War with China 509 replies

Please wait...

Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#491 15 years ago
Nesh_reanimatorAnd, BTW, america HAVE NOTHING like this.

LGM-118A Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missile, it could carry 10 to 12. Welcome to 1986.

http://www.strategic-air-command.com/missiles/Peacekeeper/Peacekeeper_Missile_Home_Page.htm




WarHawk109

From the Austrian School

50 XP

21st July 2003

0 Uploads

2,926 Posts

0 Threads

#492 15 years ago

YoJimbOEver heard of Vietnam? - I mean, equipment means jack sh** when you have thousands upon thousands (millions in China's case) in reserves, plus their equipment might not be the best, but hell, the US have had much better equipment in many many situations...

Look at WW2 as well, the Germans had superior armour, however the pure quantity of Shermans etc was enough to overpower the Tigers. Point is - when you're talking such huge numbers, they do count.

And who won every major engangement in Vietnam? The USA. The only reason they pulled out was because the war was unpopular back home. Yes numbers do count, I am not denying that, but only when both sides are comparable in terms of training an equipment. Sure the Germans had better armor, but American tanks weren't crap either.




TheMirage

The People's Politsayski

50 XP

25th January 2004

0 Uploads

6,624 Posts

0 Threads

#493 15 years ago
NiteStrykerIm getting a tad curious. Apparently, ive read in several newspapers, China is building up their military in one of the biggest buildups since the Cold War. Im wondering why they are doing it. Are they wanting to get the US to back off from the Taiwan issue? Do they hope to engage in a pearl-harbor style strike to get us to back off?

yeah, yeah. I'm more than 10 pages late to the party. I've been traveling, gimme a break. Anyway, I'm not sure about open war, though I wouldn't be suprised. I do know that they are trying to push thier influence out into the Pacific, which is exactly what the Japs did before WW2 began, mostly by builing thier airforce and navy up. I've read some articles on this myself. I only hope to God it never happens. I can't say I'll be suprised tohugh. @ warhawk, no the late war american tanks weren't crap. Ever heard of the pershing? Damned good tank. Late war was when the nazis were using Tigers too, so we balanced out. But early in the war, our tanks were shit (for armor and firepower anyway) speed and maneuverability were good though.




Nederbörd

Has mutated into a Lurker

50 XP

12th March 2005

0 Uploads

1,848 Posts

0 Threads

#494 15 years ago
WarHawk109And who won every major engangement in Vietnam? The USA. The only reason they pulled out was because the war was unpopular back home. Yes numbers do count, I am not denying that, but only when both sides are comparable in terms of training an equipment. Sure the Germans had better armor, but American tanks weren't crap either.

The same can be said about Iraq. The USA (or coalition) won almost (if not every) major engagement in Iraq. The Iraqi army was poorly trained and badly equipped (in comparison to the USA) and they lost. But what came afterwards? Guerilla war, and damn hard too. In the beginning, before Al-Sadr put down arms, there was total chaos in Iraq. Even now, it's hard to win over these rampaging terrorists in Iraq. The Saddam loyalists, the religous Sunni extremists and the foreign terrorists will lose at the end. But it will cost the Coalition much. I believe the same would haver happend to Vietnam. They would have lost, but the vietcong would eventually have grown larger and be a real pain in the arse for the US troops. Even if the USA would have ''won'', it would have cost them much. Very much. Gotta go now. German class.




Nesh_reanimator

FROM RUSSIA WITH NUKES

50 XP

4th May 2004

0 Uploads

613 Posts

0 Threads

#495 15 years ago

LGM-118A Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missile, it could carry 10 to 12. Welcome to 1986.

http://www.strategic-air-command.com..._Home_Page.htm

:lol: I didn`t know that Peacekeepers base on submarines :lol:




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

29th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#496 15 years ago

Thats not the point, you twat.

The Triden II D5. Carries eight warheads each with a yield of 475 kilotons. The Ohio class submarine carries 24 of these missiles. That is 192 warheads. We also have fourteen Ohio class SSBNs in service.

That is 2,668 warheads we could potentially use. Or, 336 Trident II missiles from the US alone (not counting the UK which also uses the Trident missile) that you or China would have to counter.

Now, lets look at your numbers.

The Typhoon class SSBN carries 20 RSM-52 ballistic missiles. Each of these can hold up to 10 warheads. The Russian Navy had, at its peak, six Typhoon class boats. They now have four, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. That amounts to 200 warheads per ship, which is more than our Ohio.

But like I said, you have at most six available for service. That amounts to 1,200 warheads, compared to our 2,668. We also have 336 missiles, compared to your 120.

Numbers don't lie, wish I could say the same about you.




Nesh_reanimator

FROM RUSSIA WITH NUKES

50 XP

4th May 2004

0 Uploads

613 Posts

0 Threads

#497 15 years ago

First of all, I talk about QUALITY, not QUANTITY. SS-30 have 10 warheads 750 kilotons each. It`s imposible to overtake this missle by any known ways. As well as SS-27 Topol-M, during all it`s way it change direction, hight, velocity, ext. As well as Topol`s-m warheads it also change direction, hieght, velocity. It`s only our technology, no other country have something like this. As well as SS-27, it don`t need cilos, BUT, SS-27 carry only 1-3 warheads, while SS-30 - 10 warheads. SS-30 can be launched from submarines (949 "Granit", 949A "Antey", 667 "Dolphin", 941 "Typhoon", and new 955 "Borey" ) as well as from naval ships. And we have SIX typhoons now. Two of them have been modified. Anyway, SS-30 builded for our NEW 4th generation submarine - 955 "Borey". We have one now, and we will have at least three of them in 2006. In future, this submarine will become the spine of our nucklear strategic fleet.

But like I said, you have at most six available for service. That amounts to 1,200 warheads, compared to our 2,668. We also have 336 missiles, compared to your 120.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/Forces.shtml You have 1850 megatons, caording to your source. Russia, according to your source, have 2800, but I realy don`t understand, how could you belive, that we have only 10 SS-27 Sickle-M missles ????????????????????

And how could we have 120 missle, if we have 180 only SS-18??? AWhat about 300 Sickle-M missles? Also 200 SS-24 and 200 SS-25.

For exaple, this site almost proove my point: http://nuclear-weapons.nm.ru/russia/weapons/arsenal/jan2001.htm (january 2001) Source: "ESTIMATION FOREIGN SPECIALIST NUCLEUS ARSENAL to RUSSIA And PROBLEMS to RATIFICATIONS of the AGREEMENT "START-II" "




Nederbörd

Has mutated into a Lurker

50 XP

12th March 2005

0 Uploads

1,848 Posts

0 Threads

#498 15 years ago

Guys, it's really nice to know of all your respective countries military weapons but pleease, now that I'm asking nicely, can you two please talk about this somewhere else. Over PM perhaps? Now that we've finally got back on topic, I want to hold me to it.




Nesh_reanimator

FROM RUSSIA WITH NUKES

50 XP

4th May 2004

0 Uploads

613 Posts

0 Threads

#499 15 years ago

Anyway, China weill never go againt USA without Russia support. You see, chinies have to compansate your nucklear potential somehow.




WarHawk109

From the Austrian School

50 XP

21st July 2003

0 Uploads

2,926 Posts

0 Threads

#500 15 years ago

I bet half those Russian missles won't even fire, they're just show pieces.