Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Warsaw pact and satellite states

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 1791
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2004, 11:58
Party Member
Post 25 Feb 2005, 07:13
However -- Most of the OMON, are so-called "professional" troops, called professional simply because they are paid? as well as the Alpha's; And many elite divisions of Spetsnaz.

So illogical, how, by simply having a non-conscripted army, means that they are "professional", where as professionalism is a mixture of skills and experience, not how they are paid.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55
Party Member
Post 25 Feb 2005, 12:28
There was a proper, professional Army in existence. Conscription existed only so that ever person would at least know the basics when it came to full war, using every able person you could land your hands on.
Image


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
Nil
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 224
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Feb 2005, 19:15
Pioneer
Post 26 Feb 2005, 04:24
^|Nikit@*- wrote:
China would side with Russia -- as they are Russia's number one military trading partner -- India would too, as Russia is doing joint military exercises with them -- that must mean something. China is also scheduled to do military exercises with the Russian navy this year.


The USA has had military exercises with India as well. Besides, India has a counter--Pakistan.

China is kind of a hard call. Sure the Russians trade with them a ton, but so do the Americans. I think they'd simply use a Russian/USA conflict to grab as much as they could in parts of Asia.
Soviet cogitations: 1791
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2004, 11:58
Party Member
Post 26 Feb 2005, 04:35
Quote:
The USA has had military exercises with India as well. Besides, India has a counter--Pakistan.


Russia & India are jointly developing weapon technologies-- as well as doing military exercises. China this year is scheduled to take part in many Russian naval exercises.

Quote:
China is kind of a hard call. Sure the Russians trade with them a ton, but so do the Americans. I think they'd simply use a Russian/USA conflict to grab as much as they could in parts of Asia.


China is greatly interested in Russian ICBM technology, as well as SS, AA, SA Etc missiles-- the only real interest China has for America, is making money, but i'm sure China would rather military supermacy than economical.

Of course, any Russian/American conflict would leave ample time for the Chinese to conduct landgrabs, or possibily wage war against Japan.
Image
Nil
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 224
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Feb 2005, 19:15
Pioneer
Post 26 Feb 2005, 04:46
^|Nikit@*- wrote:

Germany & France, wouldn't side with either -- if they did, side with America, it wouldn't make much differene anyway. China would side with Russia -- as they have many arms/technological deals -- Recent joint military exercises.


If it came down to Germany and France having to pick a side, they'd pick the US. China, as I've said, would most likely side with whomever offered them the best deal.


Quote:
Georgia, Kazak will come together with Russia again; as i'm sure belarus will do also.


That's not the majority.


Quote:
I suppose they would have Batman & Superpower, right? If Russia, geared up for a totally conventional war there is not a country in the world which could achieve victory of them, that's that. Allies soon become enemys, in times of war, you can't really rely that much on allies.


Batman and Superpower? You are trying to be humourous here, but it's not really working. Do you deny the fact that when the USA has been immersed in total war (US Civil War, WW2 being great examples) that they haven't shown an amazing capacity to switch over to war-related industry?

As far as not relying upon your allies, that's kind of silly---They are your allies, you HAVE to rely upon them.

Quote:

Russia has had much more experience -- as it is older than America, or do you think America was founded by the "gods"?. Russia has far more experience -- unless the experience America fighting third world armies, will be of any use? do you "see" it as being useful, Nil?


First of all, the age of a nation has nothing to do with war capacity. If that were the case, then Egypt should be able to dominate the world, laugh.

I think America was founded by a minority of well-off white men who opposed what they saw as a foreign nation dictating policy to them. And even in the American War for Independance, only 1/3rd of the population supported the rebellion--Luckily, the Americans had support from France and also the British were more worried about their other possessions as they were more lucrative than the Americans were.

Where has Russia fought anywheres but in third world nations since WW2? Russia was smacked around in WW1, kicked ass in WW2, and has fought just as many low-intensity conflicts as the United States since then.

The United States faced 'large traditional' armies in the Korean War and in the first Gulf War. Even in Vietnam, when the Vietcong tried to use conventional attacks, the USA usually defeated them handily. The Tet Offensive, for all it's publicity, was an overall failure for the Vietcong for just that reason.


Quote:

It's not nice, is it Nil? people trying to tell you something about your own country? Communism was not "thrown" into the "garbage pile", it was simply overthrown, how absurd, it is destiny for a true Communist State to come along, it can not be "thrown" into the "garbage", unlike American imperilism, which will soon come to an end.


Honestly man, you can insult the US all you want. I have issues with the USA myself. I even have some minor socialist leanings in regards to some things. But that doesn't mean that I'll stand idle while things that are obviously false are stated. Hell, I like this site a lot, as it has opened my mind to the fact that there are still people out there clutching the dead corpse of communism.

I'll say this: Socialism, in its purest sense, isn't a terrible concept. The fact is simply that it's not viable with current human attitudes in the long-term.

Another thing: The American system has been in place for more than twice the amount of time that the Communist one has--and it seems to have succeeded over a longer part of history than the brief flash of Communism did. Is the American system perfect? Hell no. But you can't argue that it failed...while the Communist agenda seems to have been thrown away in many places.

Compare the number of Communist countries vs Capitalist (or something similar--after all, the United States has plenty of socialist policies in their system) 30 years ago to today...It seems that if Communism was going to 'win' it would have done so by now. I realize that Communist doctrine prides itself on taking the 'long view' in things, but it's been the better part of a century now--and Communism has declined all across the world.
Nil
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 224
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Feb 2005, 19:15
Pioneer
Post 26 Feb 2005, 04:57
^|Nikit@*- wrote:

Russia & India are jointly developing weapon technologies-- as well as doing military exercises. China this year is scheduled to take part in many Russian naval exercises.


Again, Pakistan is an effective counter to India.

Quote:
China is greatly interested in Russian ICBM technology, as well as SS, AA, SA Etc missiles-- the only real interest China has for America, is making money, but i'm sure China would rather military supermacy than economical.


Actually, the Chinese have acquired a lot in the way of electronics from the United States. But I honestly think that China would 'side' with neither unless they found it profitable to do so.

Remember, Chinese/Russian(Soviet) relations haven't always been great, and on the flipside neither have Chinese/American relations either.

Quote:
Of course, any Russian/American conflict would leave ample time for the Chinese to conduct landgrabs, or possibily wage war against Japan.


China would go after Taiwan first, then probably Japan. Japan has a large and effective military (although they call it a 'police force') but wouldn't stop a Chinese invasion. A Chinese/Japanese war would be long and bloody, and would most likely degenerate into the usage of WMD. China might also very well go after Russian resources too. If Russia and the US were locked in a war, there would be little either nation could do to stop them.
Soviet cogitations: 1791
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2004, 11:58
Party Member
Post 26 Feb 2005, 05:33
Quote:
If it came down to Germany and France having to pick a side, they'd pick the US.


Then, they would be destroyed by ICBMs.

Quote:
China, as I've said, would most likely side with whomever offered them the best deal.


I tend to believe they will stick with Russia.

Quote:
That's not the majority.


They are the countries of importance, Especially Kazak.

Quote:
Batman and Superpower? You are trying to be humourous here, but it's not really working.


I was laughing so hard.

Quote:
Do you deny the fact that when the USA has been immersed in total war (US Civil War, WW2 being great examples) that they haven't shown an amazing capacity to switch over to war-related industry?


It's not an amazing capability. And they came in late during the Second World War, then claimed all the glory.

Quote:
As far as not relying upon your allies, that's kind of silly---They are your allies, you HAVE to rely upon them.


As I mentioned previously-- Allies can quickly become enemies.

Quote:
First of all, the age of a nation has nothing to do with war capacity. If that were the case, then Egypt should be able to dominate the world, laugh.


In a sense, the age of the nation has a slight advantage [age meaning what time they reached the 'industrial' age]; meaning they have a slightly more advanced industry, than possibily there opponents.

Quote:
I think America was founded by a minority of well-off white men who opposed what they saw as a foreign nation dictating policy to them. And even in the American War for Independance, only 1/3rd of the population supported the rebellion--Luckily, the Americans had support from France and also the British were more worried about their other possessions as they were more lucrative than the Americans were.


I know nothing of the American civial war, nor what lies of which it was founded upon.

Quote:
Where has Russia fought anywheres but in third world nations since WW2?


What 'Third World' Nation's are they?

Quote:
Russia was smacked around in WW1


Under the Tsars.

Quote:
kicked ass in WW2


Yes.

Quote:
and has fought just as many low-intensity conflicts as the United States since then.


False-- the only conflict of significance since then was afghanistan.

Quote:
The United States faced 'large traditional' armies in the Korean War and in the first Gulf War.


I think you mean the United Nations faced them also, it was not just the Americans.

Quote:
Again, Pakistan is an effective counter to India.


Effective how? Pakistan are basically a third world nation, with nuclear weapons to give them claws-- whilst India on the other hand has the means of which it can disable Pakistans nuclear capability if war did occur.

Quote:
Actually, the Chinese have acquired a lot in the way of electronics from the United States. But I honestly think that China would 'side' with neither unless they found it profitable to do so.


It would be 'profitable' for the Chinese to side with the Russians.

Quote:
Remember, Chinese/Russian(Soviet) relations haven't always been great, and on the flipside neither have Chinese/American relations either.


They have come along way since then.

Quote:
China would go after Taiwan first


I'm aware. When I mentioned landgrabs, I was referring to Taiwan.
Image
Nil
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 224
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Feb 2005, 19:15
Pioneer
Post 26 Feb 2005, 07:44
^|Nikit@*- wrote:
Quote:
If it came down to Germany and France having to pick a side, they'd pick the US.


Then, they would be destroyed by ICBMs.


Not a valid arguement. In a nukefest, all would die. I'm talking conventional

Quote:
I tend to believe they will stick with Russia.


Do you honestly think that China has the best interests of Russia in their planning? WTF?

Quote:
They are the countries of importance, Especially Kazak.


Really? I think the huge amount of former Warsaw Pact nations that are now in NATO or supporting them would prove your statement to be hilariously false.

Quote:
I was laughing so hard.


Too bad your laughing isn't valid...

Quote:

It's not an amazing capability. And they came in late during the Second World War, then claimed all the glory.


No, the US was involved in WW2 from pretty much the start. Let's talk about Lend-Lease. Let's talk about Iceland. Let's talk about American help in the Convoy system.

Dude, the USA played an important part in WW2. Stop trying to deny it.

Quote:
As I mentioned previously-- Allies can quickly become enemies.


Maybe if we were Italy... But frankly, the US and Russia are ALLIES now. Hate to break it to you, but it's true.

Quote:
In a sense, the age of the nation has a slight advantage [age meaning what time they reached the 'industrial' age]; meaning they have a slightly more advanced industry, than possibily there opponents.


Using your definition, the Russians have almost always been behind in things...After all, for huge periods of time, they depended on European support for things like warships and other weapons.

The United States came up with massive production on an industrial scale...They even helped to teach the Russians this model.

Go ahead, try to deny this.

Quote:
I know nothing of the American civial war, nor what lies of which it was founded upon.


You seem to be avoiding the fact that the United States has the ability to produce massive amounts of war material though...

Quote:
What 'Third World' Nation's are they?


Korea. Several Warsaw Pact 'Allies'. Afghanistan. Chechnya.


Quote:

Under the Tsars.


Doesn't matter. You were the one to bring into this discussion that an old empire has some sort of advantage against a new one. The Russians got their ass kicked in WW1. Shrug.



Quote:
and has fought just as many low-intensity conflicts as the United States since then.


Quote:
False-- the only conflict of significance since then was afghanistan.


So nothing about Soviet aims in Africa or other places?

Quote:
I think you mean the United Nations faced them also, it was not just the Americans.


I've mentioned the allies factor many times on this site. The Soviets had a hand in Korea as well. Their pilots did well too, for a little while.


Quote:
Effective how? Pakistan are basically a third world nation, with nuclear weapons to give them claws-- whilst India on the other hand has the means of which it can disable Pakistans nuclear capability if war did occur.


Not really. They both have the ability to wipe each other's cities out. India and Pakistan are both third world nations, by the way.

Quote:

It would be 'profitable' for the Chinese to side with the Russians.


And the Chinese seem to be about profit more than Communism these days, don't they?

Quote:
They have come along way since then.


The same can be said as far as US relations. Seriously dude, your arguments are lacking.

Quote:
I'm aware. When I mentioned landgrabs, I was referring to Taiwan.


you realize that such a venture would result in serious losses to the Chinese, right? Don't get me wrong, the Chinese would win in the end, but they would have a horrible time of things for a little while...
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55
Party Member
Post 26 Feb 2005, 09:07
Quote:
Quote:

What 'Third World' Nation's are they?


Korea. Several Warsaw Pact 'Allies'. Afghanistan. Chechnya.


He has a point there, We Hungarians fought long and hard (and futilely) back in 56’, but despite the massacre those kinds of incidences weren’t open war, but they would have been if the Americans had kept their promise to help the Hungarian revolutionaries, but when we rebelled the Yanks did nothing. It was a slaughter.
Image


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
Soviet cogitations: 1791
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2004, 11:58
Party Member
Post 26 Feb 2005, 10:18
Quote:
Not a valid arguement. In a nukefest, all would die. I'm talking conventional


You're talking conventional, I am not. Of course it is a valid arguement.

Quote:
Do you honestly think that China has the best interests of Russia in their planning?


Even if sometime after the 'conflict' is over, China will at some time betray us.

Quote:
WTF?


?

Quote:
Really? I think the huge amount of former Warsaw Pact nations that are now in NATO or supporting them would prove your statement to be hilariously false.


What value do they have? besides the ability to act as a buffer for Moscow; countries of strategic/resource importance are Kazak and belarus, then Ukraine. I think anyone who has ever lived in the Soviet Union, would find you hiliarious.

Quote:
Too bad your laughing isn't valid...


Obviously you deem it valid, otherwise you wouldn't have commented.

Quote:
No, the US was involved in WW2 from pretty much the start.


They weren't involved in the first part of the war, the part in which Germany made it's greatest triumph.

Quote:
Let's talk about Lend-Lease.


Start some discussion points, and I will continue about the Lend-Lease aid.

Quote:
Let's talk about Iceland.


Iceland?

Quote:
Let's talk about American help in the Convoy system.


Be more specific? are you referring to the British convoy across the atlantic?

Quote:
Dude, the USA played an important part in WW2. Stop trying to deny it.


An equally important part as the Soviet Union, if not lesser.

Quote:
Maybe if we were Italy... But frankly, the US and Russia are ALLIES now. Hate to break it to you, but it's true.


Where did you hear this? CNN? America is still treated hostile in Russian newspapers, many Russian generals speak rudely of America; Putin himself does not seem to care much about what America demands of him.

Quote:
Using your definition, the Russians have almost always been behind in things...After all, for huge periods of time, they depended on European support for things like warships and other weapons.

Go ahead, try to deny this.


Peter the great, learnt during his 'vacation' in Europe, then applyed these learnings to his time; Why re-invent the wheel when you can modify it? it's been the same throughout history.

Quote:
The United States came up with massive production on an industrial scale...They even helped to teach the Russians this model.


Just as the Soviet Union became and industrial superpower in 20 years; equal or more powerful than America.

Quote:
You seem to be avoiding the fact that the United States has the ability to produce massive amounts of war material though...


You seem to be denying that Russia is just as capable.. as it was proven in the Second World War.. every man woman and child is capable of manufacturing arms.

Quote:
Korea.


They had pilots.

Quote:
Several Warsaw Pact 'Allies'.


Internal matters, not conflicts.

Quote:
Afghanistan


Yes, the last war of which Russia was involved in.

Quote:
Chechnya


Chechnya is not a country, it is a republic within Russia, hence it is an internal matter.

Quote:
Doesn't matter. You were the one to bring into this discussion that an old empire has some sort of advantage against a new one. The Russians got their ass kicked in WW1. Shrug.


I wouldn't state that they got there " arse kicked ".

Quote:
So nothing about Soviet aims in Africa or other places?


They weren't directly involved, military wise.

Quote:
I've mentioned the allies factor many times on this site. The Soviets had a hand in Korea as well. Their pilots did well too, for a little while.


I suppose you believe in the 10:1 ratio in favor of the F86?


Quote:
Not really. They both have the ability to wipe each other's cities out. India and Pakistan are both third world nations, by the way.


I've been to India .. it is not a third world nation..

Quote:
And the Chinese seem to be about profit more than Communism these days, don't they?


Irrelevant-- your mockings of Communism mean nothing to me, I'm not even a Communist.

Quote:
The same can be said as far as US relations. Seriously dude, your arguments are lacking.


It is a rather mute arguement, I've been through it that many times-- it's not even funny.

Quote:
you realize that such a venture would result in serious losses to the Chinese, right? Don't get me wrong, the Chinese would win in the end, but they would have a horrible time of things for a little while...


You don't think that the Americans would remove their fleet from the Taiwan straight?

Quote:
He has a point there, We Hungarians fought long and hard (and futilely) back in 56’, but despite the massacre those kinds of incidences weren’t open war, but they would have been if the Americans had kept their promise to help the Hungarian revolutionaries, but when we rebelled the Yanks did nothing. It was a slaughter. Angry]


I suppose you were there too, fighting with your 'comrades'?
Image
Nil
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 224
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Feb 2005, 19:15
Pioneer
Post 26 Feb 2005, 19:04
^|Nikit@*- wrote:

Even if sometime after the 'conflict' is over, China will at some time betray us.


China won't betray anyone. They have their own agenda, and frankly it isn't that of Russia or the USA.

Quote:
Quote:
WTF?


?


WTF = What The frag? Or, in other words, 'That makes no sense.'

Quote:
What value do they have? besides the ability to act as a buffer for Moscow; countries of strategic/resource importance are Kazak and belarus, then Ukraine. I think anyone who has ever lived in the Soviet Union, would find you hiliarious.


They have value because they are sovereign nations who don't want Russia to enforce rule upon them again. And the Ukraine hasn't always (or even often) been Pro-Russia.

As far as your final statement, I'll have to assume that you don't realize that a good friend of mine grew up in Lithuania or that I dated a girl from Moscow.


Quote:

Obviously you deem it valid, otherwise you wouldn't have commented.


This must be a language issue. I can comment about Santa Claus. It doesn't make him real.

Quote:
They weren't involved in the first part of the war, the part in which Germany made it's greatest triumph.


Neither was Russia...Oh wait, that's right, they were, helping out the Germans and also invading the Finns...


Quote:
Start some discussion points, and I will continue about the Lend-Lease aid.


Lend-Lease (well, a similar thing) was started in 1940.

Quote:
Quote:
Let's talk about Iceland.


Iceland?


The United States was protecting this strategically important island against Germany for over six months before they officially entered the war.

"In late May 1941, the United States offered to assume responsibility for Iceland. Churchill accepted immediately and, on 7 July, the 1st Marine Brigade arrived. Britain's garrison on Iceland returned to the UK shortly afterwards."

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A1126496

Quote:
Quote:
Let's talk about American help in the Convoy system.


Be more specific? are you referring to the British convoy across the atlantic?


I am referring to the fact that the United States was actively hunting German U-boats and safeguarding convoys to Europe. The United States was also helping to safeguard Dutch possessions.

Here's another good link describing US involvement in WW2 before they officially declared war: http://www.ww2pacific.com/bellacts.html

Quote:
Quote:
Dude, the USA played an important part in WW2. Stop trying to deny it.


An equally important part as the Soviet Union, if not lesser.


And this matters how? I've never denied the fact that the Soviets did a lot to help win WW2.

Quote:

Where did you hear this? CNN? America is still treated hostile in Russian newspapers, many Russian generals speak rudely of America; Putin himself does not seem to care much about what America demands of him.


No, I have heard and read this from the multiple times that Russia and the USA have supported one another on the international stage. It doesn't matter if newspapers complain about the US...on the scale that MATTERS, international politics, the Russians and Americans support one another.


Quote:
Peter the great, learnt during his 'vacation' in Europe, then applyed these learnings to his time; Why re-invent the wheel when you can modify it? it's been the same throughout history.


Quote:

Just as the Soviet Union became and industrial superpower in 20 years; equal or more powerful than America.


That doesn't change my point. Nice try in avoiding the point though.

Quote:

You seem to be denying that Russia is just as capable.. as it was proven in the Second World War.. every man woman and child is capable of manufacturing arms.


No. I have not denied this at all, and in fact, I stated MULTIPLE times that the USSR has the capability. You really can't give the US any good words, can you? Even after having facts repeatedly given to you.

Quote:
Quote:
Korea.


They had pilots.

Quote:
Several Warsaw Pact 'Allies'.


Internal matters, not conflicts.

Quote:
Afghanistan


Yes, the last war of which Russia was involved in.

Quote:
Chechnya


Chechnya is not a country, it is a republic within Russia, hence it is an internal matter.


And none of this disproves my point about Russian involvement in low-intensity 3rd world conflicts. And one more point.

The Russian control of many former Warsaw Pact nations WAS NOT an internal matter. Those nations were seperate from the USSR/russia, and forced (often via the use of the military) to 'cooperate' with the USSR. The fact that you seem to think that sovereign nations like Poland and Hungary were part of the USSR makes you look extremely ignorant and biased to the point of insanity.


Quote:
I wouldn't state that they got there " arse kicked ".


Russia was so completely demolished by Germany in WW1 that they signed a humiliating peace treaty with the Germans, giving away huge tracts of land and other things in order to prevent a total defeat. Luckily, when the British, French, and Americans (among others) beat Germany, Russia was allowed to get out of this treaty.

Quote:
Quote:
So nothing about Soviet aims in Africa or other places?


They weren't directly involved, military wise.


I suppose loads of advisors and military equipment and actual troops don't count?

Quote:

I suppose you believe in the 10:1 ratio in favor of the F86?


Don't put words into my mouth. And stop trying to change the subject rather than actually answer my points.

Quote:
I've been to India .. it is not a third world nation..


Yes, it is. the fact that parts of it are Westernized does not change the fact that India is a third world nation.

Quote:
Quote:
And the Chinese seem to be about profit more than Communism these days, don't they?


Irrelevant-- your mockings of Communism mean nothing to me, I'm not even a Communist.


I never said you were a Communist. And it's not irrevalent. I answered your arguement with a simple fact and you again chose to ignore it with a statement that has no bearing on the conversation.

Quote:
It is a rather mute arguement, I've been through it that many times-- it's not even funny.


From what I've seen, you really can't prove your statements at all.


Quote:
You don't think that the Americans would remove their fleet from the Taiwan straight?


It doesn't matter what America did with their fleet. Taiwan has a fleet of their own, as does Japan. And, frankly, the Americans wouldn't abandon Japan.

Quote:
Quote:
He has a point there, We Hungarians fought long and hard (and futilely) back in 56’, but despite the massacre those kinds of incidences weren’t open war, but they would have been if the Americans had kept their promise to help the Hungarian revolutionaries, but when we rebelled the Yanks did nothing. It was a slaughter. Angry]


I suppose you were there too, fighting with your 'comrades'?

[/quote]

And you were there? Face it, even your former allies talk of the massacres made by the former USSR.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 26 Feb 2005, 21:06
Dzhigarov wrote:
Fool - Large conscript armies are much more expensive than small profesional ones.

Idiot. Finnis army relies on large conscripts because we cannot afford effective professional one. Ofcourse you can save money if your professional army is smaller, but usually quantity conscript army has much much cheaper weapons (less everything).

Quote:
( IF YOU ARE UNAWARE THAT LARGE CONSCRIPT ARMIES ARE MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE TO MAINTAIN, YOU SHOULD REALLY GIVE UP THIS CONVERSATION )

Idiot. Large concript army with only assault rifles and landmines is much cheaper than small professional army with high tech fancy arms. Conscript armies will be gone because no-one can equio them. Conscript armies usually rely on men, not expensive weapons like tanks etc.

(USSR was kinda weird thing because they used all resources to build up huge concript army with lots of weaponry).
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 464
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Mar 2004, 18:19
Komsomol
Post 26 Feb 2005, 22:02
Conscript army is good for allround military action, including defence, but pro army is ideal for conquering smaller, helpless countries.
COMMIE-HA-ME-HA!!!
Quote from Stalin Ball Z
****************************
Working class will kick your ass.
Soviet cogitations: 5
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Feb 2005, 20:13
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 26 Feb 2005, 22:09
I don't think Poland would take very kindly to their "brothers from the east" messing in their business again. Poland has a history of revolting against outside control even if it meas suicidal opposition.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2507
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2004, 21:17
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Bureaucrat
Post 26 Feb 2005, 23:28
And usually when that happens, in comes a country to occupy it.
-FK
Soviet cogitations: 347
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2004, 13:24
Komsomol
Post 27 Feb 2005, 09:49
Turhapuro wrote:
Idiot. Finnis army relies on large conscripts because we cannot afford effective professional one. Ofcourse you can save money if your professional army is smaller, but usually quantity conscript army has much much cheaper weapons (less everything).


Your military knowledge is so pathetic.
I wonder if you're 15 years old or less.
What do you mean by 'much much cheaper weapons'.
Conscript armies had standart reliable equipment for their infantry - Ak's,Rpg's,military uniforms, portable spades, gas masks, medicine boxes,mine throwers, compasses,radio communications,etc... This is more than enough

Quote:
Idiot. Large concript army with only assault rifles and landmines is much cheaper than small professional army with high tech fancy arms.

high tech fancy arms
Sorry kid, you really made me laughing.
What do you mean?
I'll tell you a story.
I have a comrade who is paratrooper in Bulgarian army.They had common military exercises with U$ paratroopers(these are frequent events already
).He told me that in the middle of their mission (they had to travel 45 kilommeters rough terrain in Bulgarian mountains)he reached American paratrooper who looked like a staggered sheep. He asked him :
"What's up?"
"I lost connection with 2 of the 3 sattelites.I've lost.I don't know where to go "
Then my comrade took out his compass ,looked at it and told "Follow me, this way!"

This is the difference between the conscript and the professional soldier.
I doubt you're smart enough to understand the meaning of this story,but still you can try.


Quote:
Conscript armies will be gone because no-one can equio them. Conscript armies usually rely on men, not expensive weapons like tanks etc.


Cretin!
Bulgaria is a country with 8,500,000 population.
In mid 80's we had more (and more capable) tanks and aircrafts than one of the strongest NATO countries - Turkey, which has more than 10 times larger population. Plus we had lots of SS misseles and modern navy. So your agrument is obviosuly useless.
And it's not only Bulgaria - the number of tanks in the Warsaw Pact states (without those of the CCCP) were many times more than Western Europe's countries besides they have less population.

Quote:
(USSR was kinda weird thing because they used all resources to build up huge concript army with lots of weaponry).

The weaponry of CCCP and the other Warsaw pact armies was almost identical as long as we're talking about infantry.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55
Party Member
Post 27 Feb 2005, 11:07
Quote:
Quote:
He has a point there, We Hungarians fought long and hard (and futilely) back in 56’, but despite the massacre those kinds of incidences weren’t open war, but they would have been if the Americans had kept their promise to help the Hungarian revolutionaries, but when we rebelled the Yanks did nothing. It was a slaughter. Angry]


I suppose you were there too, fighting with your 'comrades'?



Don’t you dare say anything like that!!!
I am a moderate person, but I lost relatives in that Rebellion!
My Mothers Uncle, who trusted the Americans and was forced to flee when no assistance came!
My grandfather as nearly executed by a firing squad, and he was only a harmless accountant!!!
On my oath, I am a moderate person, but you watch your mouth!!!


Btw. Thank you for supporting me Nil.
Image


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
Soviet cogitations: 1791
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2004, 11:58
Party Member
Post 27 Feb 2005, 11:30
Quote:
Don’t you dare say anything like that!!! Angry Angry I am a moderate person, but I lost relatives in that Rebellion! Angry My Mothers Uncle, who trusted the Americans and was forced to flee when no assistance came! Angry My grandfather as nearly executed by a firing squad, and he was only a harmless accountant!!! Angry Angry On my oath, I am a moderate person, but you watch your mouth!!!


What would you expect in a 'revolution' type scenario? you expected them to tickly you with feathers & ask your nicely to stop 'rebelling'?
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 08 Jun 2005, 08:00
Quote:
What do you mean by 'much much cheaper weapons'.
Conscript armies had standart reliable equipment for their infantry - Ak's,Rpg's,military uniforms, portable spades, gas masks, medicine boxes,mine throwers, compasses,radio communications,etc... This is more than enough

That is not enough at modern times. You need heavy weapons, APC:s, tanks, fighters, fighter/bombers, AA, missiles etc. Straight leg conscript army with rpgs and radios don't stop anything.

Quote:
This is the difference between the conscript and the professional soldier.

You are a joke. Have you been conscript yourself?

Quote:
In mid 80's we had more (and more capable) tanks and aircrafts than one of the strongest NATO countries - Turkey, which has more than 10 times larger population. Plus we had lots of SS misseles and modern navy. So your agrument is obviosuly useless.

At that time almost everyone used conscripts. Now this all has changed and everyone is starting to move towards professional army. No-one has money to equip huge conscript armies with good weapons. USSR did it and what happened? They run out of money and everything collapsed.

Quote:
And it's not only Bulgaria - the number of tanks in the Warsaw Pact states (without those of the CCCP) were many times more than Western Europe's countries besides they have less population.

And do you remember what happened to Warsaw pact economy?
Image
Soviet cogitations: 1791
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2004, 11:58
Party Member
Post 08 Jun 2005, 09:43
Quote:
At that time almost everyone used conscripts. Now this all has changed and everyone is starting to move towards professional army. No-one has money to equip huge conscript armies with good weapons. USSR did it and what happened? They run out of money and everything collapsed.


[...]

The Soviet army wasn't restricted by costs and budgets, but by resource distribution - the effort made to keep the army the most efficent and destructive on earth produced no reason for the collapse of the CCCP; that was entire Gorbachevs doing.
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.