Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

[Lori]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Germans are one of the only people in Western Europe with actual honor. Bravo.


We should be replacing our BTRs not upgrading them. They are infamous death traps and are very poorly designed APCs. Soviet armored technology stopped being innovative around 1970.The only perk that the BTR-80 has is the fact that it is spacious. Engine placement and its exits ensure death of the crew and any troops attempting to exit the vehicle in combat. That is why you see troops ride on top of the BTR instead of inside of it. The vehicle is also just as bad as the BMP when it comes to protection against mines. The Russians crossed out these issues when they designed the Bumerang, its engines are placed in the front allowing for a rear exit for troops.

The Russian Defense Industry has viable alternatives like the ATOM IFV.

[armnuke]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

^^^why did soviet armor tech. stop being innovative after 1970 and how?

[ASALA2116]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Who today remembers the Armenian Genocide ? Well sorry to break it to you Hitler, your own people do.

[Lori]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

^^^why did soviet armor tech. stop being innovative after 1970 and how?

After the production of the T72 or perhaps the T-64, Soviet MBTs began sharing much of the same qualities. They really just built things based off of previous designs that either improved the armored forces quality or degraded it. The BTR series is a perfect example. Look at its progression.

Side note: I forgot to mention the infamous jack in the box/kremlin cooker effect that has made the T64, T72, and T80 infamous. This major design flaw was retained despite all the new designs.

The Soviets failed to actually addressed the major design flaws in most of their APC series by doing this. They did the same with the BMP. The disparity between BMP-1 and the BMP-2 is not as large as the disparity between the BMP-2 and BMP-3. (Post-Soviet design).

After 1970 Soviet designs were mostly based off of previous designs, and at the same time the Soviets failed to address major design flaws. Leading to a sort of continuity of flaws.

It would be beneficial for our army if they dumped the whole "heavy MG APC" concept as that is quite archaic today. We see that this is being recognized by most states as the M113 and BTR-80 variant are being phased out or are having their MGs replace with 30mm guns and weapon stations. The ATOM has a 57mm autocannon (derived from AZP S-60 AA gun), which is an absolute beast.

[Hakob]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Who today remembers the Armenian Genocide ? Well sorry to break it to you Hitler, your own people do.

Bravo, Asala.
You hit it square in the center. Lool

[Vrej1915]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

[Vrej1915]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

[AbuSindi]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Thank you for replying Lori. However, your reasoning is highly flawed. With all due respect, the argument you are presenting is that of a defeatist. Let me briefly touch up on a few of the claims you make.

We don't have to "trust" the Azeris in order to have peace. We have a mutual defense agreement with the most powerful country in the region. Trust is not a factor, our security apparatus is. Again, incorporating Artsakh into Armenia will bring it under this umbrella. I don't know how many times I gonna have to repeat this.

You claim trust is not a factor. However, trust is a huge factor. Why do you think almost every peace plan had, in some shape or form, incorporated confidence/trust building measures? If there is no trust the border remains militarized which leads to skirmishes or possibly even war.

Secondly, we cannot rely on our mutual defense agreement with Russia. We must first and foremost, rely on ourselves and the strength of our military. At this point, there is a strong reason to doubt Russian intervention in the case a war erupts.

June 5, 2014 - Andranik Yeghoyan, 26, and Boris Gasparyan, 22, were killed after Azerbaijani forces began shelling at the Armenia-Nakhichevan border.

June 26, 2015 - Arman Yepremian was killed after Azerbaijani forces fired from the territory of Nakhichevan at Armenian positions near the village of Gorayk in Syunik region by using large caliber weapons.

September 1, 2015 - Armenian contract soldiers Vladimir Aram Gevorgyan and Gor Hambardzum Gevorgyan were wounded after the Azerbaijani side fired at Aygepar and Chinari villages in Armenia's Tavush province.

Septrmber 25, 2015 - Three civilians were killed and at least two others were injured in shelling conducted by Azeri military forces in the villages of Berdavan and Parvakar in the Tavush province.

I can give you dozens of more examples of Azerbaijan attacking Armenian territory, but this should be enough. Now remember that "mutual defense agreement with the most powerful country in the region?" Russia did not intervene, provide an official condemnation of the aggression, or release a stern warning to Azerbaijan. Yet, you feel that territories must be conceded, even if we don't trust that the enemy won't attack us again, because we have a security apparatus we can depend on. This security apparatus has failed to defend us before. You see how this doesn't make sense?

The Azeris will not accept just letting 10-14 percent of their official territory go, that is given. I believe the time when states could just take land from one another during war is now over, we have international law and restrictions that regulate this. A compromise is in order.

Whether they accept it or not doesn't matter. What does matter is that the majority of OUR population will not accept conceding these territories to Azerbaijan and placing tens, and perhaps even hundreds of thousands of lives at risk. What you are suggesting is downright appeasement. It is a suggestion to appease Azerbaijan because they will not accept the loss of territories. As far as International law is concerned, it can be bended. This has been proven countless times. Does the international law not apply to Israel when they demolish Palestinian homes and replace it with Jewish settlements? What about the illegal blockade of Armenia by Turkey? Has the international law/community done anything about that? Of course they haven't.

You say this as if I just want us to give them land and thats it. You also imply that they aren't already close to major population centers in Armenia. Giving them the southern regions of NKR in exchange for political peace (And perhaps Shahumyan) is a much better alternative then phased settlement or Western plans for the region. (Maintaining post-Soviet borders)

You give them an inch they will ask for a foot. You give them a foot they'll ask for a mile. Remember this! Now regarding your statement about them already being in close proximity to major population centers in Armenia. You're suggesting that since they're already close to certain densely populated villages/cities, it's okay to give them more. This is absurd. Look at the first part of this post. See what happened in Gorayk, Aygepar, Chinari, Berdavan, Parvakar, etc.? This completely proves my point and demolishes yours. We cannot afford to bring them closer to our populated areas. On the contrary, we should push them back about another 25-75 km from the line of contact to create a larger distance between them and our settlements.

I don't mean this as an insult to you, but you have a defeatist attitude. I have not doubt in my mind that you're patriotic and you want what is best for us. I know your intentions are pure, but even though you want what's best, the position you are supporting is not optimal for us. I suggest you reevaluate your position and not just look at things from the surface. The only solution at this point is to take a hardline stance. We must fortify our positions, acquire arms, carry out preemptive strikes when necessary, build a professional and powerful army, and dictate our own terms. This will destroy Azeri hopes for military success. When their hopes for military success fades, accommodation will become more attractive to them than war. They will return to negotiations with their tail between their legs and their ears hung low (just as they did in 1994) and we can work out a deal on our terms.

[bayhye]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

we can work out a deal on our terms.

What would those terms look like? I've watched this whole back and forth silently, but I think Lori's primary point is that we need to get recognition and peace for prosperity, and we're not going to get those things without concessions on both sides. Wisely, here we have pointed out time and again that a unilateral concession of land is pointless, and that any concession of land could lead to further concessions as an inch gives license for a mile... but then, what will it be? Status quo 'favors' us but only for a short period of time. It's hard enough to get people to stay in Yerevan, who is going to raise a family these days in Talish or Martakert? So what are possible resolutions? I can list these:

>We can hope the Azeri government crumbles, and a new government sues for peace. Seems like an unlikely first move for a new government trying to consolidate support.
>We can hope Turkey crumbles, and the Kurds take over Western Armenia and cut off the Azeris from their patron state (but that would ironically force the Azeris to take an even more totalitarian approach to preserving their hinterlands).
>We can wage total warfare and cause so much destruction and death that the Azeris are forced to recognize NK. This is mutual self-destruction and would not end well for either country.
>We can trade land for peace, and then not rely on international peacekeepers but create a new Maginot line of fortifications that can't be breached by tank/infantry. Medium range missiles and artillery make that a pointless exercise.

So, since all of these are fantasy or not even resolutions, it looks like we are just stuck? In which case we just sit tight on the lands in a continuous war of attrition and just hope something else happens that introduces a new option for resolution?

[burjuin]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Առաջնագծի զինվորները