Military Review

"Will be destroyed within 20 minutes." Americans consider Russia to be equal only at the level of nuclear weapons.

334
Russia's nuclear arsenal allows it to position itself as a superpower, but in the field of conventional weapons, it is not included in this category. This was stated by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Armed Forces, Martin Dempsey. Experts recognize that now there is no parity in the field of conventional weapons, and Russia compensates for its reliance on nuclear weapon, but in the coming years the situation will change.


On Wednesday evening, the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee supported the resolution authorizing the military operation in Syria. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Armed Forces, who participated in the hearings, said that an assessment of Russia's possible response would be presented to congressmen in closed hearings. “I don’t think that I can now go into such hypothetical discussions. We will give these assessments in closed hearings, ”said Dempsey.

According to him, Russia still has elements that allow it to position itself as a superpower. “For example, a continuing nuclear arsenal. But in the field of conventional weapons, I would not include Russia in this category, ”the general said.

Recall that before the summit G20, which opens Thursday in St. Petersburg, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a detailed interview to Channel One and the American news agency Associated Press. Putin was asked how Russia could respond to the use of force, whether it is on the side of Syria or interrupt a relationship with her.

Putin made it clear that Russia has "its plans, but for now it is too early to talk about it." “These are the plans of Russia in the case of the development of the situation in one, the second or the third scenario. We have our own ideas about what and how we will do if the situation develops, either with the use of weapons or without them. We have our own plans, but for now it’s too early to talk about it, ”Putin answered.

Konstantin Sivkov, the first vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, does not consider Dempsey’s statement on Russia's military potential in the field of conventional weapons far removed from reality. “I would say that Russia is not part of the“ middle-aged ”powers, if we take the ratio of military potential and area. Russia is at the level of Belgium, ”Sivkov told the VIEW newspaper.

According to him, with the current composition of the armed forces, Russia is capable of solving problems in no more than two armed conflicts on a Chechen scale. For local war, he is sure, a group of half a million people will be needed. “Local war is what was called“ Storm in the Desert ”, these are ordinary operations that the Americans repeatedly conducted. In the Vietnam War, the American military group numbered 1,5 million people. Today, Russia with the full mobilization of troops can create a grouping of no more than 250 thousand people, ”the expert believes.

As for the comparison of the Russian Navy with the American fleet, then Sivkov noted that, for example, the Northern Fleet is able to effectively solve the problem against one carrier strike group. “Americans will have at least four such groups in the event of a conflict,” Sivkov believes, adding that the Pacific Fleet can successfully solve problems against one or two aircraft carrier groups, “and there will be up to six of them.”

The Black Sea Fleet, according to Sivkov, in its composition corresponds to one ship-strike group, which in the Sixth US Fleet can be up to 10. “Only in the Turkish Navy there are about 30 submarines, and the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation has only one,” the expert said, stressing that Russia is now “only holding nuclear weapons”.

As for the Russian cruiser sent to the shores of Syria, accompanied by two cover ships, if the Americans decide to strike at them, “they will be destroyed within 20 minutes”. "The fifth operational squadron, the Soviet, had there in the ordinary conditions of the order of 30 warships, and such force could withstand aggression," said Sivkov.

However, the chief editor of the National Defense magazine Igor Korotchenko notes that Russia does not create an army like the United States, and "we have other tasks." “In the field of equipment with equipment, all four Russian military districts will be sufficiently equipped in the near future, so that each of them can repel threats that they may fall within the area of ​​responsibility of,” said Korotchenko to VIEW.

He recalled that in recent years Russia has paid considerable attention to the development of its capabilities in the field of conventional weapons. According to him, the state program of armaments laid the figures for financial expenditures, which will allow 2020 to reach the level of manning the troops with new equipment up to 70%. “It will be a good indicator. Today, to a large extent, we use outdated Soviet weapons, but the progress that is taking place is obvious, ”said Korotchenko, pointing out that Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu attaches paramount importance to the flow of new weapons into the troops.

According to the expert, the troops recently adopted a brigade kit of the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system. Attention is also paid to the arrival of drones, and serial purchases of S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems have begun. “In the field of conventional weapons, it should be noted the supply of new armored personnel carriers, automotive equipment. In 2015, the first fifth-generation Armata tank is expected. 2200 of these will be purchased tanks. On aviation serial purchases of new front-line Su-34 bombers and Su-35 fighters are in progress. It is expected that more than 1200 helicopters of various types will be delivered to the troops. All this suggests that priority is given to the issues of increasing combat readiness and equipment, ”the expert said.

At the same time, he also stressed that in the field of nuclear weapons, Russia remains a superpower, and “even the temporary inequality in the field of conventional weapons is compensated by the country for reliance on nuclear weapons. “Any potential aggressor imagines that if he unleashes military operations against Russia, she will be able to respond with strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, and this in any case equalizes the chances and makes the global military-political situation around the Russian borders stable,” Igor Korotchenko is convinced.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.vz.ru/
334 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Valery Neonov
    Valery Neonov 7 September 2013 06: 41
    18
    A statement by Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, in my opinion, is an American auto-training. hi
    1. Deniska999
      Deniska999 7 September 2013 07: 18
      24
      But still it is necessary to improve the fleet. In addition, in modern warfare, it is necessary to build air defense and missile defense, during the Soviet Union there were many, but then everything was disbanded.
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 7 September 2013 07: 35
        19
        depressing as it looks: ..recourse The Black Sea fleet, according to Sivkov, in its composition corresponds to one ship-strike group, which can be up to 10 in the US Sixth Fleet. “Only in the Turkish Navy there are about 30 submarines, and the Black Sea Fleet - only one,” noted expert,
        1. selbrat
          selbrat 7 September 2013 08: 08
          35
          Quote: Andrey Yurievich
          depressing as it looks: ..

          And don’t say. We have everything else, and the Bulava didn’t fly again yesterday. Again, the tests of the submarines are stopped ... We really need to bring the strategic nuclear forces to mind. This is our hope and support.
          1. elmi
            elmi 7 September 2013 13: 35
            +9
            According to him, with the current composition of the armed forces, Russia is capable of solving tasks in no more than two armed conflicts on a Chechen scale.

            At one time, Napoleon, Hitler also underestimated Russia. So we all know. As you can see, Dempsey did not teach history.
            1. baltika-18
              baltika-18 7 September 2013 15: 48
              30
              Quote: elmi
              At one time, Napoleon, Hitler also underestimated Russia. So we all know. As you can see, Dempsey did not teach history.

              Then the time was different. And the weapons, especially during the time of Napoleon, were practically the same. Now the technical equipment of the troops solves a lot. In the best conditions it turns out to be the one who has more modern equipment.
              1. elmi
                elmi 7 September 2013 23: 10
                +4
                Quote: baltika-18
                Then the time was different. And the weapons, especially during the time of Napoleon, were practically the same. Now the technical equipment of the troops solves a lot. In the best conditions it turns out to be the one who has more modern equipment.

                Not always the best technical equipment of one of the armies decides victory, victory decides spirit. If you recall the history of wars, some poor armies defeated the stronger ones. In Vietnam, the Amers had an army many times stronger and more equipped, one skin lost. She didn’t conquer the world and she won completely. There are many examples where the weak armies, but the strong in spirit defeated the stronger. As Bodrov said from the movie Brother 2:
                Money rules the world, and he is stronger, who has more. - Well, here you have a lot of money, and what will you do? -I will buy everyone! -And me? ... So the brother says that in money. You have a lot of money, and why? I think that power is in truth. Whoever is true is stronger.
                1. baltika-18
                  baltika-18 8 September 2013 09: 47
                  +6
                  Quote: elmi
                  .In Vietnam, the Amers had an army many times stronger and more equipped, one skin lost

                  You forget that our anti-aircraft gunners and pilots fought in Vietnam, and the equipment was also Soviet and weapons. If it were not for the Union, the States would have torn Vietnam like a "hot water bottle".
                  Quote: elmi
                  .Aganistan has not yet won an army in the world and completely won

                  But such a task was apparently not posed. In the days of the USSR, the main thing was the promotion of the idea, we not only fought there, but also built and helped.
                  The United States now has a clearly different goal: to take control of drug trafficking, it is billions. The task has been completed, Afghanistan is tightly planted on the heroin needle, and after the amers leave, they will also continue to produce drugs intensively, because they haven’t been given anything else. In addition to everything ardent Islamists on the border with the former Soviet Central Asia, where the borders have already become like a sieve.
                  If desired, given the power of modern powers and spit on the opinion of the world community, Afghanistan can be eliminated in a couple of months if the principle of total war is applied.
                  1. elmi
                    elmi 8 September 2013 13: 12
                    +4
                    Quote: baltika-18
                    .If it were not for the Union, the States would have torn Vietnam like a "hot water bottle".

                    I do not think that the amers tore the Vietnamese so easily even without the support of the USSR. Remember how the Japanese in 1945 more or less successfully opposed America, I mean ground operations. American experts themselves predicted the protracted war on 3-4 of the year. Only Soviet intervention accelerated the defeat of the Kwantung army.
                    Quote: baltika-18
                    But such a task was apparently not posed. In the days of the USSR, the main thing was the promotion of the idea, we not only fought there, but also built and helped.
                    The United States now has a clearly different goal: to take control of drug trafficking, it is billions. The task has been completed, Afghanistan is tightly planted on the heroin needle, and after the amers leave, they will also continue to produce drugs intensively, because they haven’t been given anything else. In addition to everything ardent Islamists on the border with the former Soviet Central Asia, where the borders have already become like a sieve.

                    Yes, the amers turned Afghanistan into a worldwide drug transplantation and probably with an eye to the flow of drugs to Russia. I’m sure if we took control of the border with Afghanistan, the amers would start a war through dushmans in order to drive out our border guards.
                    Quote: baltika-18
                    If desired, given the power of modern powers and spit on the opinion of the world community, Afghanistan can be eliminated in a couple of months if the principle of total war is applied.

                    I don’t think that America would be able to achieve a complete victory in Afghanistan, as the terrain and relief of Afghanistan contributes to guerrilla warfare. You won’t lose any technique there. Of course, if you really want to destroy Afghanistan, it’s quite possible, for example, using tactical nuclear weapons, vacuum bombs and etc. But this will not happen, since it is not profitable for America, there is no oil, gas, there is no particularly strategic significance. So there is no point in destroying Afghanistan, it will cost more.
                2. EtickayaSila
                  EtickayaSila 9 September 2013 13: 48
                  +3
                  This is all a talking shop ... The spirit is of course wonderful, but I would like to see how with this very spirit you will save the country's life support facilities from tomahawks, for example ... Or how to crush enemy air armada with a mighty spirit ... Nobody with Afghanistan in full force did not fight, and Vietnam, without outside help, would have been ground into powder in a year. Spirit by spirit, but the modern war will be waged by the latest technologies, a powerful economy, trained headquarters and a motivated population, are you sure that the modern population of Russia will be sufficiently motivated? (to the question of "spirit")
                  1. elmi
                    elmi 9 September 2013 22: 19
                    +3
                    And how throughout history, Russia got up from its knees, first losing the war, then winning. I believe in an invincible Russian spirit, we cannot be defeated. Of course, we still need to reinforce with modern weapons, this is by itself.
                3. 3danimal
                  3danimal 25 March 2020 17: 41
                  0
                  The Americans did not set a goal at all costs to occupy the territory: they helped one of the parties. The Viet Cong were often disguised as Southerners. If the methods of colonial warfare were applied, everything would be decided quickly. Is that the population of Vietnam has decreased by 10 times ...
              2. Tatar
                Tatar 9 September 2013 06: 49
                0
                and there’s also a military strategy and Russian ingenuity, it’s enough to detonate a neutron bomb somewhere in space, thereby drowning out satellites and ships can be boarded and there is nothing worse than an angry Russian marine!
            2. alex popov
              alex popov 7 September 2013 19: 25
              15
              Quote: elmi
              At one time, Napoleon, Hitler also underestimated Russia. So we all know. As you can see, Dempsey did not teach history.


              And there was Tsushima ...
              you still need to really look at things, only nuclear weapons stop these star-striped scum from direct aggression.
              1. poquello
                poquello 7 September 2013 22: 07
                +1
                Quote: alex popov
                Quote: elmi
                At one time, Napoleon, Hitler also underestimated Russia. So we all know. As you can see, Dempsey did not teach history.


                And there was Tsushima ...
                you still need to really look at things, only nuclear weapons stop these star-striped scum from direct aggression.


                I do not believe. If only nuclear weapons they were still the first ship to attack, without aircraft carriers.
              2. elmi
                elmi 7 September 2013 23: 18
                +2
                Quote: alex popov
                And there was Tsushima ...
                you still need to really look at things, only nuclear weapons stop these star-striped scum from direct aggression.

                And then there was the Vietnam War ... where the amers, despite their technical superiority, screwed up and got rid of America. I don’t believe that Russia would lose the war to America without the mutual use of nuclear weapons. Remember, during wars, Russia at first lost the war, then won. It is evident that the Russians are sleeping in us great strength and manifests itself when we become very ill. Only the Tatar-Mongols conquered us and more no one has completely conquered us. So the strong one is not the one who has a lot of modern technology, but who has a stronger fighting spirit.
                1. CTEPX
                  CTEPX 8 September 2013 16: 26
                  +3
                  Quote: elmi
                  Only Tatar-Mongols conquered us

                  Yes Yes)). Four years later, some of our experts will write: only the USSR conquered Russia)).
                  Do you think they won’t write?
                  1. elmi
                    elmi 12 May 2020 14: 32
                    0
                    By your logic, it turns out that later experts will write that Russia conquered the USSR
                    1. CTEPX
                      CTEPX 12 May 2020 19: 02
                      0
                      Quote: elmi
                      they will write that Russia conquered the USSR

                      No. The logic of the "Tatar-Mongol yoke": The terrible USSR brutally attacked the Tribalts, Ukraine and Belarus, and especially for a long time - more than 70 years its yoke stretched over Russia! fellow
                2. Basarev
                  Basarev 31 January 2014 16: 24
                  0
                  The Tatar-Mongols did not conquer Novgorod Land - they came close, but they were afraid and scrambled south. So even the Tatar-Mongols did not conquer Russia. Yes, the territories were temporarily occupied, but Russia was not completely conquered.
              3. Basarev
                Basarev 31 January 2014 16: 21
                0
                It’s time to show these arachnids what the real is! As the Japanese, without declaring war, we’ll drown their vaunted navy fleet in the raid and there will be no one to defend the States! On their land they will not be able to withstand even theoretically, since their entire history was fought exclusively on someone else’s.
            3. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 7 September 2013 21: 20
              +4
              Quote: elmi
              At one time, Napoleon, Hitler also underestimated Russia. So we all know. As you can see, Dempsey did not teach history.


              Napoleon even appreciated Russia. Therefore, he put up the largest army that Europe has ever seen against the Russian Empire.

              Now only nuclear weapons protect the country from a full partition.
              1. poquello
                poquello 7 September 2013 22: 12
                +2
                Quote: Blackgrifon
                Quote: elmi
                At one time, Napoleon, Hitler also underestimated Russia. So we all know. As you can see, Dempsey did not teach history.


                Napoleon even appreciated Russia. Therefore, he put up the largest army that Europe has ever seen against the Russian Empire.

                Now only nuclear weapons protect the country from a full partition.

                I agree. Without nuclear weapons we would have problems now, although with nuclear weapons we are, so fewer, but they are climbing.
              2. elmi
                elmi 7 September 2013 23: 33
                10
                Quote: Blackgrifon
                Now only nuclear weapons protect the country from a full partition.

                What kind of defeated thoughts? Russia will never be conquered by anyone, even without the use of nuclear weapons. After all, look lately, many say that young people are no longer the same; if there is a war, they will run. But in reality the exact opposite: 1 and 2 Chechen there are a lot of cases of heroism, I know because he fought in 1 Chechen. 5 day war when our soldiers did not flinch under the Georgian cities, there are many examples. But Westerners, if they do not have complete superiority, will run, they will not even get involved in a battle. I think their strength of mind is weaker. So the West will never have us we don’t understand what we have strength when the trouble presses us. Yes, and we ourselves are inclined to belittle our abilities not believing in ourselves, and when the trouble comes, we ourselves wonder where the courage came from.
                1. Blackgrifon
                  Blackgrifon 8 September 2013 01: 54
                  +2
                  Quote: elmi
                  Yes, and we ourselves are inclined to belittle our abilities not believing in ourselves, and when the trouble comes, we ourselves are surprised where the courage came from.


                  Here you are right, but the qualitative technical and quantitative superiority of the enemy can easily outweigh the moral superiority. A striking example - the Tatar-Mongol invasion - the heroic death of well-trained and equipped warriors of the Russian principalities could not stop the numerically superior invading forces. Therefore, now it is necessary to strengthen the army.
                  1. rolik
                    rolik 9 September 2013 01: 07
                    0
                    Quote: Blackgrifon
                    A striking example - the Tatar-Mongol invasion - the heroic death of well-trained and equipped warriors of the Russian principalities could not stop the numerically superior invading forces.

                    In the descriptions of the military campaigns, Haji Rahim (the chronicler of Batu Khan) says that there are 10 Mongols per Russian, which is why they win. But Batu himself said that if the Russian princes unite, then his power over Russia will come to an end. Therefore, Alexander Nevsky was poisoned, because in the eyes of the Mongols he was a dangerous man, because he was trying to unite Russia. Although according to new (last) interpretations, its poisoning is usually called a disease.
                  2. elmi
                    elmi 12 May 2020 14: 40
                    0
                    A striking example - the Tatar-Mongol invasion - the heroic death of well-trained and equipped warriors of the Russian principalities could not stop the numerically superior invading forces.
                    In addition to the numerical superiority, the Tatar-Mongolian troops also had high moral-volitional qualities, together with the most severe discipline
              3. kavkaz8888
                kavkaz8888 8 September 2013 09: 19
                +2
                Here it is, the coveted word-SEPARATE. Why seize us, it's problematic. But divide and rule, that’s it. White and Small (outskirts) Russia already torn off.
            4. Patriot.ru.
              Patriot.ru. 7 September 2013 22: 32
              +1
              According to the CIA, the city of Grozny cannot be taken by anyone. Even the army of the SGA.We took it.
              1. Pilat2009
                Pilat2009 8 September 2013 22: 25
                0
                Quote: Patriot.ru.
                According to the CIA, the city of Grozny cannot be taken by anyone. Even the army of the SGA.We took it.

                But why take it? It was possible to demolish completely, then I still had to build
            5. nycsson
              nycsson 7 September 2013 23: 05
              +5
              Quote: elmi
              At one time Napoleon, Hitler also underestimated Russia

              At that time, the traitors were not in power ...
              1. elmi
                elmi 7 September 2013 23: 43
                +5
                Quote: nycsson
                At that time, the traitors were not in power ...

                It’s hard to argue. Although Stalin cleaned up many traitors. There wasn’t such a person in the 1904-1905 during the Russian-Japanese war, the soldiers were heroic, and many generals were not professionals, but actually traitors to Russia. Here I say that they are afraid of us in wars not enemies, but their traitors.
            6. Andrey Yuryevich
              Andrey Yuryevich 8 September 2013 06: 34
              +1
              it is possible that it is possible to destroy Russia, but to conquer, never ... soldier
              1. goldfinger
                goldfinger 8 September 2013 20: 52
                +4
                Look neighbor on the vehicle. I know little about the modern Russian army, but what I drew from the media and WWW are not optimistic. I remember very well the time of the end of the Vietnam War. I believe that the States are simply tired of throwing billions in order to stop the Soviet expansion in Southeast Asia. In addition to Vietnam, there were Cambodia and Laos. No matter what they say, but the President of the United States and his cabinet are elected, this is not the USSR and probably not Russia (rigged 2nd EBN elections). Tired of the people of the United States, protests around the world. And then, the States fought there for almost 10 years. It is difficult to compare, but the mountain jungles of Vietnam, malaria, heat, insects, tropical diseases are not more favorable than the Chechen mountains. Draftees fought there, almost all field officers are former university students. After Vietnam, the restructuring of the US Army began. Transition to a contract, huge army preferences, powerful advertising, etc. Vietnam - a revolution in the US military doctrine, went to them, and their armed forces benefited. And what did the Soviet Union forget there? Wiped US Nose? Is the price too high? Did the CA use the lessons of the war in the jungle? Are they jungles that grow near Smolensk? All these local wars pushed the USSR by 1991. Money box.
                I served in the SA for two years (two-year period) and then I think that two years of urgent work is not enough. Now we have 1,5 years, you have 1. This is a profanity. Or you need a full contract army. But there won't be enough petrodollars. Moreover, half of the budget is being stolen. And it will not be possible to sit on two recruiting chairs, even though the minister was a furniture maker. Until the leapfrog stops at the top, until the modern open-minded "pros" come to the very top of the army, until it becomes clear what the people actually want from their army, the painful conclusions of the article cannot be refuted.
            7. kavkaz8888
              kavkaz8888 8 September 2013 08: 59
              +2
              Yes, we know the results, and we also know at what cost the Victory comes. Therefore: "rearmament, rearmament and again rearmament" as comrade Putin said.
            8. EtickayaSila
              EtickayaSila 9 September 2013 13: 43
              0
              Dear, there is no need to compare present-day Russia with the mighty empire of Alexander, or with the even more powerful Stalin Union. This, as they say, is two big differences. It’s not sad to realize this, but the author is right. The Russian army is currently not capable of a serious war. Hope only for nuclear weapons.
        2. vaddag1
          vaddag1 7 September 2013 08: 18
          +9
          "corresponds to one ship-strike group, of which there can be up to 10 in the US Sixth Fleet" - "Varangian" and "Korean" do not agree with you. Cruiser and can. boat against 6 cruisers and 6 destroyers - we have our own mathematics.
          1. mole
            mole 7 September 2013 08: 44
            20
            Although it’s a little sad about "my own math", no one has canceled the fortitude yet!
            1. vaddag1
              vaddag1 7 September 2013 09: 20
              +2
              "a little sad" - with dry mathematics - they emerged victorious, knocking out several cruisers during the war. and the moral damage inflicted on the enemy is not measurable at all.
              1. Pamir210
                Pamir210 7 September 2013 12: 28
                -2
                here is the problem ...
                they did not disable a single cruiser.
                moral damage is not measurable .. because it was not
                1. vaddag1
                  vaddag1 7 September 2013 13: 09
                  15
                  when you look for information on the Internet, except for the "wiki" see other links, analyze.
                  I understand your statement "they did not take out a single cruiser" is a phrase in the "wiki" - Japanese historical and archival sources do not confirm hitting the ships of the Japanese squadron, as well as any damage and loss.
                  if you believe so, "wiki" dig deeper and when you ask "Asama (armored cruiser)" you will see the information - "During the battle, Chemulpo was the flagship of the squadron. Having received a 152-mm projectile hit in the aft bridge, which was broken and caught fire, he left In the Tsushima battle he received 12-14 hits, temporarily withdrew from the battle, there were three killed, 12 wounded. "
                  ps on your own, if you're interested. and if you stumbled into the "wiki", read not even everything, but a couple of paragraphs, and wrote a comment like "I'm in the know," then you do not paint. read on "wiki" and analyze, otherwise your attacks - there is an unreasonable insult to the heroes' deeds.
                  1. Pamir210
                    Pamir210 7 September 2013 13: 27
                    -4
                    the flagship of the Japanese squadron in this battle was not Asama))
                    about the wiki ... let's not draw conclusions from where other people get information (all the more without giving their sources)
                    1. vaddag1
                      vaddag1 7 September 2013 13: 49
                      +5
                      "the flagship of the Japanese squadron in this battle was not the asama))" - this is not for me, for Wikipedia.

                      documents of the historical commission of 1911 on the description of the actions of the fleet in the war of 1904-1905 at the Naval General Staff. Rudnev’s report (or do you believe uriu anymore? moreover, we have not seen his REPORT). Wikipedia, but a versatile approach. and also a book from youth (I don’t remember the name). no propaganda, memoirs of the participants (in the flesh before the priests), an analysis of the military experts of those. the details.
                      1. Pamir210
                        Pamir210 7 September 2013 13: 53
                        +8
                        Quote: vaddag1
                        or do you believe uriu more?

                        I believe the facts.
                        the fate of ALL Japanese cruisers participating in that battle can be traced.
                        and not one of them is dead in that battle.
                        the same can be said of destroyers.
                      2. vaddag1
                        vaddag1 7 September 2013 14: 12
                        0
                        "and not one of them is listed as dead in that battle" - the fact that IN THE BATTLE the Japanese cruiser was killed by nobody and was not announced.
                        "I believe the facts." fact - "Varangian" drowned. fact - it was raised and put into operation by the Japanese.

                        your first comment was generally: "here's the problem ...
                        they did not disable a single cruiser.
                        moral damage is not measurable ... because it was not. "
                      3. Pamir210
                        Pamir210 7 September 2013 14: 30
                        0
                        therefore, it was not voiced that there was nothing to voice
                        I see no contradiction in my first comment
                      4. Su24
                        Su24 7 September 2013 17: 29
                        +4
                        Quote: vaddag1
                        "and not one of them is listed as dead in that battle" - the fact that IN THE BATTLE the Japanese cruiser was killed by nobody and was not announced.
                        "I believe the facts." fact - "Varangian" drowned. fact - it was raised and put into operation by the Japanese.

                        your first comment was generally: "here's the problem ...
                        they did not disable a single cruiser.
                        moral damage is not measurable ... because it was not. "


                        Sorry, it’s completely not clear what is the point of your position. You want to say that the Varangian caused great damage to the Japanese squadron? Then why do you agree that the Japanese have not lost a single cruiser?
                      5. vaddag1
                        vaddag1 7 September 2013 18: 04
                        0
                        directly in battle - not lost. but, after the battle, during the transition, one cruiser sank due to damage.
                      6. Pamir210
                        Pamir210 7 September 2013 20: 51
                        +4
                        which one sank? where exactly?
                        and how did Rudnev know this at the time of writing the report
                2. CTEPX
                  CTEPX 8 September 2013 16: 47
                  0
                  Quote: Pamir210
                  they did not disable a single cruiser.

                  Quote: Pamir210
                  not one of them is dead in that battle.

                  Agree, there is a fundamental semantic difference between these two statements)).
                  Disabled - forced to stop the battle, the performance of a combat mission.
                  Killed in battle - sank to the bottom.
                3. Pamir210
                  Pamir210 8 September 2013 18: 40
                  +1
                  there is a difference, but they do not contradict each other.
                  not a single Japanese cruiser was incapacitated and, moreover, was not drowned.
          2. kavkaz8888
            kavkaz8888 8 September 2013 10: 00
            +1
            But I found such data: the enemy squadron included the cruiser Asama, Naniva, Taka-heho, Hioda, Akasha and Nitaka.

            11.45. “The first shot came from the Asama cruiser ... after which the entire Japanese squadron opened fire.” The "Varangian" fired a fodder gun, then fired a volley on the starboard side with armor-piercing shells. The third wing of the enemy destroyed the right wing of the front bridge, a fire broke out in the navigational cabin, and the fock-wat was broken. The youngest navigator, midshipman Count Alexei Nirod and rangefinder were the first to die, several people were injured. The rangefinder station No. I failed, which determined the distance to the enemy for firing. The cruiser answered with armor-piercing, the Japanese ships with shimoses. The Japanese squadron covered the cruiser: gun number 6 was shot down and all the commandos were killed. Midshipman Gubonin was seriously injured, but continued to command shooting until he fell. Charging cartridges with smokeless powder started to burn, but the commandants put out the fire. Two guns of the main caliber and three of the mine defense were shot down. The subsequent Japanese salvo destroyed the battle mainsail Mars, destroyed the rangefinder station No. 2, and knocked out two small-caliber guns. From the explosion that penetrated the deck hatch, the sailor's living rooms lit up, but they were quickly put out. "Varangian" lived and continued to move forward. He led an artillery duel with the Japanese flagship Asama, trying to incapacitate him. Meanwhile, the Japanese destroyer launched an attack on the cruiser, but the very first salvo from the Varyag launched it to the bottom. Soon, Asama turned away, and Takashiko took the place of the matelot, but literally in a matter of minutes, three main-caliber shells hit the Japanese cruiser. Thick black smoke enveloped the Nitaka cruiser.
            1. Pamir210
              Pamir210 8 September 2013 12: 42
              -2
              Quote: kavkaz8888
              But I found such data: the enemy squadron included the cruiser Asama, Naniva, Taka-heho, Hioda, Akasha and Nitaka

              and now deal with at least the generally accepted rules for writing the names of Japanese ships.
  2. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 7 September 2013 13: 18
    15
    Quote: Mole
    Although it’s a little sad about "my own math", no one has canceled the fortitude yet!

    Not bad, along with fortitude, in the Mediterranean Sea would look modernized nuclear submarine pr.941 "Akula", carrying about 500 pieces of cruise missiles on their sides. In this case, such statements from the Americans would hardly have sounded, and there would be less confidence in their impunity.
  3. Raiven
    Raiven 7 September 2013 19: 24
    +8
    fortitude will not help if the battle goes on distant. in "ten" km
    who has better technology will win
  • chehywed
    chehywed 7 September 2013 08: 45
    +4
    Quote: vaddag1
    Cruiser and Can. boat against 6 cruisers and 6 destroyers - we have our own math.

    So what? Cruiser and Can. drowned everyone's boat? Young man, do not talk nonsense.
    1. vaddag1
      vaddag1 7 September 2013 09: 14
      21
      the destroyer is sunk, the cruiser sank from damage upon return, 2 cruisers went to dry docks, taking into account the damage caused to other Japanese ships - the Japanese squadron was halved for a certain period of hostilities. so beware about nonsense - analyze the information that you receive
      1. Su24
        Su24 7 September 2013 17: 31
        +5
        Quote: vaddag1
        the destroyer is sunk, the cruiser sank from damage upon return, 2 cruisers went to dry docks, taking into account the damage caused to other Japanese ships - the Japanese squadron was halved for a certain period of hostilities. so beware about nonsense - analyze the information that you receive


        Give sources, for starters, where such losses of the Japanese would be confirmed.
        1. vaddag1
          vaddag1 7 September 2013 18: 10
          0
          google I’ve dived so many times on this topic today that it’s just not hunting anymore. let's do it yourself. the same wiki with the right approach gives interesting options. look at the commission of 1911 on the results of the operations of the fleet in the Japanese war.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 September 2013 01: 20
        +7
        Quote: vaddag1
        destroyer sunk, cruiser sank from damage upon return, 2 cruisers went to dry docks

        Blah blah blah...
        What you wrote here is, well, practically word for word, Rudnev’s report to the higher authorities. One misfortune - this report is not confirmed, in any way.
        Rudnev himself can hardly be blamed for the postscripts - in battle everything is seen quite differently from what it really is, which is why among professional historians the phrase "lies like an eyewitness" is already a proverb. Rudnev believed in what he wrote.
        If the Japanese cruisers received any damage, they would be repaired somewhere. There would be records of repairs, estimates, paper for the supply of materials for repairs, etc. etc. There was none of this.
        For example, the cruiser Takachikho allegedly "sunk" after the battle with the Varyag (according to Rudnev's report) survived until World War I and died during the siege of Qingdao, having caught a torpedo from a German torpedo boat. And the "damaged" "Asama" almost immediately joined the cruisers of Kamimura and acted together with them
        Sad as it may seem, most likely they did not hit anyone from the Varyag. Theoretically, it can be assumed that the destroyer was sunk, but it is unlikely.
        Against "Varyag" in this battle played what
        1) shortly before the REV, a demobilization happened and half of the most experienced commandants left the cruiser shortly before his departure in Chemulpo
        2) One of the first hits was killed by Midshipman Nirod - in fact, the only rangefinder officer on the cruiser. After his death, there was no one to measure the distance to the enemy
        3) The Russian fleet, unlike the Japanese, assumed that naval battles would be fought at a distance of no more than 10-15 cables, while the Japanese were preparing for battles with 45 cables or more. By the time the Varyag approached the Japanese cruisers by at least 20 kilobytes, a significant part of its gunners had been disabled by fragments of Japanese land mines.
        Nobody denies the heroism of the Varyag and Koreyets crews. The Japanese themselves were shocked that the Russian sailors did it in FULL CONFORMITY with the canons of bushido. After all, what did the cruiser Varyag do? I went out to an unequal battle. Fought one against all. Gone undefeated. And, in front of the enemy's eyes, he contemptuously made seppuku (flooded) thereby depriving the Japanese squadron of victory ...
    2. alexdol
      alexdol 7 September 2013 09: 17
      +5
      chehywed RU "So what? The cruiser and the canal boat sank everyone? ...
      ---------------------------------------------------------
      Nonsense is just "chatting" you, by the way, at least have learned to write correctly, here is your last phrase: Young man, do not talk nonsense? I would like to note here, but nobody sank the Varyag and Koreyets either! And Mole correctly noted, "but no one has canceled the fortitude yet!"
      1. chehywed
        chehywed 7 September 2013 09: 33
        22
        Quote: alexdol
        By the way, if only you learned to write correctly, here is your last phrase: Young man, do not talk Nonsense?

        Sasha, teach the Russian language to your children. I wrote what I WANT TO WRITE. In no case do I consider the battle at Chemulpo to be a defeat of the Russian fleet, but with such a math you won’t win the war. The fleet needs a strong one. Under Tsushima, Russian sailors showed a lot of heroism, and so what? Everyone knows the result.The fleet must win, not die heroically.
        Sincerely.
      2. Ezhaak
        Ezhaak 7 September 2013 15: 16
        +6
        Quote: alexdol
        don't chat Nonsense

        The person who wrote this is right. This phrase is as old as the Internet in Russia. wassat
      3. Mature naturalist
        Mature naturalist 7 September 2013 19: 38
        +6
        Quote: alexdol
        By the way, if only you learned to write correctly, here is your last phrase: Young man, do not talk Nonsense

        Young man, you need to know the classic of army humor!
      4. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 9 September 2013 01: 23
        0
        Quote: alexdol
        after all, no one sank the Varyag and Koreyets either!

        In my opinion, it’s much worse that they couldn’t destroy it normally, and the ship became part of the Japanese fleet. We started for health, so to speak and ended in repose. Not for nothing, the officers of the fleet Rudnev silently condemned. However, it was not he who sank the ships in shallow water ...
        As for the sunken and disabled ships, they safely took part in the blockade of Port Arthur
    3. kavkaz8888
      kavkaz8888 8 September 2013 11: 07
      0
      In an hour of battle, the cruiser fired 1 thousand 105 shells, sank the destroyer and disabled three enemy cruisers, but received such damage that it completely ruled out the possibility of continuing the battle, despite the fact that the fire was fired by shells with a pyrox humidity of 30% (know how - that asshole from the Admiralty (norm 10-12%)) who exploded every third time, and the Japs smacked with "shimoza".
      This is you comrade Colonel do not wave your bullshit. VARYAG is a legend. And why not wave around him, after another 100 years they will remember with pride.
      That's it.
      1. Pamir210
        Pamir210 8 September 2013 12: 40
        +3
        Quote: kavkaz8888
        the destroyer sank and disabled three enemy cruisers,

        well what nonsense .. just discussed already that NO Varangian did not drown.
        no one cites the name of the "drowned" destroyer, the nature of its damage is the same.
        ALL the Japanese cruisers (battle participants) survived it safely.
        so what can stop retelling fairy tales? no matter how warm they are
  • Pilat2009
    Pilat2009 7 September 2013 10: 47
    +1
    Quote: vaddag1
    Varangian "and" Korean "do not agree with you

    They may disagree until they turn blue, but the result will be the same.
    1. vaddag1
      vaddag1 7 September 2013 11: 44
      +3
      "but the result will be the same" - that's it. our Kuril Islands, the Kwantung Army is defeated, and also hasan and khalkingol. and the defense of Port Arthur is a worthy story. this is the TOTAL.
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 7 September 2013 13: 43
        12
        Quote: vaddag1
        "but the result will be the same" - that's it. our Kuril Islands, the Kwantung Army is defeated, and also hasan and khalkingol. and the defense of Port Arthur is a worthy story. this is the TOTAL.

        You don’t confuse an egg with fried eggs. A powerful army that went through World War 2 would have broken America and England. What can’t you say about the Navy. And now it's all in the past. Now they’re fighting not in quantity
        1. vaddag1
          vaddag1 7 September 2013 14: 31
          -3
          I don’t confuse anything. it was about the outcome. The results begin from such heroic moments as unequal battle. and the death of our ships off the coast of Syria will lead to one RESULT - the amers of the khan (and nuclear weapons have nothing to do with it).
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 7 September 2013 21: 31
            0
            Quote: vaddag1
            and the death of our ships off the coast of Syria will lead to one RESULT - the amers of the khan (and nuclear weapons have nothing to do with it).


            Rave:
            1. The USA will immediately launch a series of nuclear weapons attacks (mostly tactical) on the country's key facilities - command posts, government, military unit, fleet bases and Strategic Missile Forces. After that, the land phase will be more like stripping.
            2. Hope for nuclear weapons is permissible only in a peaceful period, when neither side is mentally prepared for war, but when casus belli appears, there will be no ceremony.

            PS: Even if we manage to respond with at least something and destroy the US military potential with a WMD strike, then this will not make the weather for our country - with the destruction of the government and command structure, the disintegration of the state will begin. At the same time, the "good neighbors" will invade.
            1. Vasilenko Vladimir
              Vasilenko Vladimir 7 September 2013 21: 43
              +2
              Quote: Blackgrifon
              At the same time, the "good neighbors" will invade.

              what neighbors? !!!
              Europe will not have time for this there will be "whites" stupidly cut Muslims and establish Sharia, China will think where to bury and most importantly how millions of their corpses, as in a nuclear strike no one will breed curtsies and other politeses, everyone will kill all Pakistani Indians and the Chinese, the Pakistanis of the Hindus, the Jew of the Arabs, those, in turn, the Jews, the Australians will more or less sit out if they forget about the citizenship of the crown and the South Americans
              and our neighbors will definitely not be up to us
            2. poquello
              poquello 8 September 2013 00: 41
              +4
              Quote: Blackgrifon
              Quote: vaddag1
              and the death of our ships off the coast of Syria will lead to one RESULT - the amers of the khan (and nuclear weapons have nothing to do with it).


              Rave:
              1. The USA will immediately launch a series of nuclear weapons attacks (mostly tactical) on the country's key facilities - command posts, government, military unit, fleet bases and Strategic Missile Forces. After that, the land phase will be more like stripping.


              really nonsense and above and below
          2. chehywed
            chehywed 8 September 2013 01: 46
            +6
            Quote: vaddag1
            and the death of our ships off the coast of Syria will lead to one RESULT - amers Khan

            The logic is strange. Are you sane at all? How will the death of the Russian squadron and several thousand Russian sailors destroy the United States? Ugh damn it, shkolota. Living people scatter like garbage.
      2. Su24
        Su24 7 September 2013 17: 37
        +5
        Quote: vaddag1
        "but the result will be the same" - that's it. our Kuril Islands, the Kwantung Army is defeated, and also hasan and khalkingol. and the defense of Port Arthur is a worthy story. this is the TOTAL.


        Ohhh, well, the chatter started! Well, you would have a conscience, there’s nothing to say, what have the events of the 30-40s to do with it? You might think that the Kwantung army was defeated by the Pacific squadrons of Tsarist Russia.
        1. vaddag1
          vaddag1 7 September 2013 18: 13
          -5
          see comment above
      3. Raiven
        Raiven 7 September 2013 19: 27
        +3
        Sorry, but the Kuril Islands in the Russian-Japanese captured, recaptured. Or in the year 45?
        Think first
  • shark
    shark 7 September 2013 11: 04
    19
    You are right, of course, but as far as possible with the unprecedented heroism and courage of our guys, plug holes from the miscalculations of the political leadership. That was 18,19,20 in the century. at 21 this trend seems to continue.
    1. stroporez
      stroporez 7 September 2013 11: 59
      +2
      skoko "nuna", stock and "mona" ......... fortunately, not everything is considered a calculator .......
    2. vaddag1
      vaddag1 7 September 2013 12: 07
      0
      "It was like this in the century 18,19,20. At 21" - this is our leadership (kings, general seki, now presidents and their retinues), it is appointed to us by fate, God, elections and it is cooked with us. This is our story, to smear the leadership is to smear ourselves. And since we exist with you, then it is not so bad. The "good" leadership of European countries was unable to mobilize their peoples to fight the aggressor in WW2 (France had a more powerful army, defensive installations, industry, etc., and all this was in a heap, and not scattered across the expanses of Mother Russia). Russian 1812 - a similar story
  • Denis
    Denis 7 September 2013 11: 55
    +1
    Quote: vaddag1
    "Varangian" and "Korean" do not agree with you
    Not only they, they are uncountable, I would like to be remembered "Grand Duke Constantine" and then still lieutenant S.O. Makarov, it was a converted from a civilian steamer
    http://www.koshkindom.com.ua/html/see/makarov2.htm
    http://navycollection.narod.ru/ships/Russia/Auxillaries/Velikiy_Knyaz_Konstantin
    /history1.html
  • baltika-18
    baltika-18 7 September 2013 16: 44
    11
    Quote: vaddag1
    "corresponds to one ship-strike group, of which there may be up to 10 in the US Sixth Fleet" - "Varangian" and "Korean" do not agree with you.

    The comparison is not correct. It’s one thing to fight in direct visibility, you maneuver, shoot, shoot at you. Another thing is when you don’t see the enemy, and missiles come at you from all sides and you can’t dodge them, you can only shoot them down if you have time.
    Modern technology is everything.
    1. vaddag1
      vaddag1 7 September 2013 18: 20
      -2
      here is another matter. that you all rested in iron. then superiority did not die and now we shall not die. we also have electronics as well as countermeasures. we have more curious rockets and satellites are there for guidance.
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 7 September 2013 21: 33
        +2
        Quote: vaddag1
        as if

        It’s what it’s like, but it’s not so much. The article clearly states that without nuclear weapons we are as if nothing. And to use nuclear weapons in a local conflict is to litter the territory. And here even the UN will not save
        1. poquello
          poquello 8 September 2013 01: 17
          +1
          Quote: Pilat2009
          Quote: vaddag1
          as if

          It’s exactly what would be, but not so much. The article clearly states that without nuclear weapons we are as if niochem.


          As if singing experts now climbed into the western unison. And all the directors of some institutions of some kind of development and some kind of politics. One here on TV tells how he got acquainted with the arguments of the United States about Assad’s chemical attack, the arguments are iron - he punches himself in the chest with his fist, these are the hunch on the belly. Another director in the choir with Dempsey sings about an insignificant Russian army, forgetting that Russia was not going to fight with anyone, who knew that in the modern world they would be rude to the brazen.

          I have only one question for you - but what if we don’t use it, then it's time to surrender.
          For reference: Kennedy was going to use nuclear weapons when the USSR refused to remove the missiles from Cuba.
          1. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 8 September 2013 12: 42
            +1
            Quote: poquello
            For reference: Kennedy was going to use nuclear weapons when the USSR refused to remove the missiles from Cuba.

            However, sanity prevailed. Think whether Cuba is worth it. Not a single local conflict is worth it. Theoretically, Syria can respond using chemical weapons but in practice it will not, like in Iraq. As you recall, Saddam threatened to use chemical weapons against Israel that he was firmly told of retaliatory measures
            1. poquello
              poquello 10 September 2013 00: 09
              +1
              Quote: Pilat2009
              Quote: poquello
              For reference: Kennedy was going to use nuclear weapons when the USSR refused to remove the missiles from Cuba.

              However, sanity prevailed. Think whether Cuba is worth it. Not a single local conflict is worth it. Theoretically, Syria can respond using chemical weapons but in practice it will not, like in Iraq. As you recall, Saddam threatened to use chemical weapons against Israel that he was firmly told of retaliatory measures

              Common sense prevailed, and Cuba is not worth it or not.
              And where is Saddam now?
              1. Pilat2009
                Pilat2009 10 September 2013 13: 08
                0
                Quote: poquello
                Common sense prevailed, and Cuba is not worth it or not.
                And where is Saddam now?

                I tell you about Thomas; you tell me about Yerema.
                Sanity prevailed because Cuba wasn’t worth a nuclear conflict. Nobody needs it now, it’s boiled in its own juice.
                Neither Hitler used chemical weapons nor Saddam, although they understood that the end was possible. Saddam could become a hero in the Arab world by applying chemistry to Israel. Hitler too. But not everyone in their circle supported the idea of ​​total destruction. Both Germany and Iraq survived the war and remained independent. The same applies to Japan with its bacteriological weapons and fanatical readiness for self-restraint .. Everyone is well aware that the use of prohibited weapons will lead to a retaliatory strike and the announcement of those involved in international criminals. Although de facto nuclear weapons are not prohibited. However, our rulers are reluctant to sit in The Hague tribunal
  • MG42
    MG42 7 September 2013 18: 25
    +2
    Quote: Andrey Yurievich
    “Only in the Turkish Navy there are about 30 submarines, while the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation has only one,” said the expert,

    B-871 "Alrosa" diesel electric, torpedo armament 18 + mines, air defense = anti-aircraft missile system.
    1. MG42
      MG42 7 September 2013 21: 40
      +2
      For anonymous minus B-871 "Alrosa" As of August 2013, is it the only submarine of the Russian Black Sea Fleet? Is there another one? <Zaporozhye> is Ukrainian ..
  • dark_65
    dark_65 8 September 2013 07: 57
    +3
    In principle, he is right, in quantitative terms, the example of "Varyag" is not bad in this case, but the wrong time, and we have fewer people, and the ships are not the same.
    It means only to arm.
    The situation is now as in the year 41, before the war, 3-4 years were not enough for weapons.
  • vezunchik
    vezunchik 8 September 2013 10: 30
    +4
    the truth must be looked into the eyes. Everything is destroyed and plundered, and we are talking about world domination. It is necessary to restore order in the country, and not to anyone ... everyone was waiting for someone to come and do everything for us ... Not having scammed a thief, he was punished
  • kava61
    kava61 24 March 2020 21: 25
    0
    For this, we have a huge aircraft carrier and a non-sinking cruiser under the name Crimea, which is not comparable with any US fleet and Turkish submarines.
  • Kolya
    Kolya 7 September 2013 09: 12
    0
    We need to develop nuclear weapons !!! This is the same as if you are a soccer player, you need to play soccer and not train to play baseball!
  • Veles25
    Veles25 7 September 2013 11: 34
    +1
    ....................
    1. Armata
      Armata 7 September 2013 12: 03
      +2
      And how many of them cost under your mattress flag?
  • ka5280
    ka5280 7 September 2013 07: 24
    +7
    I think that the amers are bluffing, they would have been weak for a long time already under America. And if the game is not fussing, then it’s afraid. The Pentagon only loves to fight with weaknesses and with impunity. And where you can get by ear, they don’t climb there.
    1. a52333
      a52333 7 September 2013 08: 39
      17
      I’m all thinking how they humped so humpbacked, not having drank all our nuclear weapons. Scared now crying
    2. patsantre
      patsantre 7 September 2013 13: 51
      +1
      So nuclear weapons do not give, didn’t try to think?
  • redwolf_13
    redwolf_13 7 September 2013 07: 38
    +2
    And in what he is wrong. Only arguments and not "foam"
    1. vaddag1
      vaddag1 7 September 2013 08: 37
      +1
      without "foam" - the battle of Sinop. 3 ships against 16 Turkish and 6 coastal batteries. later another 5 of ours came, one of the Turks 3. multiple superiority. result: 1 Turk survived because he fled, we have no losses in our ships.
      1. chehywed
        chehywed 7 September 2013 09: 20
        +8
        vaddag1, you really have "own math":
        The Russian squadron consisted of 6 battleships, two frigates and three steamship units, i.e. - 11 ships
        Turkish - 7 frigates, 3 corvettes, steamer frigate and steamer. Total 12. And given that the ship had only 2 guns, then 11,5
        1. vaddag1
          vaddag1 7 September 2013 09: 32
          0
          On November 11 (23), the squadron discovered the Turkish squadron under the command of Osman Pasha. The rising storm did not allow Nakhimov to immediately attack the enemy, especially since two ships and one frigate were badly damaged by the storm, they had to be sent to Sevastopol for repair. Three Russian ships Empress Maria, Chesma and Rostislav blocked the Sinop Bay and began to hold in it an entire enemy squadron of 16 ships under the protection of 6 coastal batteries. The history of the West European fleets does not know such examples.
          On November 16 (28), the squadron of Rear Admiral F.M. joined Nakhimov’s detachment Novosilsky (ships "Paris", "Grand Duke Constantine" and "Three Saints", frigates "Cahul" and "Kulevchi"). Nakhimov had 6 battleships and 2 frigates at his disposal.
        2. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 7 September 2013 10: 51
          +6
          Quote: chehywed
          vaddag1, you really have "your own math"

          The frigate does not pull against the battleship, especially since we had bombing guns. It was essentially the beating of babies
          1. vaddag1
            vaddag1 7 September 2013 12: 28
            +1
            Turkish 22-gun steamer “Taif” (“Tayf”), armament 2-10 dm bombing, 4-42 fn., 16-24 fn. guns, under the command of Yahya-bey (Yahya-bey)

            key point - Three Russian ships blocked the Sinop Bay and began to hold in it an entire enemy squadron of 16 ships under the protection of 6 coastal batteries.
      2. My doctor
        My doctor 7 September 2013 09: 24
        +3
        the question is what happened after the Sinop battle. What happened to the winning squadron? after all, this was the last battle of the era of the sailing fleet.
        1. vaddag1
          vaddag1 7 September 2013 10: 03
          +1
          How does the end of the sailing era stand sideways to the assertion that Russian ships have no chance when meeting US ships?
          1. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 7 September 2013 13: 55
            +3
            Quote: vaddag1
            to the statement about "no chance" for Russian ships when meeting with US ships?

            You even count the number, not to mention the composition
            1. vaddag1
              vaddag1 7 September 2013 14: 44
              0
              for quantity - look at other sources besides the "wiki".
              The decision to accept the battle was made when only 3 ships were available.
              and while still waiting for the approach of the Anglo-French squadron, located in the bay of Besik Curtez.
            2. vaddag1
              vaddag1 7 September 2013 15: 39
              -1
              I apologize did not understand what it was about.
              "You at least count the number, not to mention the composition" - well, again, as an example, the TFR is "selfless" (the actions of the Soviet sailors were NON-STANDARD, UNEXPECTED and had the desired effect).
              do you have information about non-participation of submarines and YES?
        2. Denis
          Denis 7 September 2013 13: 10
          +2
          Quote: MyVrach
          What happened to the winning squadron?
          What, that, flooded in Sevastopol. Only not the Turks, the world gay community stood up for the offended
  • Sandov
    Sandov 7 September 2013 08: 52
    +6
    “Any potential aggressor imagines that if he unleashes the hostilities against Russia, she will be able to respond with strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, and this in any case will equalize the chances and make the world’s military-political situation stable along the perimeter of Russian borders,” Igor Korotchenko is sure.

    I think this will stop the hot Ameran cowboys.
    1. max702
      max702 7 September 2013 14: 29
      +4
      And let's call these dear fellows in Russian not "cowboys" but directly translated by the SHEPHERDS! By the way, in our country, the least skilled workers were trusted to graze cattle, but among the Americans, ethnic heroes are straight from the epic epic! Which, as it were, hints .. what heroes such a country is ..
  • Geisenberg
    Geisenberg 7 September 2013 17: 04
    +2
    Quote: Valery Neon
    A statement by Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, in my opinion, is an American auto-training. hi


    Like "I don't fart - it's not me" ?? Works for the public. Purely my opinion: 20 minutes is the flight time of the rocket, here he of course told the truth, except that no one will stand and watch the rocket fly towards him. A massive volley of 10-20 missiles per ship will be needed. During the approach, he will have time to hit back. So there will be a Mexican Inchia, 1 cruiser for all destroyers. If such a booze goes to aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean sea kirdyk and indeed to all American steamships near our borders ...
  • Su24
    Su24 7 September 2013 17: 22
    10
    The first vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems Konstantin Sivkov does not consider Dempsey's statement about Russia's military potential in the field of conventional weapons far from reality. “I would say that Russia is not part of the“ middle-power ”powers, if we take the ratio of military potential and area. Russia is at the level of Belgium "


    Oh, and this, what kind of technique is this ?? Those. The author wants to tell us that if the territory of Russia decreases, then its military potential will automatically increase?)) Well, how so ?? Ok, next:

    According to him, with the current composition of the armed forces, Russia is capable of solving tasks in no more than two armed conflicts on a Chechen scale. For a local war, he is sure, it will require a grouping of half a million people.


    How much, how much ?? Khara flood, comrade, the entire group of federal troops in the North Caucasus totaled 80-100 thousand. We had the same amount in Afghanistan.

    “Local war - this is what was called the“ Desert Storm ”, these are ordinary operations that the Americans repeatedly carried out. In the Vietnam War, the American military group numbered 1,5 million.



    This was apparently counted together by the armies of South Vietnam and all the regional allies, who could hypothetically participate in the war. Actually, the number of American soldiers in Vietnam by the year 68 totaled just 550 thousand. And this is a regional war, not a local war.
    And, remembering "Desert Storm", the expert could also remember 2003, when the American coalition (with all the rear and so on) had up to 280 thousand. Then, during the occupation, it was even less.

    Well, in general, why give examples of the participation of American wars? We have our own theater, our own conditions. Who should Russia fight with now to exhibit 500 thousand? What, with Turkey, or what? With Georgia, we have very successfully dealt with using just about 15-20 thousand. How much will the hypothetical wars in the South Caucasus and Central Asia require? Vryatli, more than one order more.

    And he still didn’t understand: the expert says that now, with full mobilization, Russia will expose no more than 250 thousand. But, sorry, it’s enough to keep the demobilization and get +300 thousand to the millionth aircraft.
  • Blackgrifon
    Blackgrifon 7 September 2013 21: 18
    +5
    Quote: Valery Neonov
    A statement by Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, in my opinion, is an American auto-training.


    Why? Do you think that we can oppose them with something other than nuclear weapons? Compare official data on the number of equipment and heavy weapons on the western border of Russia and similar information about NATO. In addition, our army is now virtually knocked out and when it can restore its power after the latest reforms, few people know.
    1. Arabist
      Arabist 7 September 2013 21: 22
      +2
      If you understand by "official" data a comparison called we will cope with the Russian spirit, then it has nothing to do with reality.
  • starshina78
    starshina78 8 September 2013 18: 13
    +2
    You are too optimistic or do not know what modern naval combat is. If we compare the American and Russian ships in terms of armament level, purpose, and class, then, to our great regret, all our ships will be destroyed in twenty minutes. What can landing ships do against a missile destroyer, for example? Nothing! And the Undaunted will not withstand a salvo of three destroyers. When I served, very often exercises were conducted with firing from artillery guns and missile launches, both at shield targets and at ships that were written off, and cooked on pins and needles. The results of these firing were evident, but this is just an exercise. Although they fired blanks without missile combat equipment, what will happen from a combat missile ... Our fleet has not fought since the Great Patriotic War, and I must admit it has no combat experience, target shooting is not a war. And the Americans have been fighting all seventy years after the war, and this is an important factor, and in addition, the numerical strength of the fleets of the United States and Russia is like comparing a cat and a tiger, both from the feline family, but in fact animals of different sizes. Their fleet was not ruined by Nobel laureates and drunks, nor was it plundered by thieving admirals. He is intact, and ours is defeated. In practice, this applies to the entire army and navy. Our Armed Forces are in the process of reorganization. Started by Serdyukov (who stole more than reorganized), and Shoigu continues this business. As always, a couple or three years may not be enough for us. God forbid, of course!
    1. old man54
      old man54 8 September 2013 22: 09
      -1
      Quote: starshina78
      Our fleet has not fought since World War II , and we must admit that he has no combat experience; target shooting is not a war. And Americans fight all seventy years after the war

      and with whom did the American navy fight after 1945, do not explain? with Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin? Or with Iraqi boats in the Pesidian zadiv in the late 90's?
  • starshina78
    starshina78 8 September 2013 18: 16
    +2
    Moderator! Turn off censorship! This is already annoying! What is so criminal in my comments if you poke them, already, yesterday? Nobody canceled the freedom of expression!
  • serge-68-68
    serge-68-68 7 September 2013 06: 41
    26
    Even in Soviet times, even the Soviet Navy was not planned for a "to the bitter end" war with the US Navy. Covering nuclear submarines with nuclear weapons on board, drawing off forces and means and perishing heroically, knowing that nuclear mushrooms are rising in full swing on US territory, is the main task. In the context of a non-nuclear conflict, and even the Russian fleet, and even the "Syrian group" - twenty or twenty minutes, but there is no chance of even equalizing at least in losses.
    1. My address
      My address 7 September 2013 07: 04
      15
      Sorry, Sergey, I do not quite agree with you.
      The Soviet Navy was really created with the main goal to ensure the deployment of submarines. But I could break the Merikos even before Mama Do not Cry. The number of ships in the 70-80-x of the USSR was the first. And modern ships of the first class (or as they say?) Enough. And they had better missile weapons than the first tomahawks. For a very long time on this subject, a former tanker, I was enlightened by a submariner over a glass of tea and in general terms. Then I also believed that we have ten submarines and five cruisers. And the main thing is T-62 and Strategic Rocket Forces.

      Sailors! Your opinion?

      All with the coming day tanker!
      1. serge-68-68
        serge-68-68 7 September 2013 09: 23
        +2
        My address: everyone told differently. Representatives of TF, for example, in relation to the ratio of illusions did not harbor.
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 7 September 2013 11: 20
        18
        Quote: My address
        Sailors! Your opinion?

        Alexander! Thank you for inviting me to the discussion on the essence of the problem. And then I ran through the branch, and there again about gays ...
        Sivkov’s estimates (hereinafter - CS) cannot be trusted: a worthy husband, with brains and a balanced approach, work experience in the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces, is involved in the doctrinal provisions of aircraft construction. Everything is so, BUT!
        About the fleet. All sailors know: the Northern Fleet is the country's strongest fleet, both in terms of strategic nuclear forces and general forces. However, the Constitutional Court believes that the Pacific Fleet will be half weaker than the North, the Pacific Fleet will destroy the 2 AUG, while the Northern Fleet will only destroy one (?), While the composition of the AUG is typical: AVU + 5-6 security ships. He is a sailor, and therefore should know that European airfields will be suppressed for the most part by supporting actions of other types and branches of the Armed Forces. The enemy’s AB influence will not be calculated, therefore, the losses of NKs that ensure submarine actions will be less.
        Secondly, the ratio of the Black Sea Fleet / Turkey submarine is not correct: Turkey also has an SR sea. Yes, they can steal all 2 units in the World Cup, but then they will receive lullies from NATO for disrupting actions in the theater of operations. The truth is that 30 (according to other sources - 3) aerated Ladas are being built for the Black Sea Fleet. So the threat level is obvious. There will also go (for replacement) 6 skr pr.6. Aviation has the ability to quickly build up, so no problem. But large NKs have nothing to do in the World Cup: it is under the control of the AV, so our large NKs leave for SR to build up forces 11356 OpEsk. It is also incorrect to compare the forces of the 5th Fleet with the Black Sea Fleet. The Black Sea Fleet can deploy 6 units, 6 TGs with 10 NK = 6 ships! But even in its best years, the 60th Fleet had 6 ships! And it is not a fact that they will break through the Northern Fleet submarine into Gibraltar and will be able to build up forces if the "shooting" begins.
        About 20 minutes of battle NK against AUG has nothing to comment on: this is the truth, calculated mathematically. But the fight of OUR AUG with theirs is at least 2 hours, plus crutches in the ass to the ships of the warrant and damage to the aircraft carrier. Though there will be moral satisfaction, and not a reflection of the EOS coming at you from different heights and directions! This is what concerns the fleet. I will try to tell about other "LA-LA" below.
        1. chehywed
          chehywed 7 September 2013 11: 46
          +1
          Boa kaa , Uff .. While I figured out almost all the abbreviations ... already sweating. I did not understand what other "LA" are and why twice. laughing But in general it is intelligible and understandable. Thank.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 7 September 2013 13: 25
            12
            Quote: chehywed
            I did not understand what other "LA" are and why twice.

            Vladimir, because "blah blah" is beaten, a colleague Experienced took the "bugaga" into service. Well, so "LA-LA" is abbreviated as "bloopers".
            I respect K. Sivkov both as a military man and as a scientist. I can not afford the incorrectness in relation to my colleague - a sailor. Arguing (reasoning, expressing one’s opinion) is essentially a problem, which I tried to do.
            1. chehywed
              chehywed 7 September 2013 13: 35
              +2
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              Arguing (reasoning, expressing one’s opinion) is essentially a problem, which I tried to do.

              Alexander, did not mean to offend you. The comment is really interesting. And about "LA", well ... a share of humor,where would it be without him ...
        2. stroporez
          stroporez 7 September 2013 12: 05
          +1
          no one disputes the technical component. but don’t say it, people are more important in battle than PEOPLE, and how would it be to insult anyone, despite the titanic efforts of democrats, liberals and other heretics, we have better people ....... .........
        3. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 7 September 2013 13: 55
          +1
          Quote: My address
          Sailors! Your opinion?

          Along with the commentary of the respected Boa KAA, I would like, with great interest, to read the comment andreitk20.
        4. Sobol
          Sobol 7 September 2013 17: 42
          +1
          Boa KAA.
          And what in these 20 minutes will be able to create 16 Volcanoes of Moscow with the USA AUG?
    2. vaddag1
      vaddag1 7 September 2013 08: 54
      -1
      "and even the Russian fleet, and even the" Syrian group "- twenty or twenty minutes, but there is no chance of even equalizing at least in losses" - you have already lost this battle. In 1988, an incident occurred in the Black Sea: two US Navy ships (a cruiser and a destroyer) violated the border of the territorial waters of the Soviet Union. The actions of Soviet sailors (2 TFR) were non-standard, unexpected and had the desired effect on the provocateurs. SKR "Selfless" rammed the cruiser URO "Yorktown" - feel the difference. read about the consequences of the incident (financial, political and moral)
      1. serge-68-68
        serge-68-68 7 September 2013 09: 16
        +7
        Do not confuse different things. We are talking about fire contact in international waters, and not the ousting of the Yankees from our tervod. Under combat conditions, these TFRs would be destroyed on the way.
        1. vaddag1
          vaddag1 7 September 2013 09: 40
          +3
          a guard by ramming the cruiser - much better than fire contact?
          and it’s about a non-standard, unexpected and having the necessary impact on the provocateurs. and so the whole history of Russia
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 7 September 2013 10: 55
        +2
        Quote: vaddag1
        "Selfless" rammed the cruiser URO "Yorktown" - feel the difference

        The Yorktown commander just laughed
        1. max702
          max702 7 September 2013 14: 40
          +7
          Well, as always! Not our fellows, but the enemy of the suckers, it’s true that they’re fighting with suckers, and they always say that when they get from our lyuli (though all the rest from these suckers completely raked) that the French. that German memoirs, and others offended ..
          1. Dimy4
            Dimy4 7 September 2013 20: 14
            +1
            Yes, if we win, they say that we fought incorrectly.
      3. Pamir210
        Pamir210 7 September 2013 12: 43
        +5
        Quote: vaddag1
        SKR "Selfless" rammed the cruiser URO "Yorktown" - feel the difference

        yes, feel ..
        Our ship first rots for repair for 9 years, and then it starts jumping into the Ukrainian fleet and there it finally dies ... they didn’t even bother to dismantle it for metal (recycle), but simply flooded it in the Black Sea in 2005.
        The American, on the other hand, repaired his injuries (dents to the field board, ruptures of rails and other trifles from the shaking of the hull), participated in several wars, and was withdrawn from the fleet in the usual manner in 2004. Now in reserve.
        1. vaddag1
          vaddag1 7 September 2013 14: 59
          +9
          the consequences of the actions of the "selfless":
          According to foreign sources, after the incident, Yorktown was repaired at a shipyard for several months. The cruiser commander was removed from his post for passive actions and the initiative given to the Soviet ship, thereby causing moral damage to the prestige of the American Navy. The US Congress froze the budget for the naval department for almost half a year.

          "he took part in several wars" - he launched tamogavs from the maximum distance along the ground infrastructure and at the same time did not meet with any enemy in battle. he lost his only battle at sea and it was a battle with the "selfless"
          1. Pamir210
            Pamir210 7 September 2013 15: 11
            -1
            Quote: vaddag1
            let tomahawks from the maximum distance on ground infrastructure

            it’s not his fault that the methods of warfare have changed. and he had a chance to swim
            they didn’t let him at least for scrapping ..
            although, as we know, the selfless were not allowed to do the same (but the picture is completely different)
          2. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 8 September 2013 12: 51
            +1
            Quote: vaddag1
            The cruiser commander was removed from his post for passive actions and the initiative given to the Soviet ship

            not only I think that he laughed
        2. aviator_IAS
          aviator_IAS 7 September 2013 22: 04
          +2
          Quote: Pamir210
          yes, feel ..
          Our ship first rots for repair for 9 years, and then it starts jumping into the Ukrainian fleet and there it finally dies ... they didn’t even bother to dismantle it for metal (recycle), but simply flooded it in the Black Sea in 2005.


          How does this relate to the Yorktown incident? And then, in general, the US Navy? There are already to z s have tried. am
      4. baltika-18
        baltika-18 7 September 2013 16: 23
        +7
        Quote: vaddag1
        In 1988, an incident occurred in the Black Sea: two US Navy ships (cruiser and destroyer) violated the territorial waters border

        What are you comparing?
        It's like fucking with a finger, sorry for the expression.
        But your statements are "chapkozakidone".
        Modern warfare is not a remote bayonet battle, where morale is really in the foreground.
        Morale is wonderful, we are strong with that. But I would like that together with him there would also be a lot of super-modern technology, so that the lives of young guys would not be in vain.
        1. vaddag1
          vaddag1 7 September 2013 18: 26
          -1
          you pulled out the wrong part of the quote and began to answer. the meaning of the post further - "The actions of the Soviet sailors were non-standard, unexpected and had the desired impact."
    3. Army1
      Army1 7 September 2013 15: 48
      +1
      Quote: serge-68-68
      Even in Soviet times, even the Soviet navy was not planned to fight "to the bitter end" with the US Navy. Covering nuclear submarines with nuclear weapons on board, drawing off forces and means and perishing heroically, knowing that nuclear mushrooms are rising in full swing on US territory, is the main task.

      Dying heroically? Yes, this is complete nonsense, who else would die, and the Soviet, now Russian nuclear submarines ply not only near their waters.
      1. mole
        mole 7 September 2013 22: 12
        0
        Anyway, you cannot win - if you do not believe in victory! Not a single calculator will calculate.
  • vasiliysxx
    vasiliysxx 7 September 2013 06: 45
    18
    I have no doubt that if they take us for an ass, then we will build an aircraft carrier in a week and there will be combat generals, and together with Dempsey we will put in a hole in Vietnam angry
    1. Hardware
      Hardware 7 September 2013 07: 19
      14
      in a week mosquitoes breed, and the army and navy are created and maintained over the years for good! Everything is sad with us))) My comrade served in tank units — 80 officer and 1 guard soldiers for 28 vehicles, but it was listed as a warhead!
      1. Garrin
        Garrin 7 September 2013 07: 39
        10
        Nothing wrong. Normal cropped part. And under the Union there were such.
      2. tomket
        tomket 7 September 2013 11: 01
        -1
        in the liberty war for three days I was launched into the water, I think if you take the experience .....)
    2. Stiletto
      Stiletto 7 September 2013 09: 39
      +9
      Quote: vasiliysxx
      I have no doubt that if they take us for an ass, then we will build an aircraft carrier in a week and there will be combat generals, and together with Dempsey we will put in a hole in Vietnam


      If they try to take us for this, I don’t know about how to build an aircraft carrier in a week, but we can sink them in a dozen, and much faster than in 20 minutes, we can do it like nefig. And not only in the Mediterranean, but also in Norfolk, and further on the list.
      If Dempsey is so smart, why doesn't he go down the line? With drones and child prodigies against the Papuans, fighting is one thing. But if this and similar tombs will one day decide on a ground operation, then they will not only be pissed off in the jungle and in the desert, not only in Russia, but in the desert.
  • Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 7 September 2013 06: 50
    +8
    Sad ...
    There was an Army, albeit at a cost, but fear was directed at the "most probable enemy", and now ... sad
    1. vaddag1
      vaddag1 7 September 2013 08: 59
      +6
      "and now ..." - and now she is reborn
      1. Peaceful military
        Peaceful military 7 September 2013 15: 30
        +4
        "and now ..." - and now she is reborn

        As the saying goes, give GOD.
        soldier
  • Belogor
    Belogor 7 September 2013 06: 54
    +4
    As the saying goes, "God will not give, the pig will not eat" it for now, and then we will tighten the level of equipping our armed forces with modern weapons. Moreover, this has been observed in recent years.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 7 September 2013 08: 00
      +7
      In recent years, unfortunately, our missiles have been regularly falling ... and today again there is "news" about the "mace" ... and this is a year .... but it still does not fly, and new nuclear submarines are sharpened for it .. ...
  • Lech from ZATULINKI
    Lech from ZATULINKI 7 September 2013 07: 07
    21
    Someone recently believed that the GREAT LILIPUT SAAKASHVILI and his valiant army armed with the efforts of the USA, ISRAEL and UKRAINE in the person of Yushchenko will crush rusty Russian tanks and Russian soldiers.
    It turned out with accuracy on the contrary.
    All sorts of experts and forecasters have repeatedly buried the Russian army and you as well.
    So what’s next will see when it comes to fighting.
    1. Hardware
      Hardware 7 September 2013 07: 21
      10
      Only experienced pilots scattered across the country to break the Georgians
    2. redwolf_13
      redwolf_13 7 September 2013 08: 10
      12
      Well, first of all, a Georgian soldier is like an eagle from a sparrow.
      Secondly, the Georgians were not trained for military operations against the active forces, but for the fight against militias, which they did with success. Well, they did not believe in the west that Russia would move troops. Before my eyes were examples of Yugoslavia and Serbia. And here bad luck again unpredictability of the Russian soul wink
      1. poquello
        poquello 8 September 2013 03: 05
        +2
        Quote: redwolf_13
        Well, first of all, a Georgian soldier is like an eagle from a sparrow.
        Secondly, the Georgians were not trained for military operations against the active forces, but for the fight against militias, which they did with success. Well, they did not believe in the west that Russia would move troops. Before my eyes were examples of Yugoslavia and Serbia. And here bad luck again unpredictability of the Russian soul wink

        They would not believe - they did not prepare sabotage for undermining the tunnel, wiretapping, etc. The calculator has now sung songs about a non-military operation.
  • Koronik
    Koronik 7 September 2013 07: 13
    +3
    Yes, I completely agree, there is a beginning, and there, as they say, "they count chickens in the fall." Wait and see.
    1. APASUS
      APASUS 7 September 2013 09: 38
      +2
      Quote: Koronik
      as the saying goes "chickens are counted in the fall." Wait and see.

      In the United States, they often forget that Russians took part in Vietnam in a minimal number.
      Not Russian whitewashed and Vietnamese!
  • Alikovo
    Alikovo 7 September 2013 07: 14
    +6
    Amer. High officials are thinking about what they are talking about:
    Kerry al Qaeda is not in Syria,
    dempsey Russia's nuclear arsenal allows it to position itself as a superpower, but in the field of conventional weapons it does not fall into this category,
    heigel Russia put the chemical weapons of Syria.
    1. Nick888
      Nick888 7 September 2013 07: 38
      +5
      And they also write that we live in the Cold War, hehe. Americans are, mmm, Americans)
  • arkady149
    arkady149 7 September 2013 07: 20
    +5
    The mere fact of the presence of the Russian Armed Forces in the alleged theater of operations is in itself unexpected for American gopniks, who are accustomed to the fact that their opponents cannot have real and strong allies by definition, (who will poke their heads at the main gopnik) so the United States soothes its snares : "Yes, everything is fine, guys, we are kind of real and in twenty minutes we will kill anyone, but cho ...)
    Such is our politics on Earth today. Good day to all.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 7 September 2013 07: 30
      12
      any "outrageous" greyhounds until they get to the butt ... angry
    2. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 7 September 2013 10: 59
      +3
      Quote: arkady149
      One fact of the presence of Russian aircraft at the proposed theater is itself unexpected

      Well, if there were 3-5 air defense ships, then maybe they would collapse
      1. kotvov
        kotvov 7 September 2013 19: 43
        0
        But what are air defense ships do not tell me?
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 8 September 2013 22: 22
          +1
          Quote: kotvov
          and what are air defense ships do not tell

          These are those with 100 pieces of s-300 type missiles
          e.g. Peter the Great
          20 × PKR P-700 "Granite"
          SAM S-300F "Fort" (48 missiles)
          SAM S-300FM "Fort-M" (46 missiles)
          16 × PU SAM "Dagger" (128 missiles) 6 × 16 ZRAK "Dagger" (144 missiles)
  • 006 Feliks
    006 Feliks 7 September 2013 07: 23
    16
    the American adversary has no spirit! IT IS ABSOLUTELY AVAILABLE! Yes, all because he is fighting not for his homeland, but for money, and if there is a mess, the Americans will run even faster than the Georgians in 2008!
    Russian man is fighting for motherland, and spit on their missiles, SPIRIT is above all !!
    I agree with the previous speaker that there will be a commander and there are enough people who want to clean the American pug!
    1. redwolf_13
      redwolf_13 7 September 2013 08: 16
      12
      Yeah, right every 2 years, I cry when I see how our guys are eager to learn how to fight for the Motherland. There is a commander, but that’s what he will do with untrained meat. There are very few literate people, and even more so who know how to fight in the army. With stools, many were reduced or retired.
    2. Sandov
      Sandov 7 September 2013 09: 01
      +2
      006 Feliks

      Since Vietnam, amers on the wort have not received. It's time to remind you how nice it is.

      Amer’s generals have lost their minds if they want to unleash a world carnage.
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 7 September 2013 11: 01
        +2
        Quote: Sandov
        Amer’s generals have lost their minds if they want to unleash a world carnage.

        let there be no world carnage - our mosquito fleet will not affect
        1. 77bor1973
          77bor1973 7 September 2013 11: 52
          0
          There will not be a world carnage, but our fleet will be able to influence American strikes - for example, as advanced radars for air and surface conditions - it is more effective than radars in Syria that will be immediately destroyed.
          1. aviamed90
            aviamed90 7 September 2013 13: 38
            +5
            77bor1973

            Frigate is a family of Soviet and Russian three-coordinate ship-based radars with a lightweight unstabilized antenna post and an electronic beam stabilization system. The chief designer is Leonid Alekseevich Rodionov, winner of the Lenin Prize of the 1977 of the year.

            The range of radio wavelengths is 12-15 cm, the maximum viewing range is 145-150 km, the minimum viewing distance is 2 km, the viewing height is 30 km. Frigate radar can detect surface targets at a range of the radio horizon: a flying rocket at a distance of 27-30 km, an airplane - 125-130 km. The number of antenna revolutions per minute is 15, the viewing rate is 4 s, the radar power consumed is 30 kW. Alert time - 5 minutes.

            The radar was installed on the BOD of the 1155 project and the destroyers of the 956 project, as well as other ships.

            The radar had a number of modifications, including "Fregat-M" and "Fregat-MA". "
            (CPSU)
  • pinecone
    pinecone 7 September 2013 07: 27
    +4
    And none of these experts speaks of the need to strengthen the protection of the state border. Not a border, but DECISION, which is what the enemies of Russia use, accumulating forces and means for conducting subversive activities directly on the territory of the country.
  • Denis
    Denis 7 September 2013 07: 35
    45
    Yes, in some ways we are worse than proud
    Here is a photo
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 7 September 2013 07: 57
      14
      Well, even though you can congratulate this, mind you, quite sincerely. And our Obama, it seems, if not in orientation, then in life 3.14dor.
      I hope your fagots do not rush to us for political asylum - after all, Geyropa is closer to them, and in geography too.
      1. Denis
        Denis 7 September 2013 08: 53
        0
        Quote: Nagan
        And our Obama, it seems, if not in orientation, then in life 3.14dor.
        I bet that their next prezk will be definitely from non-traditional
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 7 September 2013 09: 35
          +1
          Quote: Denis
          I bet that their next prezk will be definitely from non-traditional

          I don’t think so. The Republicans are not yet so "modern". And the shitcrats are likely to nominate either Clintons or Biden.
      2. Sandov
        Sandov 7 September 2013 09: 03
        +2
        Revolver.
        Passed infa that already rushed. Queue at mcfol.
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 7 September 2013 10: 56
          0
          Quote: Sandov
          Revolver.
          Passed infa that already rushed. Queue at mcfol.
          negative angry am
      3. mogus
        mogus 7 September 2013 09: 06
        0
        Germany, almost political asylum, gathered for them.
    2. il grand casino
      il grand casino 7 September 2013 10: 56
      +4
      Quote: Denis
      Yes, in some ways we are worse than proud
      Here is a photo

      After such pictures, I am even more proud of my homeland!)))
    3. dmit-xnumx
      dmit-xnumx 7 September 2013 11: 28
      +3
      Here is how ?! Then all the gays of the whole Earth - forward, to Saudi Arabia, to the parade!
    4. APASUS
      APASUS 7 September 2013 14: 25
      0
      Quote: Denis
      Yes, in some respects we are worse than the proud photo

      I’m going to cry from this news! A tragedy of universal scale!
    5. Proud.
      Proud. 7 September 2013 14: 44
      +6
      Russia declared the worst gay country in Europe.And it pleases, Comrades!
    6. Peaceful military
      Peaceful military 7 September 2013 16: 00
      +3
      BRAVO!
      HOORAY! HOORAY! HOORAY!
      soldier
    7. Mature naturalist
      Mature naturalist 7 September 2013 19: 50
      +4
      Quote: Denis
      Yes, in some ways we are worse than proud
      Here is a photo

      A bit wrong. Old Man outdid us, as always: he is going to plant them ...
  • Igarr
    Igarr 7 September 2013 07: 37
    13
    Hello to all.
    on the one hand, the military, according to the logic of the service, are obliged to plan and predict. Therefore, Dempsey only plans with forecasts and tells.
    On the other hand - we have been convinced many times - that plans ..this is good. But the reality is different. Unforgettable V. Chernomyrdin convincingly stated this.
    Another thing infuriates me!
    And our leadership ... - how it feels when some American general talks with disdain about Russia's military potential. Like - ... oh well, nah, it’s a dead bitch with a gun and doesn’t roll against our Tyson.
    The ability to exhibit 250 thousand ..... that’s the whole indicator ..... the tireless, fruitful work of the MO, starting with the 1991 of the year.
    Someone has to answer, no?
    Especially the former NSSH who now rushed into journalism.
    .
    Americans do not doubt a single gram that they are fully capable of opening a database against Russia. And open - if that. Because they are strong.
    And we?
    How are the virgin girls? We convince the rapists - well, don’t, well, please, I'm still small!
    So yes?
    .
    Of course, we will master and defeat all.
    But so reluctant to do it with a shovel. Or with Saiga in his hands.
    1. avia12005
      avia12005 7 September 2013 08: 44
      +5
      When it comes to the fate of the motherland, all means are good - including repression. We ate yak at Yak on Gilyak, we have to - LIBERALS ON BIT
      1. Sandov
        Sandov 7 September 2013 09: 09
        0
        On the count then traitors.
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 7 September 2013 22: 02
          +1
          Quote: Sandov
          On the count then traitors.

          The poster says modestly:
          - Yankees go home.
          About a single word.
          1. Sandov
            Sandov 8 September 2013 09: 02
            +1
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            The poster says modestly: -Yanks go home. About a single word.


            So everything is mixed up now. At the stake of our corrupt officials, and Amers home overseas.
        2. jamalena
          jamalena 8 September 2013 00: 33
          0
          - since the Yankees do not have their own home. Impudent-Britto-Saxons are locusts who considered their entire planet their home! quietly parasites and robbers need to crush without sparing!
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 7 September 2013 21: 41
        +2
        Quote: avia12005
        When it comes to the fate of the motherland, all means are good - repressions, including

        Why is the best defense minister of all time not yet on the bench?
        Some kind of strange approach from the father of the nation - for a hundred rubles you will be imprisoned and for a million not
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 7 September 2013 10: 06
      +7
      Quote: Igarr
      Americans do not doubt a single gram that they are fully capable of opening a database against Russia. And open - if that. Because they are strong.
      And we?

      The Americans will not open a database against us until they are sure that the damage will be acceptable, because they are not in a hurry to DIE and die.
      And the acceptable damage for them is the loss of l / s on the battlefield, preferably "contactless", and not nuclear mushrooms over their cities, with millions of victims and radioactive contamination for decades. AND IT IS TRUE!
      1. Igarr
        Igarr 7 September 2013 10: 30
        +5
        Well, Boa KAA, a little bit left.
        All mines are known.
        Ajis deployed.
        Today, another moon box was dragged into space.
        We have ... again fuss with BZHDK only begins.
        Acceptable damage?
        Well, yes, "Indian Axes" are pricey. For the USA. But the Arabs from Kuwait are ready to pay. More pieces for 5 "axes".
        At the same time, the whole gang-fraternity is deployed from the Middle East to us. And here we have - ..lafah, the gang-brethren from Central Asia graze - do not grieve my mother.
        ..
        It remains only to hope that at least the rocket launchers will not fail.
        Ascetic, ay-oo-oo
        Fail, no?
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 7 September 2013 13: 45
          +2
          Quote: Igarr
          Well, Boa KAA, a little bit left.
          All mines are known. Ajis deployed.

          Igor, have all the Freight One MBR and RPKSN been tracked? And what will happen if a high-altitude JV? How exactly will Axes fly only on TERKOM? without GPS? Well, a bunch of other "smart" questions can be asked.
          I agree with one thing: amers feel that time is running out, influence is melting, the PRC is stepping on its heels, Russia is rising, Iran is growing and will soon become too tough for Israel. Sashka correctly noted that they need a small victorious war in the BV, and we do not allow Assad to be eaten, together with the PRC we do not allow the Armory Lobby to write off debts and earn extra money. They will not turn against us until the conditions of "impunity" emerge. And here is the bummer: Pu does not wag his tail, strengthens the defense, makes friends with the Khintsy, enjoys authority in the mn arena.
          Poor Barack was between a rock and a hard place. It seems to me that Pu is trying to help him out of this situation without losing face. Let's see what happens.
      2. sashka
        sashka 7 September 2013 11: 37
        +1
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        And the acceptable damage for them is the loss of l / s on the battlefield, preferably "contactless",

        The damage to them is not in their lives .. In the number of loans and (but everything else is not important). In order to boost the economy, a small victorious war is always needed. Alphabetical Truths ..
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 7 September 2013 13: 07
          +3
          Quote: Sasha
          In order to boost the economy, we always need a small victorious war. Alphabetical Truths ..

          Do you think this can be done with a nuclear power? And offer primers to those who only know how to gossip about gays. They teach political economy.

          Quote: Sasha
          Damage to them is not in their lives.

          Oh oh They do not consider other people's dead bodies, but they are very sensitive to their own. American politicians too. The backstage is strong, but they are not particularly in a hurry to die either.
  • Nick888
    Nick888 7 September 2013 07: 37
    +1
    To reach this, 2020. I’m constantly monitoring the weapons development program until 2020. I agree with the expert about the field of conventional weapons, while there is hope for pro / air defense and strategic nuclear forces.
    But what about the 250 army? Comparison with Belgium - is it taking into account the territory and our army, or how did he compare it?
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 7 September 2013 12: 52
      +7
      Quote: Nick888
      But what about the 250 army? Comparison with Belgium - is it taking into account the territory and our army, or how did he compare it?

      What do the Amerov begs say? Oksh - this is their business and PR. But what our experts say, I personally do not care.
      So. Sivkov (Constitutional Court) opened the veil from the question of which war we are preparing for. One global, 1 local, 2 armed conflict of low intensity ... That's it, maybe even a local war needs 500 people, and we, according to the Constitutional Court, can only expose 250 people. What to say? It seems to me that the COP thinks in terms of the Vietnam War, and not the Anglo-Argentine conflict (1982), when 1 is English. the paratrooper in terms of equipment and combat potential was equal to 8 to Argentinean soldiers. Therefore, a direct comparison is sometimes inappropriate. The combat power of a single soldier is growing, the adversary is faster, and this is sad, especially in real-time database management on the battlefield.
      BUT we are protected from the "bearers of democracy" by a nuclear umbrella. This invention is not ours, but British. It allows you to save and redistribute funds for science-intensive and strategically important areas of the construction of the Armed Forces: fleet, aviation, Strategic Missile Forces, air defense-missile defense, armored and engineer troops, communications, etc.
      Dempsey did not rank us in the category of superior powers in conventional weapons. The COP confirmed that this is so. But our Supreme Commander looks calm, moreover, he says openly "there are options for an answer." And so it is. Then the question is: why do we need an army during the Vietnam War? let's build a new, 21st century.
      Comparison with Belgium is incorrect, since we are able to pile on the entire Euro-NATE (without the USA, of course) and they know about it. And the calculation of the number of soldiers and tanks per sq km ??? Then it’s better to compare with Costa Rica!
      And further. Korotchenko has a more methodically competent approach, although I personally am not particularly ... So. Forces are built for tasks. It is preferable to repulse aggression in an engineered position (territory) at least 3 times. This means that less energy is needed, more funds will be used to boost the economy and social sphere.
      PS. For those who think independently: There has been an infa about the deployment of Voronezh-DM type radars every 1000 km along the border. Maybe that's why GDP is so calm?
      1. JonnyT
        JonnyT 7 September 2013 16: 11
        +2
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        There was an info on the deployment of Voronezh-DM type radars every 1000 km along the border. Maybe that's why GDP is so calm

        I heard something like that .....
        Plus, now the last years as 1.5-2 are just a boom in microelectronics ... and the customer is everywhere MO ... but it all started after Georgia ......

        And on the topic ... maybe our hardware is old ..... but fire control systems are not very bad and often simply exceed foreign capabilities ....

        PS
        Countries that possess the latest technologies and are able to implement them can always provide worthy resistance to the aggressor
      2. PSih2097
        PSih2097 7 September 2013 22: 50
        +2
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        Then it’s better to compare with Costa Rica!

        I think it’s better with Cuba, those in a dangerous period can pile on all of South America (they look very much like us) ...
    2. aviamed90
      aviamed90 7 September 2013 13: 52
      +4
      Nick888

      "I would like to reach this 2020."

      And in 2020, they will come up with a program until 2040.
  • poccinin
    poccinin 7 September 2013 07: 38
    +3
    Well, we'll see. What will be the score. By the teeth. The Russian fleet can give. Unambiguously.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 7 September 2013 10: 14
      +7
      Quote: poccinin
      . on the teeth. THE FLOT OF RUSSIA can give. unequivocally.

      Undoubtedly! Many people see the surface of the "iceberg" of our fleet, forgetting about its underwater part. And there there are excellent cars, no worse than amerovsky, and in many respects even better (starting with 971 and 949 projects)
      One misfortune: there are not enough of them yet, since the EBN and K * have stolen from us 20 years of progressive development in all areas, including and strengthening the armed forces.
  • Krsk
    Krsk 7 September 2013 07: 38
    +4
    After the "pearl" of theirs MO about Russia's arming the "bloody regime" in Syria with chemical weapons, I think the contacts of the Pentagon with the sane population of planet Earth can be considered over.
  • Far East
    Far East 7 September 2013 07: 42
    +3
    how many comments! Well, let’s try! speak, and I can! let them think so! hi
  • shurup
    shurup 7 September 2013 07: 51
    -4
    I do not agree with Sivkov.
    Moscow and the region can exhibit a million staunch, seasoned, politically literate fighters in personal jeeps and equipped at their own expense.
    What can be opposed to two hundred and fifty thousand jeeps with machine guns and grenade launchers?
    It will be a big trophy.
    1. aviamed90
      aviamed90 7 September 2013 16: 09
      +3
      shurup

      "What can be opposed to two hundred and fifty thousand jeeps with machine guns and grenade launchers?"


      The same number of gays on "Harleys" and "Hummers" carrying "love and democracy."

      This will be a bitch!
      1. poquello
        poquello 8 September 2013 03: 32
        +1
        Quote: aviamed90
        shurup

        "What can be opposed to two hundred and fifty thousand jeeps with machine guns and grenade launchers?"


        The same number of gays on "Harleys" and "Hummers" carrying "love and democracy."

        This will be a bitch!

        It didn’t. Those who are in Harley with hammers will step up their asses, and with the Georgians we will not be you.
    2. baltika-18
      baltika-18 8 September 2013 11: 17
      0
      Quote: shurup
      Moscow and the region can exhibit a million staunch, seasoned, politically literate fighters in personal jeeps and equipped at their own expense.

      This is pearl. laughing
      Are you joking?
      1. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 8 September 2013 11: 34
        +3
        Quote: baltika-18
        Quote: shurup
        Moscow and the region can exhibit a million staunch, seasoned, politically literate fighters in personal jeeps and equipped at their own expense.
        This is pearl.
        Are you joking?

        So everything is logical.
        If there are Black Waters and other private armies on the other side, why shouldn't all these "masters of life" prove that it is possible not only in Russia to drive jeepars and shoot in the air. There is a chance to excel in the patriotic field. laughing
  • Dimy4
    Dimy4 7 September 2013 07: 53
    +1
    The American clearly wants to fight with us, and win, and get the laurels of the first and only winner of the Russian army. But with one condition - that we do not have nuclear weapons.
  • Garrin
    Garrin 7 September 2013 08: 01
    +4
    Russia's nuclear arsenal allows it to position itself as a superpower, but in the field of conventional weapons it does not fall into this category

    Let her better remember how recently their diligent students with their own weapons and instructors in Georgia were driven.
    1. Dimok
      Dimok 7 September 2013 20: 22
      +1
      Now, until the end of the century, we will boast of these victories over the Georgians.
      How tired of that already. Just as tired of all these hat-thinking moods.
      At 41, they also believed that we would fight with little blood on a foreign land. And they got it so that until 42 they could not come to their senses. But if then the Germans got rid of and hit the hat, now I don’t think that we can repeat this with the Americans. With blood we wash them well. But there will be no assault on Washington and the tricolor over Congress. For nothing!
      1. Vasilenko Vladimir
        Vasilenko Vladimir 7 September 2013 21: 32
        +1
        Quote: DimOK
        But there will be no assault on Washington and the tricolor over Congress. For nothing!

        in what sense is there nothing?
        It’s unlikely that they will unleash a war against Russia, well, if there are any brains, this is the surest and most effective way to restore the Empire and unite everything that has collapsed.
        for them, the best option is to poison little bites little by little
  • Troy
    Troy 7 September 2013 08: 02
    10
    Most importantly, men, so that they do not appoint a new Serdyukov, and so you look and we will extend the defense to the desired level.
    ps Serdyukov on an aspen and knotty stake with a twist am
    1. max702
      max702 7 September 2013 15: 13
      +4
      Her, all charges were dropped from him and the flasher was donated by the non-current Minister of Defense, wait, the time will come and they will say that under the guise of theft of Serdyukov he was withdrawing funds for the development of the country's defense capability, such that the Western controllers would not suspect anything. but we didn’t even know about the exploit’s exploit .. and I almost forgot to bring Chubais and others to that category as well .. well, those on the Forbes list ...
      1. Denis
        Denis 7 September 2013 15: 36
        +7
        Quote: max702
        Chubais and others will also fall into this category .. well, those on the Forbes list ...
        Yes, even in the Velvet book, textbooks and portraits on each wall
        BUT FIRST HANG!
        1. max702
          max702 8 September 2013 00: 25
          0
          Yes, for such a "miscarriage of justice" I am in favor of both! good
          1. stalkerwalker
            stalkerwalker 8 September 2013 16: 23
            +3
            Quote: max702
            Yes, for such a "miscarriage of justice" I am in favor of both!

            Paint your nails with a rainbow and send it to the Dutch Liberals.
            Cruel, of course, but not to death. wassat
  • Cpa
    Cpa 7 September 2013 08: 05
    +5
    As far as I remember from history, the tiny Belgian army lasted several days against the Nazi forces, several times superior in number, while the largest European countries were broken by the onslaught.
    So not everything is so simple in comparisons.
  • saag
    saag 7 September 2013 08: 08
    +4
    Quote: shurup
    I do not agree with Sivkov.
    Moscow and the region can exhibit a million staunch, seasoned, politically literate fighters in personal jeeps and equipped at their own expense.
    What can be opposed to two hundred and fifty thousand jeeps with machine guns and grenade launchers?
    It will be a big trophy.

    "Send urgently five motorcycles with machine guns ..." (C) "Master and Margarita"
  • left-wing
    left-wing 7 September 2013 08: 11
    +5
    This report was made to reassure themselves: "So they counted the weapons, we have more of them, so the ships, too, are more, they will not use nuclear weapons. Victory is ours!" But they forget that Hitler also calculated everything, that our army and equipment are worse and everyone remembers how it ended up. To all this there is one wonderful answer from the poet Fyodor Tyutchev:
    Mind does not understand Russia,
    No yardstick to measure:
    She has a special feature -
    You can only believe in Russia.
  • SPACE
    SPACE 7 September 2013 08: 24
    10
    There is no point in arguing about what is not, in principle, it will not, and by and large it is not necessary, it is about parity with a likely adversary in conventional means. One must live according to financial capabilities in accordance with this and have an army, in addition, in the age of missiles and nuclear weapons it is stupid to send people to hell. But the asymmetric answer in the form of tactical nuclear weapons fits perfectly. I am sure, at 100%, that in the event of a retaliatory measure, the use of such means, even against ordinary forces, will not cause them to engage strategic potential. Therefore, we must often openly talk about it, so that there is no surprise.
  • Lyokha79
    Lyokha79 7 September 2013 08: 36
    12
    “I would say that Russia is not part of the“ middle-power ”powers, if we take the ratio of military potential and area. Russia is at the level of Belgium, ”Sivkov told the VZGLYAD newspaper.
    Today, with full mobilization of troops, Russia can create a group of no more than 250 thousand people, ”the expert said.
    The expert catches up horror. For local conflicts, those forces that are there are enough, and for a big war there is a mob. reserve. About our ships off the coast of Syria, they are not there to fight the Americans, but to deliver weapons, the possible evacuation of our citizens and, possibly, to strengthen Syrian air defense. And the Americans will not sink our ships. Striking our ship is tantamount to declaring war, and if this happens, the country's leadership has the right to use any forces and means, including nuclear ones.
  • Vilor
    Vilor 7 September 2013 08: 36
    +3
    Well, do not roll bags, as they say. The only question is, that the Americans won at least one war? It seems fashionable to talk about 250 thousand now. Yesterday I read at Mokrushin's, what the hell wrote on facebook that 250 thousand soldiers were also brought to Moscow for voting, this is not by chance the same 'expert'. Of course, I understand that not everything is perfect with us, but nevertheless we are still moving forward. Well, I'll also add, Hitler, Napoleon, etc., etc. also talked a lot and wanted a lot. So at least they really had Armies that knew how to fight, to fight, and these are warriors, they don't know how to do anything, but they want to get in everywhere.
  • borisjdin1957
    borisjdin1957 7 September 2013 08: 39
    +5
    from Don

    Normal article. Let him down from heaven to earth! We still have a lot of work to do, prisychut variegated: bacon:, deal with the financing of the military-industrial complex ......... Delov above the roof!
  • varov14
    varov14 7 September 2013 08: 51
    +9
    We must assume that it was written about the Moscow millionth army with humor, as it will explode in its jeeps across Europe to its household members. But to deal with your inner crap before it leaks to the amers there will be a chance.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • lewerlin53rus
    lewerlin53rus 7 September 2013 09: 12
    +5
    I wonder how much will remain of the American group after these 20 minutes, or do they think that our sailors will stand like a firing squad? I do not argue that they will be able to quickly destroy our naval group. But I wonder if this Napoleon counted from SyShyA, how much will remain of their fleet? Or did he forget about such a concept as unacceptable losses? And how events will develop further.
  • ZeroFact
    ZeroFact 7 September 2013 09: 14
    +3
    If we compare only the quantitative component, not counting the quality of weapons and soldiers, we must bear in mind that the American zone of responsibility is the whole world: you must have fleets (at least 1) in the Pacific, Indian, Atlantic oceans, and be able to insure US interests even in 1 one local war on the other side of the earth (Latin America, for example). It’s unlikely that you can pull everyone into 1 fist.
  • andruha70
    andruha70 7 September 2013 09: 19
    11
    Russian cruiser, accompanied by two cover ships, in case the Americans decide to strike at them, “they will be destroyed within 20 minutes”
    Of course, I’m not tactig and not stratek smile but some kind of strange logic. a machine-gun pillbox, with a calculation of 2-3 people, can also be destroyed in ... eleven minutes, fitting, for example, a tank, but how many infantry will fly before it. on a cruiser, these 20 minutes aren’t only after all, gulls will be considered on the cabin next to a floating atomic ship laughing and there’s no reason to chew and cry snot, but you need to quietly, calmly, intently update and build up the military component of the country. Which has been observed in recent years. Yes, I agree, slowly, but not yet evening wink Russian man harnesses for a long time, but he goes fast.
  • Semyon Albertovich
    Semyon Albertovich 7 September 2013 09: 31
    +6
    In order for the Shtatovites to have no illusions of superiority in the military field and not to have the adventurous idea of ​​conquering Russia by military means, it is necessary to increase the arsenal of nuclear ammunition by ten times (for each aircraft carrier two missiles, even an explosion a few kilometers from it will produce 100% destruction) and immediately state generals will diminish optimism to fight. No wonder the United States surrounds Russia with missile defense and puts pressure on it to reduce nuclear arsenals.
    1. Gato
      Gato 7 September 2013 13: 47
      +3
      Quote: Semyon Albertovich
      a tenfold increase in the arsenal of nuclear weapons

      belay
      Calculate how many orders of magnitude your family budget will decrease in this case.
      1. Mature naturalist
        Mature naturalist 7 September 2013 19: 58
        +4
        Quote: Gato
        Calculate how many orders of magnitude your family budget will decrease in this case.

        Not at all. The money allocated for the production of additional weapons will eventually come as a salary to employees of the main enterprises and related enterprises. Then, through the stores, the purchases will go to the rest. If only they stayed in the country.
  • them
    them 7 September 2013 09: 39
    +8
    I put the article +. Although, in my opinion, there are controversial points. Not so long ago, NATO conducted command exercises on a massive attack on the Russian Federation and immediately announced that it had suppressed all life on our territory in three days. Then, after a while, the so-called independent experts from Europe suddenly admitted , which was initially taken for granted, that our air defense will oversleep the attack. Even so, 80% of NATO attacking equipment will be burned in the air by our air defense systems on the first day. What will they be fighting for another two days? This is about protecting your territory. But "on the road," it seems to me, we are still weak. Thank you for that Yeltsin and Gorbachev. This, of course, is not a reason to leave Syria, but “it’s too early to drown AUGs.
  • Docklishin
    Docklishin 7 September 2013 09: 50
    10
    angry Offer - to clone Comrade Stalin in the nth number and put 1 in each region as the head of municipalities .... After one, two five-year plans, everything will work out. Well, if it’s serious, then it’s not x .... not funny. How much you can steal. Democracy, democracy ... Ugh mother ...
  • Ruslan_F38
    Ruslan_F38 7 September 2013 10: 03
    0
    As for the Russian cruiser sent to the coast of Syria, accompanied by two cover ships, if the Americans decide to strike at them, "they will be destroyed within 20 minutes."

    Twenty minutes is unlikely. But even so, if so, I think the Cruiser will take with him more than one American ship, and maybe the aircraft carrier will sink.
  • saag
    saag 7 September 2013 10: 05
    +5
    Quote: DocKlishin
    angry Offer - to clone Comrade Stalin in the nth number and put 1 in each region as the head of municipalities .... After one, two five-year plans, everything will work out. Well, if it’s serious, then it’s not x .... not funny. How much you can steal. Democracy, democracy ... Ugh mother ...

    I am always surprised by such comments - like Stalin, everything will work out here, and no one wonders how he appeared, as a result, and under what conditions, before he had an idea, they started to implement this idea and only then he appeared, so I recommend that all nostalgic people think about the formulation of the basis - the idea.
    1. Docklishin
      Docklishin 7 September 2013 11: 48
      +4
      You are right, of course - you can't argue. There is no nostalgia, and Stalin's persona is historically ambiguous. However, the POLITICAL situation in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century and at the turn of the 90-20s was not very different. History repeats itself in a spiral. And the basis ... we cannot walk along the democratic path that way. "The Tsar needs a father" - it's an authoritarian way of government. Yes, and some idea. And so confusion and vacillation. My hut is on the edge, I don't know anyone. hi
  • Radoslav
    Radoslav 7 September 2013 10: 12
    +2
    Hitler also wanted to destroy Soviet Russia in one month, but as it turned out everyone knows, I am also an expert and declare that the American fleet will be destroyed by the Russian fleet in 10 minutes.
  • saag
    saag 7 September 2013 10: 19
    +1
    I am more interested in this: if the Americans arrange a provocation against the Russian fleet, and not with their own hands as usual, well, look at how Russia will lead in such a situation, what will be the answer or the order will be given as in 41 "Don't give in to provocations"?
    1. dmitry_den
      dmitry_den 7 September 2013 12: 20
      0
      "if the Americans arrange a provocation against the Russian fleet"

      Destruction Cole destroyer: US Navy power and vulnerability

      http://topwar.ru/32711-podryv-esminca-koul-mosch-i-uyazvimost-vms-ssha.html
  • Pavlov A.E.
    Pavlov A.E. 7 September 2013 10: 24
    +5
    As long as there are RUSSIAN we can defeat all, and maybe not right away, Our memory of the deeds of grandfathers is alive.
  • Muadipus
    Muadipus 7 September 2013 10: 37
    +3
    Article Trundezh and provocation.
    Who will start to drown whom first, then these 20 minutes.

    Georgia in 2008 also bought fashionable gadgets and considered itself equipped with the latest technology, but only could not buy an "iron point". We know the result.

    Americans always fight for a grandmother, And Russians "For Faith, For Tsar"

    Our history is filled with glorious victories - we are a victorious people, even with a rocket, even with a shovel.
    But the Americans themselves did not win a single war.

    etc. etc. everything has already been said before .. Only Chuck Noris will save the Americans, but he is already old.
    1. orek
      orek 7 September 2013 11: 53
      +4
      Article Trundezh and provocation.
      Who will start to drown whom first, then these 20 minutes.
      Georgia in 2008 also bought fashionable gadgets and considered itself equipped with the latest technology, but only could not buy an "iron point". We know the result.
      Americans always fight for a grandmother, And Russians "For Faith, For Tsar"


      URA-PATRIOTISM - an expression of love for the fatherland is not in fact, but in words in the form of persistent, noisy demonstrative assurances. The diagnosis, my friend.
      1. Troy
        Troy 7 September 2013 12: 03
        +1
        I’m not my friend, this is first. Secondly, where did this definition come from? And what do you know about my affairs to give out such characteristics?
      2. Muadipus
        Muadipus 7 September 2013 14: 03
        +3
        Patriotism is not a diagnosis. But total sclerosis of a national scale - yes. I understand that the story was stolen from the Ukrainians, or rather slipped a lie. But anyway, we are one people and our common victories. But they are.

        Regarding patriotism-- In war, there is only one weapon - this is the belief in victory backed by skill.

        Amer, yes manned, but they also know that Russians without a head in the event of a real confrontation, the Russians will not flinch. and the USA? She never waged a war on an equal footing, especially with a superior opponent. rockets run out and start to drape.

        About 20 minutes is far from a fact! Unless you take a massive missile strike and so that we already have something to fight back. With the same success, we can say that our 1 Northwind in 10 minutes is able to sink their entire group. After all, maybe .. but will they give it ???

        The article is clearly in the furnace.
    2. Gato
      Gato 7 September 2013 13: 50
      +3
      Quote: Muadipus
      Americans always fight for a grandmother, And Russians "For Faith, For Tsar"

      laughing Pleased, dear ..
  • Zomanus
    Zomanus 7 September 2013 10: 41
    +3
    There are no ships, so you need to think about ballistic anti-ship missiles. And this is the withdrawal from the agreement on medium-range missiles, the deployment of a satellite target designation system. And yes, even if we put dofig amers on the sea, they can still recover sooner than we do. But the spirit without glands does not solve much, and besides, do many have this spirit? Because they developed technologies for building the fleet, while we developed technologies for cutting. And yes, the Mace did not fly, but a bummer ...
    1. poquello
      poquello 8 September 2013 03: 54
      +1
      Quote: Zomanus
      There are no ships, so you need to think about ballistic anti-ship missiles. And this is the withdrawal from the agreement on medium-range missiles, the deployment of a satellite target designation system. And yes, even if we put dofig amers on the sea, they can still recover sooner than we do. But the spirit without glands does not solve much, and besides, do many have this spirit? Because they developed technologies for building the fleet, while we developed technologies for cutting. And yes, the Mace did not fly, but a bummer ...

      The ballistic Chinese did, they are not bound by a treaty. Speak with the help of our specialists
  • HERMAJOR4IK
    HERMAJOR4IK 7 September 2013 10: 41
    +3
    this Sivkov is just a really puffing dummy = a serious specialist can’t carry such rubbish and drive such a frank sack = the Northern Fleet is the most powerful in the Russian Navy in terms of combat capabilities, it is approximately equal to the British fleet, even a little stronger (well, it’s clear that the British fleet is now not very powerful but quite serious force) and to say that he can counteract only one strike carrier group of the American Navi (usually consisting of one aircraft carrier and a couple of UO destroyers as the main surface forces) can only outright hollow shell) amers have six fleets (of which there are only 10 aircraft carriers) each individually approximately equal in strength to the Northern Fleet = the Baltic Fleet is really weak much weaker, for example, the Turkish Fleet = the Black Sea Fleet is approximately equal in strength to the Turkish Fleet but from the combat power of the Northern Fleet it is about a third that is three times weaker than the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet Russian Navy is slightly inferior to the Northern Fleet but overall let's face it = what do we have in the bottom line against six US Navy fleets? and the fact that the modern Russian Navy is three times weaker than the American Navy and the main problem in the possible confrontation with the American Navy is the fragmentation of our naval forces and the inability to concentrate them in real time for most effective use
  • Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 7 September 2013 10: 54
    +2
    Quote: "if the Americans decide to strike at them," they will be destroyed within 20 minutes. " Primitive reasoning. Ships in the Mediterranean have global nuclear missile weapons in their rear. One can imagine how many minutes an aggressor will be destroyed, who dares to attack Russian ships. Elementary arithmetic does not work here. It is impossible to compare the combat capabilities of fleets with a formal comparison of the number of ships. In any case, the whole complex of the Russian nuclear triad must be taken into account.
  • EGORKA
    EGORKA 7 September 2013 10: 58
    +3
    God forbid, by 2020 we will carry out rearmament and we will have enough army to solve our problems. Yes, in the field of conventional weapons America is stronger, but there is a moment that we have no plans how they have to bring democracy to everyone and be aggressors, but to protect our army should have enough land for us, moreover, it seems to me that the West does not have enough forces for a ground operation against us, this is not to bomb the "Papuans".
  • KononAV
    KononAV 7 September 2013 11: 03
    0
    The article did not give answers.
  • shark
    shark 7 September 2013 11: 14
    +1
    Amers can make forecasts, make calculations, count the number of tanks and helicopters as much as they like. They don’t take into account one of our people. They will turn up, we will cut them like sheep at the same hatred. I’m ready to tear them up even if they’re also for me come home-tear.
    1. aviamed90
      aviamed90 7 September 2013 12: 08
      +2
      shark

      What exactly do you offer?
  • mitya24
    mitya24 7 September 2013 11: 16
    +4
    Dear forum users, this is what I’m thinking about.
    1) It is necessary to compare the military potential of Russia not only with the Amerovian one, but with the entire aggregate natiform. Because in the case of kipish we don’t have allies at all, we are alone. (China’s position is rather muddy). On the same Black Sea, our fleet is not even comparable with Turkish, not that with Amerovsky. Only for aircraft carriers. We don’t have them (Kuznetsov is a pre-aircraft carrier compared to Amer’s percussion forces of 100 thousand tons). Amers have TEN + Frances de Gol + shaving. On missile cruisers. We have three or four; only amers have 22 ticonderogi. Well, etc. etc.
    2) What would be necessary to catch them up for a hundred years and FIG knows how much money. We have neither one nor the other.
    3) From here the conclusion is to hold on to nuclear weapons. It will be developed and modernized.
    4) God forbid to get involved in the race of conventional weapons. We can’t stand it and get December 7, 1991 only with an amendment to the name of the country not of the USSR but of the Russian Federation.
    And so Putin is handsome. It’s very hard for him now. It is even visible in his face.
  • Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 7 September 2013 11: 16
    +1
    We should not be equal with the United States in the armament of the army, nor in the size and armament of the Navy ... why on earth ?! What for? We must achieve such a situation that in a collision with their army and navy we achieve victory. These tasks are not close to one another. Why do we need American gadgets? Most of them are high-tech sling cutters, which are discussed in detail in some article here. Beautiful, expensive, technological ... nobody cares for anyone, burdening the fighter completely useless stupid otreblenki.
    Well, here's the same Navy. What is a battleship? It is a means of delivering weapons and surveillance equipment by sea. Hence the question - why so big? It used to take thousands of people to service weapons. And now? The USSR took a couple of steps in this, of course, the right direction. No one will cancel the naval inverse proportion - the combat effectiveness of a ship is inversely proportional to its size. Why do we need Nimitz in packs? We need containers with autonomous missile systems! In terms of price and efficiency, this is exactly what will fully cover the "American superiority". Yes, all this beauty type: "bim-bom-brahmsel!" "alignment with the flag!" "to whistle all where the realties" these non-dressy things will not do, sadness. And the admiral's position at the park of dead toys is difficult to knock out ...
    But if we want to win, there is no way out ...
    1. Gato
      Gato 7 September 2013 13: 59
      +3
      Quote: Mikhail3
      No one will cancel the naval inverse proportion - the combat effectiveness of the ship is inversely proportional to its size.

      belay
      Well, what academies teach this? It’s even somehow scary to imagine the combat effectiveness of the motor boat "Progress"
      1. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 7 September 2013 17: 45
        0
        And you look at the statistics.