Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Russia could invade Poland 'overnight', report claims Watch

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I'd rather Vlad invaded the UK. We could do with some strong leadership at this time.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JabaDaba12)
    And Trump wants to leave.

    Getting real tired of dependence on the US. When are we going to grow a spine?
    we do have a nuclear deterrent as well as france, i mean it's well known that you'd have to be an idiot to attack someone with nuclear weapons, we do not rely on the US, and this is just bull ****, ofc russia can take poland in no time, i mean the US and china can take most counties in no time, the mongols at their peak could have maybe taken a country teh size of modern day poland in 3 days... and it is the 21 century, were no longer using horses and tanks that go 5 mph.. it isn't shocking in anyway a modern army with great weapons such as russia can take a weaker country overnight.

    (Original post by Supersaps)
    Well, the US spends 10 times more on its military than Russia.

    It also operates 11 aircraft carrier strike groups, with submarines, anti-missile cruisers and frigates giving it an incredible ability to project power across the globe. I think Russia has one?

    At the moment, we've got half an aircraft carrier with (as I understand) 0 fighters to go on it. We're barely spending the 2% required as part of our NATO membership. Many countries in NATO don't even spend this.

    SS
    and your point is ? US aircraft carrier are near obsolete with anti-ship missiles around, i mean the only place they were useful was with countries that don't have anti-stip mid-long range missiles, like china once and some weaker countries, like iran, but now china has them and russia certainly does, so US aircraft carriers would be near useless. you make it seem like the US can steamroll russia, buh russia has 1 aircraft carrier, not even mentioning the great quality weapons they produce for next to nothing, russia could win on cost alone ( i mean the new UK and US fighter dont even work ... ), but even in a head to head fight they would destroy not only each other but the world easily. russia ain't gonna invade poland for no reason ..then again if poland has some ''WMD's'' who knows what could happen.

    this is the biggest crock of **** ive seen and read . if anyone think russia is the largest problem in the world right now, they must have been living under a rock for the last 30-40 years,
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  thesun.jpg
Views: 70
Size:  144.8 KB
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ATW1)
    I'd rather Vlad invaded the UK. We could do with some strong leadership at this time.
    Here here!

    (Original post by iamrighturwrong)
    QFA
    I'm sorry what point are you trying to make?

    (Original post by rimstone)
    we do have a nuclear deterrent as well as france, i mean it's well known that you'd have to be an idiot to attack someone with nuclear weapons, we do not rely on the US, and this is just bull ****, ofc russia can take poland in no time, i mean the US and china can take most counties in no time, ,
    Just a couple of things;
    1] Technically speaking we do but due to its size and the only country likely [i use the term relatively here] is Russia our 'deterrant' is little more than a niggling inconveniance. Not to mention if their S-400/500 is as good as they claim they should be able to shoot most of our missiles out of the sky
    2]I'll agree with that, especially our ones, following on from my last point regarding our number, ours is only a second strike arsenal and at that its little more than a weapon of spite... its launch would do nothing to help anyone just needlessly kill countless people.
    3] Technically speaking they arent even our missiles they're leased from the USA and we are entirely dependant on them for their upkeep of the missiles plus multiple warhead components are American effectively rendering said weapons not ours.
    4] i'd disagree with the US/China remark granted both have large armies but americas is designed for high-tech short duration campigns not large scale warfare or long duration as shown in Iraq whilst Chinas is the opposite its far more low tech but relies on bulk [in general] plus it doesnt really have any projection power.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    I assume you didn't read what i wrote whereby i denounced it as scare mongering?

    I'll correct you there, that has been American policy, not European I find it hard to believe it would be European policy to contain the war on Europes western seaboard... Either way its fairly academic as in all probability unless said war went nuclear Russia would have little trouble walking over Europe and the chances of the Americans being able to eject a far larger force whom have every possible advantage is less than likely.

    Indeed there is not, probably explains why the western european nations dislike the club so much and the eastern europeans love it :rolleyes:
    I really doubt Russia's ability to take over Europe for a number of reasons.
    1) Technologically they are far behind the west.
    2) Mutually assured destruction
    3)Russian conventional forces are very poor. Standard issue infantry rifle is the AKM. That says a lot about them. UK infantry rifle is the L85A2, US's is the M4 carbine, Germans - G36. All far superior to their 45y.o rifles.
    4) Russian Air Power simply does not match American/Western European Air Power. They simply do not have an answer to F22/F35 stealth technology.
    5) Far lower population than that of US/European coalition, only around 150m.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rimstone)
    and your point is ? US aircraft carrier are near obsolete with anti-ship missiles around, i mean the only place they were useful was with countries that don't have anti-stip mid-long range missiles, like china once and some weaker countries, like iran, but now china has them and russia certainly does, so US aircraft carriers would be near useless. you make it seem like the US can steamroll russia, buh russia has 1 aircraft carrier, not even mentioning the great quality weapons they produce for next to nothing, russia could win on cost alone ( i mean the new UK and US fighter dont even work ... ), but even in a head to head fight they would destroy not only each other but the world easily. russia ain't gonna invade poland for no reason ..then again if poland has some ''WMD's'' who knows what could happen.

    this is the biggest crock of **** ive seen and read . if anyone think russia is the largest problem in the world right now, they must have been living under a rock for the last 30-40 years,


    Sorry, you're talking the biggest load of ****. The Russian military is pretty decrepit. Yes, they have some advanced areas. But the US budget is still 12 times the size of the Russian one.

    Carriers are pretty ****ing important because they let you project your power half way across the globe. The problem China has at the moment.

    We'd better not hope Carriers are obsolete because we've just sunk a gigantic proportion the defence budget into them. Carriers have a whole carrier group protecting them with anti-missile vessels etc.


    Russia are actively destabilising the Middle East as well as being happy to invade into Europe. If anyone thinks they're a force for good in the world, they must be mental.

    SS
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Amusing to think Russia could stream roll over Europe before the external nato allies would arrive anyone would think France Germany the uk and turkey have no military power lol.

    Oh yea us and the French have nuclear weapons too.

    When was the last time someone invaded a country that has nuclear weapons?

    As far as I know the answer is never


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Amusing to think Russia could stream roll over Europe before the external nato allies would arrive anyone would think France Germany the uk and turkey have no military power lol.

    Oh yea us and the French have nuclear weapons too.

    When was the last time someone invaded a country that has nuclear weapons?

    As far as I know the answer is never


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I genuinely think they would never use nuclear weapons even in a war like this. There is simply no way they could launch nukes on eg. The US and get away with it. One would be fired straight back the other way within minutes, followed by another, and another.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King7)
    What is it with the Western propaganda that Russia is evil and always the enemy? If not for them (the Soviets) Nazism may still be here, let alone the mainstream part of Europe!

    And in response to the OP, if they can, then believe me, they would have done so already!
    The whole Russia thing is about fear of them fear of them invading, fear of them gaining more advantage against the West whereas there is not really any evil intent from them from what I can see.We can dislike their military tactics and how they deal with matters but the thing is the US virtually always act in the same way.

    Oh and about the annexation of Crimea the EU and US are acting completely hypocritically there as they invaded Serbia to free Kosovo, how was this not breaking their territorial integrity.Crimea consisted of people who were mainly ethnic Russian and they voted to become part of Russia but I thought the EU and US supported democracy?The vote wouldn't have been able to happen without Russia intervening to sort out the situation which they had every right to do due to the trouble on their borders, the ethnic Russians involved who wanted Crimea to become part of Russia.The real reason the EU and US didn't like Crimea becoming part of Russia is that it extended their territory and they didn't like them getting what they see as more power.

    The real enemy we have is ISIS lets join forces with Russia to get rid of this enemy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    I really doubt Russia's ability to take over Europe for a number of reasons.
    1) Technologically they are far behind the west.
    2) Mutually assured destruction
    3)Russian conventional forces are very poor. Standard issue infantry rifle is the AKM. That says a lot about them. UK infantry rifle is the L85A2, US's is the M4 carbine, Germans - G36. All far superior to their 45y.o rifles.
    4) Russian Air Power simply does not match American/Western European Air Power. They simply do not have an answer to F22/F35 stealth technology.
    5) Far lower population than that of US/European coalition, only around 150m.
    i'd disagree equally for these reasons
    a] Russia, in my opinion, would be ableto over run europe fairly quickly and easily however holding it i doubt it would work out well
    a] not as much as you might think, the west got lazy after the cold war and thought russia was backwards but under putin they've had a massive redevelopment of all weaponry especially cruise missiles, submarines, tanks/artillary and AA tech
    b]aye but out of the two Russia would probably loose less oweing to its sheersize/top of the range ABM shield and its vast vast first strike arsenal which is as we speak being upgraded indeed almost all of it is more modern than ours and americas
    c] They have a modern battlefield rifle now, basedon and looks almost identical to the prior one but still i'll grant the west generally has more advanced small arms but that can also be a curse as plenty more to go wrong with it e.g. the SA80 is a pile of **** [trust me i've shot it] it jams far too much and is awful in desert/arctic/jungle warfare whilst the Russian ones being so simple and are tried and proven to be reliable not to mention being so common plenty of spare parts/mags/rounds)
    d] to a point i'll agree they have yet to put their fifth gen fighter into production however their current fleet is still relatively modern with a fair number being 4th and 4++ they do have some of the most advanced AA systems around though with the S400/500 being claimed to be able to track and engage the B2/F22/F35 [not to mention the F35 doesnt really work]
    e] indeed but a very large armed forces though which out strips european ones and the US would undoubedly find it very hard to shift their armies to europe in such an instance.
    f] it's also worth mentioning that the Russians have the most nd some of the most able MRLS around and they tend to be armed with very unpleasant FAE warheads equally theyre the only other country to maintain a strategic bomber fleet which would also be able to rain fire from above.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    i'd disagree equally for these reasons
    a] Russia, in my opinion, would be ableto over run europe fairly quickly and easily however holding it i doubt it would work out well
    a] not as much as you might think, the west got lazy after the cold war and thought russia was backwards but under putin they've had a massive redevelopment of all weaponry especially cruise missiles, submarines, tanks/artillary and AA tech
    b]aye but out of the two Russia would probably loose less oweing to its sheersize/top of the range ABM shield and its vast vast first strike arsenal which is as we speak being upgraded indeed almost all of it is more modern than ours and americas
    c] They have a modern battlefield rifle now, basedon and looks almost identical to the prior one but still i'll grant the west generally has more advanced small arms but that can also be a curse as plenty more to go wrong with it e.g. the SA80 is a pile of **** [trust me i've shot it] it jams far too much and is awful in desert/arctic/jungle warfare whilst the Russian ones being so simple and are tried and proven to be reliable not to mention being so common plenty of spare parts/mags/rounds)
    d] to a point i'll agree they have yet to put their fifth gen fighter into production however their current fleet is still relatively modern with a fair number being 4th and 4++ they do have some of the most advanced AA systems around though with the S400/500 being claimed to be able to track and engage the B2/F22/F35 [not to mention the F35 doesnt really work]
    e] indeed but a very large armed forces though which out strips european ones and the US would undoubedly find it very hard to shift their armies to europe in such an instance.
    f] it's also worth mentioning that the Russians have the most nd some of the most able MRLS around and they tend to be armed with very unpleasant FAE warheads equally theyre the only other country to maintain a strategic bomber fleet which would also be able to rain fire from above.
    Ok a few things. I may have missed a few things but yeah.
    1) The AK12, the rifle you're referring to I think, is still not in full circulation.
    2) The F35 really is a wonderful piece of tech, it has the most advanced set of sensors of any plane ever built. It will spot planes BVR before it gets spotted itself, giving it an incredible advantage. The F22 is quite simply the best air to air plane out there. Nothing can out maneuver it, especially when you don't see it coming quick enough. The SA80A2 variant is actually pretty reliable and extremely accurate. Btw France has its own Anti-Missile Defence system which we use. And the US is building one in Eastern Europe as we speak. I think it would be impossible for Russia to invade Western Europe. And I do not think they would resort to nukes due to M.A.D
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    Ok a few things. I may have missed a few things but yeah.
    1) The AK12, the rifle you're referring to I think, is still not in full circulation.
    2) The F35 really is a wonderful piece of tech, it has the most advanced set of sensors of any plane ever built. It will spot planes BVR before it gets spotted itself, giving it an incredible advantage. The F22 is quite simply the best air to air plane out there. Nothing can out maneuver it, especially when you don't see it coming quick enough. The SA80A2 variant is actually prettu reliable and extremely accurate. Btw France has its own Anti-Missile Defence system which we use. And the US is building one in Eastern Europe as we speak.
    Isn't it? My mistake it might only be issued to the special forces then.

    Mmm to a point however its faults are too large to ignore e.g. the ejector set kills, its onboard systems are full of more bugs than n ants nest, it cant fire its cannons, it is simply too expensive to be overly practicle. Aye but then again in this scenario one can assume the russians would have brought up their AA batterys which cn track said targets from hundreds of miles away and engage too [if they are to be believed]
    Oh no doubt it is an excellent plane! but it is out of production though.
    I dont think i've used that variant so i'll take your word for it)
    Aster areyou reffering to? Not a bad piece of kit but its designed for a different role than the S500 which is a multi purpose system and can apparently shoot down anything from a cruise missile to the F22 to Trident but who knows with them The same issue with the Aegis sytem in Poland though but who knows one day we might see :L
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    Isn't it? My mistake it might only be issued to the special forces then.

    Mmm to a point however its faults are too large to ignore e.g. the ejector set kills, its onboard systems are full of more bugs than n ants nest, it cant fire its cannons, it is simply too expensive to be overly practicle. Aye but then again in this scenario one can assume the russians would have brought up their AA batterys which cn track said targets from hundreds of miles away and engage too [if they are to be believed]
    Oh no doubt it is an excellent plane! but it is out of production though.
    I dont think i've used that variant so i'll take your word for it)
    Aster areyou reffering to? Not a bad piece of kit but its designed for a different role than the S500 which is a multi purpose system and can apparently shoot down anything from a cruise missile to the F22 to Trident but who knows with them The same issue with the Aegis sytem in Poland though but who knows one day we might see :L
    The SA80 got a mid life upgrade in 2004 or so, it was undertaken by BAE Systems, they know their stuff. It can now shoot several thousand rounds without any real problems. And it has that 500mm long barrel making it more accurate than anything else out there really. Even modern assault rifles like the HK416 and the F2000 struggle to match it for accuracy. How old are you btw. I'm assuming you've been in the army?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    I genuinely think they would never use nuclear weapons even in a war like this. There is simply no way they could launch nukes on eg. The US and get away with it. One would be fired straight back the other way within minutes, followed by another, and another.
    Like I said it wouldn't happen down to the simplicity of being in nato and having nukes


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    The SA80 got a mid life upgrade in 2004 or so, it was undertaken by BAE Systems, they know their stuff. It can now shoot several thousand rounds without any real problems. And it has that 500mm long barrel making it more accurate than anything else out there really. Even modern assault rifles like the HK416 and the F2000 struggle to match it for accuracy. How old are you btw. I'm assuming you've been in the army?
    Ah yes, I have a friend who's Dad works for. Quite handy some times as he can get us into the ship yards and what not plus excellent seats at the fleet review a few years ago)
    No I was in the CCf then ROTC fun but they failed dearly in persuading me to enlist :rolleyes:
    Mmm its an okay weapon but for usability and conveniance i'd take the FN-SCAR/HK416
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iamrighturwrong)
    Anyone getting a little sick of this anti-Russian propaganda being pushed by the media?

    F America, F NATO, they've the one's who helped destabilise the Middle East that caused the refugee crisis.

    Know your real enemy people.
    Yet the ones performing indiscriminate bombing in Syria are the Russians. Are you Russian, by any chance?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest I don't think an invasion of Poland is on the top of Putin's agenda. I also don't think he necessarily wants to destroy NATO from an ideological standpoint. But I do believe that he's an opportunist - if he sees NATO struggle & has sympathetic local support within smaller Eastern European nations like Latvia, Estonia etc then I wouldn't be surprised if pro-Russian rebel groups, supported directly by Russia special forces, begin to cause trouble.

    The whole NATO vs Russia situation has been done a lot on more military minded forums than this one. I think there's always going to be some kind of bias - those in the West are more likely to believe NATO will win while the Russians believe they would.
    Then you get some individuals & arms manufacturers coming at it from a slightly different direction. IE Russia are too strong for us currently but buy our latest jet fighter & missile system so they wouldn't be.
    There's so much claim & counter-claim & add that into the fact that governments deliberately don't reveal the full capabilities of their weapon systems makes it hard to judge.

    Generally speaking, Western technology is further advanced in most areas. The Russians still haven't fielded a single stealth aircraft operationally unlike the USAF managed who to do in the 80s & 90s with the F-117.
    The F-22 has been in use for around 10yrs now while the PAK FA is still in development. The EF2000 Typhoon should be superior to the Su-35 Flanker but until it gets the Meteor missile then it'd bet it'd be a relatively close fight (I've heard that the latest generation of Russian ECM is rather effective against AMRAAM missiles) if the pilots have the same ability & training.
    However, it's well known that Russian pilots don't get anywhere near as much training as their Western equivalents & NATO nations have state of the art simulators so training sorties can be flown in those instead.

    I don't think the Russian integrated air defence vs VLO aircraft, missiles & low level flying tactics will ever be proven one way or the other in theory. There's no doubt the S-400 systems are highly regarded &, from what I've read, the Russians deploy Pantsir-S1 & similar systems to defend the S-400 SAMs from anti radiation missiles.
    But going up against these formidable systems are stealth platforms like the F-22 carrying Small Diameter Bombs internally & flying at very low level with stand-off ECM aircraft & possibly UAVs diverting the attention of the SAMs to make it even harder for the Russians to detect.
    If the Russia IAD is breached, even if only temporarily, it opens up a corridor for non-steath aircraft like the Tornado GR4s to fly in & volley fire Brimstone missiles against Russian tanks. The new T-14 tank is meant to be a beast but it isn't in service yet. & although it has anti missile defence system there's a good chance multiple anti tank missiles will get through, especially if volley fired.

    It does come down to whether or not NATO would defend Eastern European countries against Russian aggression. Some may not have the stomach for it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So the Cold War is a figment of my imagination? The Soviets did not invade Finland and Poland? They didn't send troops into Ukraine?

    Western Europe has two main enemies: Russia and Islamism.
    I'm referring to the propaganda, not Cold War. Russia isn't given any credit for its part in WW2, except for the fact that Stalin was part of the Allied Forces. If not for them, Hitler would've controlled most of Europe, which I take you wouldn't have liked, yes? Propaganda? In movies, in the media, in stories etc. Russia and several other countries are seen as the 'bad guys'.

    As for "Islamism",😂!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King7)
    I'm referring to the propaganda, not Cold War. Russia isn't given any credit for its part in WW2, except for the fact that Stalin was part of the Allied Forces. If not for them, Hitler would've controlled most of Europe, which I take you wouldn't have liked, yes? Propaganda? In movies, in the media, in stories etc. Russia and several other countries are seen as the 'bad guys'.

    As for "Islamism",😂!
    There is no denying that the Soviet contribution to winning WW2 was key. However, if Hitler had not foolishly invaded Russia they would probably have been on the other side.

    What happened after WW2 is more recent, more important and more informative of Russia's stance against the western democracies.

    That you think the threat from Islamism to western civilisation is a joke says more about your understanding of the problem than it does about the problem.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.