major NATO power.