VladimirTarasov

Training: He shot to make us use to working under intensive situations. Our training is very brutal, especially the running. Training is probably harder than actually going to war Thinking on the go: well it is true that our decision making is usually left to the upper ranks, and is centralized on that. But that's just our doctrine, it might be less flexible in the awareness factor. The advantage the US has in having decisions being more loosely made is as you've said, they are more flexible tactically. Not a hammer: Well COIN was an issue up to the 2000s, we learned lessons based on the Chechen wars. I can see where you have the basis to criticize our COIN ops. 1994-1996 had embarrasing results. VDV: Let me give you a plausible scenario or two where it is very useful. First scenario, following operations in Estonia, Russian VDV units are deployed on massive scale into either Russian territory next to Estonian borders (it's an example), or inside territory. Another one would be a VDV unit paradropped in large scale into east Ukraine following a successful ground offensive in (put area/city/ect) in grounds where it is deemed closest to the objective. Keep in mind the VDV can march pretty far on its own after a drop. You can drop them in friendly lines and they can operate from there, these units are highly mobile, and offer flexibility.

I understand the tree part, some map had the heavy forest tile when there were no trees and it ended total defeat. So I was wondering what it was for.

My advice: Never pick BMP-2... The gunner is always sleeping on the sight, and when he sees an enemy he doesn't want to shoot until 25mm rips him into pieces. I think there are spotting issues with the BMP-2 on a serious note. It doesn't notice armored vehicles 400 meters infront of him in open flat terrain.

Quick question regarding heavy forest tiles, how are tanks not able to move through them, is it too soft/muddy??

This is quite true for units with bad leaders. It is apparent in many cases of war. Motivation plays a huge roll to this as well. Ambushes depending on the scenario, can end very bloody. In Afghanistan some Taliban member on the mountain could blow up an IED and kill a vehicle (COIN environment) Or in high intensity wars like in Donbas, the ambush starts off with ATGM missile, or RPG, followed by heavy fire from multiple points, God forbid getting ambushed by a tank unit. Well Steve, US troops on average do have better experience, the army is basically his job/career. But experience in terms of serving wont do much other than guarantee the soldier will know what to do for sure. If the said soldier, has seen combat tours, and been in combat even once, he will have the needed experience that you are talking about. He will understand how a shoot out is, and the thing his units must do to overcome it. But if corporal Steve has been serving 3 years so far and hasn't seen action, his advantage over private Dmitrii who is about to finish his term is he's got more rounds down range, he is definitely trained longer than private Dmitrii, but depending on the situation private Dmitrii if led effectively by his SL, he will be able to compete with corporal Steve. But of course, private Dmitrii wont be able to lead his squad as effectively if a freak accident happens, and he has to take charge. Where as Corporal Steve will probably be able too. Well this is just to put it simple. Don't you agree that motivation would matter more in terms of handling stress? I'm not sure US troops would like to die for the sake of Ukraine, where as a Russian soldier would die fighting over Ukraine (well assuming it's a scenario in Ukraine) In this case, I'm sure conscripts would be able to handle stress. In Chechnya, conscripts on their own were fighting brave in the first Chechen war in many cases, even under bad leadership they still put up fights. Well now leadership is better, so it could be assumed if led effectively they can be effective don't you agree? There are alot of cases in Russian history where concsripts have been effective but there are also cases where they haven't been effective. But that's due to many other factors. (motivation, bad leadership, ill-prepared, ect. ect) But of course, on their own conscripts are not going to be used as effectively as the volunteer army the US has. Don't think that I'm glorifying conscription in a nutshell, I'm just saying if the commander gets it right, and the troops are used effectively, Conscripts are still viable soldiers.

I'm trying to argue that our training isn't bad, however I know the US on average has more advanced training in some areas. I'm trying to argue, that we'd still be able to perform as our higher tier NATO counterparts, in most areas. In some areas, for example the US soldier on average shoots more, he receives better training in some area, ect.. During my service however, in training for example in the obstacle course we were crawling below barbed wire and once we were crawling in the open field the trainer scared me to death, without warning he sprayed his AK a meter or so next to the ground I was on, and that encouraged me to crawl very fast. This is boring cadet stuff however I can't argue against this, in alot of areas this is true. But we still have the capability of thinking on the go, in many cases. For example, say a company gets flanked, the company commander will know to position the platoons, the platoon leader will know to adjust his men and armor towards the threat, and the squad leader will know to arrange his men accordingly. You work with armor we must assume you were smarter Well I'm a hammer versus infantry true, but if a tank were to show up I'm a crunchy. Well most US troops join the army as a career, and stay in for quite some time. So they can be used as multi tools more so than Russian troops, however that's not to say that we cannot act accordingly for military situations. One thing I'm sure the Russian military is jealous of (other than your advanced thermals) is the big budget you guys are blessed with. Could you give an example for a non hammer situation? I think there is a misunderstanding, I very much understand that no one is going to drop a battalion of paratroops with AA threats present. The VDV if needed to do so, can be deployed as regular mech infantry. And I'll take a look into operation market garden and varsity.

@panzersaurkrautwerfer Training stuff: I understand that the US army has advanced training I follow up on armed forces and look at their training procedures, you guys for example have something I liked very much, those full scale battle simulation things, kind of like laser tag but with real guns. We usually simulate certain situations like if we get ambushed we respond back and one of our guys gets killed or wounded and we have to deal with that ect, sometimes suprise situations, sometimes planned out. However we usually dont have a clue what we are to do during a drill(as in planned before the camera rolls), and it isn't ever planned, "snap" drill. Decision making: well I dont remember particulary down to the detail, but I stormed a building with buddies. MOUT type procedures you guys have, secured visual contact, over lapping fire control, and then we stormed. But then again you got go pro footage specifically edited to show moments of the "storm" process. Where the dude looks like a total retard not looking left or right when he enters the room while his squad follows the procedure. And there are mixed results in the Russian military even today, but it's not that widespread of a problem today. airborne ops: well to be fair in Afghanistan and Chechnya VDV were also used as mech infanty. Of course I being the pathetic cruchny I was, made the mistake of mentioning paradrops. Anyways, get to viewing the terrain ahead through your CITV, dont ask too much questions.

@Battlefront.com (Steve) I'm on the phone so I'll have to reply to you summarized, instead of quoting you. Reforms on training: Well, personally by 2011 it was understood that we are in the process of major reforms in the army, training was getting better since 2008/2009, wages increasing, everything was being improved. Basically professionalism was being brought into the armed forces by large scale. I just wish I could have been in the VDV 2014-16. Everything has been improved even compared to 2011. In regards to helping you understanding how the reforms have impacted training I can send links if I can find any in English. Small leadership: Well I've had the honor of commanding a squad, and I was very efficient in my role. What I said in terms of the reaction is just a small example, maybe I'm not being clear. Airborne deployment: well the VDV doesn't necessarily have to be paradropped, we can be deployed to airfields and work as regular ground units, especially if we have tank units attached.

It's as if there really is a bias against the Russian military here, anyways. @panzersaurkrautwerfer our drills very much did even depend on squad level decisions, the whole point of it is to test readiness and offer training experience for troops. I think you're judging the Russian military based off western reports or "analytics" of it. Conscripts serving one year terms are in drills going clearing buildings, advancing along with their formation ect. Experience: well US soldiers more or less choose the armed forces as a career, so they will be in the army longer than Russian troops in average. But trust me, if I told my squad to engage contacts, we'd be just as ready as our US colleagues. Experience does help, however our training is nothing to laugh at. I mean 6 years of service on average isn't going to make US troops whipe floor with Russian troops, if you think that... Yikes. Of course I am not dismissing the importance of having experience but war is hell, and if you've been in a shootout it wont matter how long you served you react depending on your training. Well it would matter if your a uber soldier who has seen a bunch of combat tours in heavy action, but on average, if I get shot at I'll drop on the floor return fire and look for cover, same as US troops. Airborne: You must love decharging on here, no one in the Russian military is going to send IL-76s over heavy air defense.... Its aggravating for you to say that. Obviously we arent dumb. If we cant paradrop, we'll deploy to a safe area and conduct operations from there. I just gave an example of what we did.

Yeah total dog and pony show, or you can ask me sergeant Vladimir from the papa Putin's 106th VDV division how these excercizes are. You're making bad mistakes on how these drills are, but I'm happy with NATO underestimating more so than overestimating. My unit we went through simulated ambushes, clearing buildings, ect ect. And this was before 2012 I. Of course you can argue I was in elite formations, but its not that different than what the ground forces do, other than we parachute in large scale behind enemy lines, disrupt their logistics, and cause massive havoc among the targetted units. We do have show off shows how ever these drills are not show offs, and are very much needed. As you see our troops can move thousands kilometers with success, these shows that the Russian military is very mobile we can deploy units to regions near by very quickly(Ukraine, Baltics, Caucusus, ect) How ever there are other sides to Russian drills, that you have overlooked. But those are self explantory. There are specific drills where troops storm simulated positions, and take part in simulated battles, combined arms operations. And those are more different than river crossing drills.

I believe that was Iran.

@Haiduk So you're also agreeing that Ukrainian troops made it into Crimea? You confirm the shootout, ect ect. And in the interrogations it also corresponds with what you are saying. So Ukrainian recon makes it into Russian soil, has a shootout and successfully makes it out with two officers? So all this happened, and Russia decides to issue a casus belli against Ukraine by abducting Panov, getting everything together and doing a false flag operation. Or am I missing out on something?

That was a great comparison of what happened in Crimea to heroic Russians and Ukrainians who have been captured by Fascists fighting a war against them. I'm not saying Ukrainians are chicken anyways, I said that because obviously majority of Ukrainians and Russians would rather live in the Russian Federation. There is a Crimean guy on the forum, you can ask his perspective, and the perspective of the people around him. Taking Crimea is not the same as Russia somehow got a part of Alaska because some how there is a majority of Russians there and wanted Russia and there is a history of Alaska being Russian. It's because there is an obvious disgust towards what happened in Kiev, because of not being able to have a say in what happened in Kiev and the government of the country radically did a 180 degree turn. And obviously, Russians and Ukrainians who are close to Russia, will revolt against this, the same way people in Kiev revolted against the "corrupt, bad guy" in power. I'm not saying Russia felt the need to be the good guy here, obviously there is a geopolitical war going on behind the curtain, but it was what the people of Crimea wanted. Oh yes Stalin and Putin do the same thing. Come on, If you really think Russia is against protests like Stalin was, read into the details of the protests, and maybe the laws they were breaking. This is ridiculous you just compared Putin to Stalin. I am very sure Poroshenko did not green light this plan, but someone with good connections in Ukraine. Probably the far right group, because this has got to be the worst false flag that Russia is being accused with, a good false flag would actually be letting the bomb go off and actually kill people... that's when you have anger build up in the people. In the past Ukrainian far right groups have destroyed power line to Crimea and blocked it from restoring power to Crimea, I don't see how even an event like this is blamed on Russia. The guy who arranged all this is obviously motivated against Russia. I'm not drawing conclusions, other than this is obviously not a Russian false flag.

Oh no, I think there is a misunderstanding, Minsk 2? Do you remember this? I don't have a problem with Ukraine moving in but I also don't get why Russia is being condemned for moving in to reinforce their border. Have you even looked into the evidence? It's as if you're ignoring the fact that Ukrainian citizens with a military past have been captured here. If you really think Crimea belongs to Ukraine which certain people didn't get a say in what happens, I'd like you to ask the Crimean people, who voted to leave Ukraine, and join the Russian Federation. But of course, Russians and Ukrainians in Crimea are under gun point by the Russian military, and forced to live in the Russian Federation. They are too chicken to take arms and fight the evil Russian enemy out their territory, or even mass protest. I'd like to ask what you think about this incident, and how it happened?

There isn't any laws that worry me and honestly I wouldn't care if there really were dictator style laws prohibiting me from discussing (which there isn't). Vladimir Putin has done many great things for Russia obviously, the 90s were shameful which is why he does have a good reputation. Of course normal Russians criticize his mistakes, you're acting as if we don't. Now there are some Russians on the internet that are die hard Putin fans, it's the same as die hard Trump or Clinton fans. Domestic policies of his are not bad, but he still has issues in some of his domestic policies which I've questioned. The thing that makes him stand out most in Russia is his foreign policy. Generally, everyone agrees with his foreign policy. In Russia we fund channels that provide a totally opposite perspective of the state owned channels, basically an anti-Putin's government channel. I think there is a wide misconception that Russians are being brainwashed. Well according to westerners yes but we also have access to the same information you do (internet) I personally, always supported Putin, but I know quite a few people who don't agree with him and criticize him. It's not like it is North Korea up here, and sometimes it's as if westerners think it really is a dictatorship in Russia, which is totally wrong.

To be fair to me, I never denied Russian advisors, and arms being given to DPR/LPR, the only thing I did deny was actual Russian ground troops in Ukraine fighting in structure. Well after talking with some friends, I've realized that's not true, there were battalions deployed during critical times. I am more actively reading Ukrainian articles that doesn't sound like it was written by some.... Anyways, now to Crimea, Steve, Ukraine has been always blubbering about with "We will take Crimea back!" https://news.vice.com/article/ukraines-new-president-pledges-to-retake-crimea and whatever. They move units close to the DPR/LPR lines, reinforce near Crimea, and when Russia reinforces its borders, we're evil. Now with their claims that they will take Crimea back or get it whatever, if squads of men are caught, enter a shootout, 2 of your men are killed, you capture some of them, they admit that they were ordered by some man in Ukraine who is allegedly in SBU, you have video footage showing all the equipment you have captured, one FSB operative was cutting a tire open and C4 type explosives were pulled out the tires. This shows that some of these guys are trained, if not most of them. And if this is a false flag, it is very poor and not very KGB like don't you think it would have been better if the explosions were set off, and I don't know killed some people in Crimea?

Interviews with the captured men point that it (the plan) was arranged in Ukraine. They have witnesses, they captured some guys, they have footage showing the equipment they captured, and also evidence that some guys fled into the Ukrainian border. 2 servicemen were killed. There's a bunch of theories floating around, I'm going to assume this was not something Poroshenko said "Go ahead do it" unless he's dumb enough and wants war. So far from the evidence, It's probably done by someone who is in the SBU or has good connections in Ukraine, he organized some trained men and sent them through to do some damage. Anyways, I'm not the guy who's investigating this, so I'll just leave it to that guy.

I see, thanks for the information. Cool to hear it from a tanker such as yourself

True

Are there any plans for the B3M? I cant find anything recent about any plans.

Vladivostok, is majority Russian... I don't see a viable portion of Chinese people in Vladivostok with any claim to it. So the will of the people wont be to join China. Where as Crimea, is a totally different case compared to what you just said.

I read it and there are many faults to the article. But Steve, I'm getting fatigued from discussing this, and obviously we are still at opposites of each other on Ukraine. This won't change IMO, because I've seen enough to believe what I believe in. I read Ukrainian, English, Russian reports on conflicts, like Syria and Ukraine. I have connections to Ukraine, family wise, I've been to Donbas I haven't been to the direct war zone,but I've seen enough to make me believe that the government of Ukraine, is not the right choice for Russians in Ukraine. Anyways, you disagree so do other people so instead of wasting the discussion on politics, we should probably go back to military discussions, where the discussion doesn't get offensive to me being a Russian. I'm thinking about listing the units that could be deployed to Ukraine, with their equipments and all those other details, using open sources of course no opsec breaking on my end even though at times I feel like it (joking of course) however we should all agree to a realistic scenario which I can base it off. So I'm open to your suggestions. Donbas region definitely wanted him to stay, but Kiev didn't. He made small mistakes which doomed him in, and made people believe in the EU cause in Kiev. Basically he nailed his own coffin with that one mistake he made. Of course, the western sponsored media helped this massively, also Poroshenko and many other groups helped fuel the flame. Yes legally Crimea was Ukrainian, I've been saying what Russia did in Crimea was illegal in international law. But if the people in Crimea was for it, I'm for it. I will have no choice but to respect the choice of the people. And I'd be against the Russian government, if they didn't support the will of the people. It isn't right to go against the will of the people, even if it is breaking "laws"

Yeah antaress, B3s are criticized heavily. The only reason being that it doesn't have a panaromic sight for the commander.

That's not a valid argument considering the fact that the nations who are presumably "Russia's conflicts" have fought each other strictly for their own gains and not for Russia's. It is very silly to even say that, it's as if we are blamed for all of our neighbor's problems, that we come in to settle. Nagorno Karabakh for example, Armenians and Azeris slaughtered each other... Who settled the war? Russia. Ethnic wars of Georgians, Abkhazians, and South Osettians. Who settled it? Russia. Just because Russia is stabilizing wars, be it for political gains, or what say you, Russia has brought stability to the region. These conflicts reach back to hundreds of years... There is ethnic hate in the Caucus. But I'm sure you wouldn't know much about those conflicts. You're assuming because Russian peacekeepers are deployed, Russia started the conflict. How about Yugoslaviya? NATO peace keepers were deployed did NATO start the conflict? That is a laughable accusation...

Everyone can do double standards, however there are many things that is ignored in this conflict, and pressed upon Russia. Politics aside I'm sure anyone can get along, politeness is great for discussions. I would be on the side with my government, I wouldn't dare protest violently against my government just because it ignored the EU dream... That is not right, and it ruined the country for people who didn't get a say. Of course I wouldn't accept it, but we're talking about Ukraine, where there are ethnic Russians in places like Crimea, and Donbas that did not get a say when their government was thrown out. Just like most people in Crimea, I'd vote to leave the nation which was taken away from me without my choice. Of course they will. What I'm trying to say friend is, there is many evidence that point out EU and US support of the revolts in Kiev. I'm speaking strictly geopolitically; Russia lost its whole interests, and influence in the country. So Russia acted defensively, breaking international of course I understand that part, but it is supported by Russians and Ukrainians who are close to Russia, the same way toppling the government in Kiev was supported by Ukrainians. Imagine this, you are happy with the government you are currently living under same as a large percentage of people. But another percentage of people violently over throw your leader without your say in the event. This is more than enough for Russians to revolt against such actions, and vote to leave to their original country. We can draw from events in Ukraine that happened that show how important artillery is, I forgot where it was exactly, but a Ukrainian battalion was destroyed from artillery strikes within minutes, MLRS strike killed them. But anyways we can't argue without a scenario, with specifics down to the defense structure. Generally, we can assume a Russian unit on average will be better than a Ukrainian unit. And I can provide lists of units that can be deployed to Ukraine, down to the equipment they have if you or anyone likes. And Sanctions won't allow Russia to go into Ukraine you're correct. Unless Ukraine does something like what they did in Crimea just recently, with the saboteurs they sent in. And the recent threats that they made about taking back Crimea. This doesn't look too good, and if Ukraine somehow messes up and causes a Russian reaction, I think it is very possible for a limited offensive. And I'm quite angry that two Russian servicemen have been killed by this incident.