Private Contracting Firms - Why the US uses them

[vandeleur]

I can't prove this, thankfully no one can now it's just in books I read , tho I did enjoy Watching a discovery Channel programme about it showing their elite tank divisions not training together because they didn't want to waste the fuel.
Do you mean Poland in 1939 ? And Czechoslovakia who didn't fight back and surrendered except for some protests in 68.
These counties you mention wernt the same challenge as a NATO intrenched west Germany.

And as for Afghanistan we both can't claim it ,I was gonna use it for my point :D

People's I was just saying it suited every one to have a bogey man ... Something never change .

[vandeleur]

Any way to quote a man who really knew how to slice up Europe .
History is a set of lies agreed upon... Bonaparte

[Nickdfresh]

It's been acknowledged now that the soviet union expansion into Europe was a paper tiger and exaggerated to allow for increased western military spending. The soviets had neither the logistics or actual working reliable equipment to achieve the anticipated over run of Europe , coupled with an at the time moral sapped poorly trained army it wasnt ever a goer in military circles that's now public knowledge in most books since the fall of the iron curtain.
Tho i do concede the site of Russians pushing tanks to petrol stations in Germany does sound funny now .

Silly. The Soviets and their Allies very well could have taken Europe in various periods such as prior to the end of the Korean War and in the aftermath of the Vietnam era up until the late 70's. They didn't have to drive very far to overrun Germany and push into France, after that all bets were off. But the Soviets had some serious advantages in intelligence as one of the staffers in NATO was an agent feeding them almost the whole NATO war plan, and then there was John Walker. Even if the Soviets didn't succeed in conquering all of Europe, they would have done irreparable damage and inflicted serious losses. But I do think the Soviet military was becoming severely degraded by the late 1980's just as ours was after Vietnam...

[Nickdfresh]

...
Do you mean Poland in 1939 ? And Czechoslovakia who didn't fight back and surrendered except for some protests in 68.

The Czechoslovakians were fed to Germany at Munich despite having a decent arms industry and military fortifications. Fighting the Germans after Munich was nearly impossible and they were beset by a whole host of challenges such as the fact that much of their reserve army were German-speaking 'Volksdeutch' of questionable loyalties. And if you're besmirching the Poles, they were invaded not just by Germany but by the Soviet Union as well frustrating what defensive planning they had left against Germany...

And as for Afghanistan we both can't claim it ,I was gonna use it for my point :D

People's I was just saying it suited every one to have a bogey man ... Something never change .

The Red Army was actually doing okay in Afghanistan prior to the introduction of the Stinger missile, even then some say they could have marginalized the Mujaheddin if they'd stayed a bit longer and revised tactics...

[vandeleur]

All your points are valid and have merit I maybe should have given my initial comments some sort of time frame , I am basically referring to the 80's until the fall of the soviet union .

Though I still state it suited out military agenda to not acknowledge soviet failings.

[hideyoursheep]

All your points are valid and have merit I maybe should have given my initial comments some sort of time frame , I am basically referring to the 80's until the fall of the soviet union .

Though I still state it suited out military agenda to not acknowledge soviet failings.

I gotta say..,during that time frame, the Warsaw Pact equipment was nearly always berated by the US as inferior....it's the fact they made SO MUCH of it that made people nervous about Soviet "intentions". I mean, the T-34 didn't look like much compared to a Nazi Tiger, but...shit! They worked! On the other hand,the HAVOC and (then) T-80, also made us nervous....at the time.

There was an armored combat vehicle range about 10 k's from one of our O.P's...Gorby later said in an interview he had 250,000 "crack" troops already there. ready 2 go. I don't know what his idea of "crack troops" are, but 250,000 equals lots of shootin' from both sides! They could have fucked some shit up -if they chose not to live any longer.



How did we get on the USSR subject anyway? Wasn't this about how we NEED unaccountable, honorless mercenaries and parasitic "contractors" sucking on America's teet?

[hideyoursheep]

Nickd can correct me, but I believe the U.S. M-48 and M-60 mbt and T-72 met on the battlefield in either '67 or '73 when Israel and Egypt (?) went at it...the Soviet Saggers were deadly! Tank-for-Tank however, and it could have been blamed on the crews, but the T-72 didn't do so well.

Now I'm rambling.

[vandeleur]

Yeah, me bad I think I de railed it sorry gents .

[Nickdfresh]

Nickd can correct me, but I believe the U.S. M-48 and M-60 mbt and T-72 met on the battlefield in either '67 or '73 when Israel and Egypt (?) went at it...the Soviet Saggers were deadly! Tank-for-Tank however, and it could have been blamed on the crews, but the T-72 didn't do so well.

Now I'm rambling.

I could be wrong, but I think the Israelis fielded M48A5's (basically an M60 with all the upgrades) and M60A3's in Lebanon against Syrian T-72's. Those upgraded tanks with improved 105mm guns, which were able to make mincemeat of the T-72. I'm not sure if they had their domestic design Merkavas yet...

In 67' and 73' it still would have been mostly T-55's, T-62's, and maybe some T-64's. The Israelis had their way in 1967, but in 73' they suffered heavy casualties against the Egyptians initially, because of a brilliant, limited Egyptian plan that marginalized the huge Israeli advantage in air power. In 73,' the Israelis had (British made) Centurion tanks, M-48's, some M-60's later, and even some left over Super-Sherman tanks. The Egyptian surprise attack took advantage of the relatively small number of Israeli troops manning the border prior to national mobilization and the fact that Israeli tanks often charged headlong unsupported by infantry making them vulnerable to Soviet type AT missiles. It should be said that the Egyptian tankers fought well and initially caused the Israelis problems because the Soviet designs had IR and were able to fight at night, whereas the Israeli tanks didn't have the latest upgrades and fought with a disadvantage at night. The Egyptian plan began to fall apart when they felt compelled to advance beyond their umbrella of SAM's into reenforced Israeli positions after the Syrians began to fold and the Israelis were able to overcome them and attack into the Sinai... (IIRC)

The T-72 and T-80 series were designed to be a relatively cheap, expendable tank with good firepower and mobility. They later tried to make up for the lack of crew protection with reactive armor with mixed success. In hindsight, the newer generation of Western tanks like the M-1/M1-A1/A2, German Leopard II, French LeClerc, and Brit Challenger were vastly superior to any Soviet tank, but the Soviets had far greater numbers of them. At the end of the Cold War, analysts often thought NATO still had an overall advantage in tanks based on quality and the fact they'd be fighting on the defensive or flanking Soviet advances...

[Nickdfresh]

Yeah, me bad I think I de railed it sorry gents .

It was an old thread that sucked anyways...

[Seshmeister]

As far as nukes in Turkey, the Soviets also had nukes everywhere in their Warsaw Pact subordinates and each side was always looking for an advantage, but the Soviets certainly knew they were vastly escalating by bringing nukes to Cuba and forcing America's hand and that it would be virtually regarded as unacceptable, as Washington, DC could have been obliterated in minutes in a surprise attack...

The nukes in Turkey were about 1500 miles from Moscow, Cuba is 1100 miles from Washington so is there that so much difference?

[Dr. Love]

The US could reduce military spending by 95% without any possible risk of invasion ever.

I don't trust the Canadians.

[Angel]

I don't trust the Canadians.

That's because you keep trying to find Canadian bacon on pizzas from US chains every time you come up here.

[FORD]

That's because you keep trying to find Canadian bacon on pizzas from US chains every time you come up here.

[Nickdfresh]

The nukes in Turkey were about 1500 miles from Moscow, Cuba is 1100 miles from Washington so is there that so much difference?

On paper, it doesn't look much different, but the Soviets, Khrushchev, knew that deploying missiles to Cuba would be regarded as highly antagonistic by the US. He gambled that JFK was wishy washy and unable to make decisive decisions, so they caused the crisis in that sense knowing full well the US would react, but believing the Kennedy Admin would back down. Also, the US was still under the impression that there was a "missile-gap" which turned out to be pure fantasy, but they (or at least Kennedy) didn't know that at the time, and Khrushchev didn't do anything to dispel the myth when he claimed they made nukes "like sausages"...