VladimirTarasov
-
Posts
817 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by VladimirTarasov
-
-
5 hours ago, Oleg said:
Lets go back to the WW2 for a second. Did it matter for Allies, what german people had believed is true, when allied bombers bombed german cities? Did Allies bothered with "oh someone down there in that cities may just be naive and misinformed". No they did not. They bombed german cities because it does not matter what germans believed and what they said, it only mattered what they did and what they did not. And germans, every single one of them, regardless of if they actually believed what they was saying, was responsible with their action or absence of action (for ex. not revolting against Hitler) for Hitler being at power.
And if you would say that putting similarities betwin Putin's Russia and Hitler's Germany is too much. I will say you wrong, cause its too much similar facts, starting from Putin's: "we must use military to defend russian speaking people in neighbor country". Hitler did exactly the same in 1938 "we must use military to defend german speaking people in neighbor country"
Oleg.... Stop shaming our history by comparing Russia to Nazi Germany, was it not our grandfathers who fought against Fascists together? I'd expect better from a Ukrainian.
-
12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Transnistria
Abkhazia
South Osettia
Nagorno Karabakh
Frozen conflicts: If you think those conflicts are Russian made, then you have no clue about the history of them. Ossettians and Abkhazians can tell you about why they fought Georgia. You'll notice ethnic hatred between these countries, Russia is just acting out of interest to protect and complete its goals in the region. There is nothing frozen about South Osettia, Abkhazia. Nagorno Karabakh is obviously a feud between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Russia the peace keeper of this region. Transnistria's conflict was a total mess, going into that one will be a long discussion.
12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:I've been over this with you many times. The only reason this turned into an armed conflict is because Russia couldn't get the sort of social unrest it wanted with the busloads of "tourists" that beat up pro-Ukrainian demonstrations.
The only "evidence" I've seen for this... Wait there is no evidence that Russia shipped in busloads of people... I've seen Vice try to touch up on it, the most they've got was "they didn't show us their passports" this is a complete joke. Donbas region has always been "pro-Russian" I'm telling you I've been there and have family living in Kirovsky district in Donetsk. People are UNHAPPY of what happened in Kiev, the ATO didn't help the support for Kiev's government either. But you keep on going on as if Kiev was justified because the evil pro-Russian government was corrupt! Belarus should also revolt against Lukashenko for being a corrupt pro-Russian dictator by your standards, and it won't be breaking international law. Because the people decide! yet when in Crimea, people decided to join the Russian Federation, they are wrong. This is very double standard.
12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:After that thousands of Russian nationals, in particular Chechens and Cossacks, flooded into Ukraine with Russia's direct support. Weapons, tanks, anti-aircraft weapons, etc. came with them.
Cossacks of the region did join the cause, and Chechens arrived after some time as well. You're correct. But this is only a small detail of this conflict, in Syria rebels are getting manpower from Turks, Saudis, ect, ect. And the US and allies supports these groups with advanced weaponry, against the "tyrant" Assad. So it is only natural for Russians and close ethnicities to go into support rebels in Donbas.
13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:This was never a civil war. It was always a war of aggression by your country in your name against people who used to think of Russians as brothers.
Ukrainians and Russians are still brothers, no matter how much conflict separates us.
13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:So, what would you do if Ukraine tried to control what happened in Russia? What would you do if they bought your government and extracted Russian resources and labor for Ukraine's sole benefit? Would you think that was OK or would you protest? And if your protests were cracked down on by armed police who killed 100 protestors, would you think your government was justified or would you want it changed?
Steve, Russia and Ukraine benefitted from each other, Ukraine was apart of Russia essentially until the USSR, we together built very important infrastructure in their regions, that benefitted both of us. I don't see any differences between Russians and Ukrainians, I am of Ukrainian descent, but I identify myself as Russian. Is Ukraine doing better than Russia without us now? No. Were they going to do better with the Russian deal? Yes.
The protests however, I'd support the protests in Kiev, if they didnt start off with rocks being smashed into the Berkut forces' helmets. Everyone has the right to protest, I'd volunteer with the government to help in any way to make sure nothing happens to the protest, but this protest started off very violent, you know that as well.
13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:Assad is a dictator and he has murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians, given ISIS a reason to exist, and shows no concern for the suffering he is causing. So yes, you have that right.
QuoteSyria is definitely a civil war, there are Syrians on both sides fighting each other. The Syrian government has had corruption, how ever Assad has not done anything murderous on his own will. There are plenty of Syrians, who are sided with the government that you can speak too. The Syrian government indeed has committed crimes, accidentally or non-accidentally. But the countless "moderate" groups are not far off, and in some cases have committed far worse crimes. In Aleppo, the rebels launched a counter-offensive, together with Al-Nusra and Al-qaeda groups. These groups are terrorists, yet the US still supports them. And please do not act like Assad made ISIS... That is totally incorrect. It is very obvious what caused ISIS to form. But that's a topic for another forum.
13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:Other than the fact that ISIS is operating in Iraq, a country that thousands of Americans died to liberate and rebuild (no matter how ineffectively)? Other than the world political crisis it has caused? Other than the instability and stress it has caused America's long term allies in Europe? Other than it keeps the ISIS recruiting drive going and spreading terror around the world? Other than American being looked to by the world as it's "policeman"? Other than that, you're right... the US has no interest in Syria becoming peaceful.
Thousands of Americans died in Iraq may they rest in peace, but I'm more capable of researching the problems that the US and its allies caused to Iraq with its wars there. Saddam was not a good guy, obviously. But the US and its coalition's campaign there has decimated civilians... More so than Russia did to Chechnya in the first and second Chechen wars. And the war in Iraq, and this new thing called Arab spring is what caused ISIS to form. Not what Assad has done, Assad is simply another leader (be it bad or good) in the arab countries facing a Libya style scenario. But of course Assad is no angel, he has done wrong things, and this is why there are quite a few Syrians fighting against him, even if they are in terrorist groups.
13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:So why is Russia murdering Ukrainians and occupying their land every single day? Because Ukraine doesn't want to be dominated by Russia and Russia isn't happy about it. It doesn't matter how bloody or not bloody it is. Russia is responsible for the war in Ukraine and therefore when assigning blame one should look to the only nation that is causing this war to happen.
Why did Ukrainians murder their own peoples! Why did Ukrainians cause panic and havoc in the country? Russia is just securing its goals, and protecting Russians and Ukrainians in its sphere of influence. It is impossible to think that in a developed nation, say like the UK, a violent riot over throws the government and installs one forcefully just because they left the EU. I understand Russia is not as innocent as it makes itself out to be in this conflict, but I also don't understand how you are able to support what happened in Kiev, and all the little details that played into it. For God's sake senator Mccain was together with the far right group "Svoboda" supporting the riots. Obviously this shows other countries not only Russia was meddling in Ukraine. These same far right groups, destroy statues of Lenin, Soviet heroes, and so on. There is countless of videos showing these same far right groups causing havoc against veterans of world war 2! It is a shame! It would bring rage into me, if these groups were to shame my grandfather who fought in the Ukrainian front against Fascists.
By the way if you'd like me to stop this discussion please go ahead and tell me, it is your forum. I'm just discussing, even if it is off topic, I mean no harm.
-
Russian MoD isn't buying any T-90AMs... T-72s are being upgraded to B3 standard, T-14s are starting mass production in 2017-2018. I'm not even sure if B3Ms will be bought. Russian MoD is making a mistake in the tank sector, I'd at least upgrade B3s to B3Ms.
-
40 minutes ago, hattori said:
@Oleg I hate to say it, but that is an awfully arrogant attitude. If he is Russian, clearly he is going to see things through a Russian lens, and have a different viewpoint. If one of you were ripping on Canada, it would be very hard for me to be able to objectively criticize my country, and would likely just make me dig my heels in to justify myself, and my country, without really realizing it. I would actually guess the truth is somewhere more in the middle of all these opinions.
I appreciate your view, and indeed the truth is in the middle of all these opinions.
-
40 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
I do not know the details about Russia's expectations for the Second Chechen War, but I am very confident it thought it would be over much sooner and decisively. In the end Putin flipped Kadyrov and that, more than anything else combined, is why Russia regained theoretical control over Chechnya. In reality Kadyrov controls Chechnya and, apparently, can even assassinate Russian politicians and not be held accountable to it. Which means, in real terms, Russia did not reclaim Chechnya either militarily or politically. Bribery did.
Kadyrov flipped or not there are obvious military achievements in the second Chechen campaign which led to the outcome. In fact, the second Chechen war started because someone invaded Dagestan.
45 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:No, it was assumed Georgia would be crushed without embarrassing losses and causing the general staff to be very concerned about Russia's ability to fight effectively. Those assumptions were so wrong that Russia implemented very large and costly reforms.
Of course we'd assumed a more smoother victory, considering 6 aircraft were lost in 5 days (this being the worst thing that happened in the campaign) other than that things played out good. The Georgian war showed Russia that old Soviet stuff needed to go, the Russian military has to be modernized, I mean let's be honest the Russian military was very junky in equipment until recently, and there are still some things that need to be improved. With the embarrassing issues it pointed out, it also showed the Russian military wasn't the 90s army it was. From the 58th army in total 19,000 troops went into Georgian proper, and fought against 17,000 Georgian troops, so it also showed Russia wasn't totally relying on numbers, well of course it could have deployed more troops from the 58th army if needed.
53 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:It makes sense to someone who knows what he is talking about. Sadly, you continue to show your ignorance and naivete. Russia has a long history of creating "frozen conflicts" in order to control the domestic politics of a weaker neighboring state. In the case of Donbas, however, Russia had hoped it would cause a catastrophic collapse of the "coup" government and crush the spirit of the Ukrainian people. It did not. In fact, it had the opposite effect.
What other frozen conflicts are we talking about? There is support in the people of DPR/LPR or else it wouldn't exist anymore, there are many factors that play into the support, for it. I personally wished that the DPR/LPR could have returned to Ukraine, but once the ATO kicked off and brutality of that operation happened, I lost my last bit of hope for the new government of Ukraine. I understand Russia has supported this proxy to stay intact, be it for geopolitical reasons or what say you, but to ethnic Russians and Ukrainians of Donbas, it is very justified.
There are wrongs with Russia supporting the proxy, but there are also wrongs with what happened in Kiev. I mean am I interpreting events wrong? That a very bloody riot kicked out a elected government, and installed a government without any say of the rest of the country, has pro-EU backing and anti-Russia written all over it. Russia is totally not an angel, but I'm getting quite sick of the Ukraine Godly hero versus evil Russia notions.
Russia has broken international law(Crimea, supporting Donbas regions), but is justified amongst Russians and Ukrainians who are close to Russia. The revolts in Kiev broke international law, but is justified amongst its supporters. It is as if there is an argument against everything, but Russia is the only one being grilled on. No one noticed the riots, when they were beating police ,killing them, molotovs and the such, yet they were cursing the police for returning fire. Both of these are wrong, that the people had to in this day and age, beat and kill police, and that the police had to open fire. But if you look into it, there are morals that justify one side more than the other. But your argument appears to be a narrow view, directly looking at bad things of Russia, without looking at what caused events like the annexation of Crimea, and the Donbas uprising. It is a very localized view IMO.
In Syria, the US and its allies, support rebels which the government calls terrorists. In your view Assad is a tyrant and it is justified arming the rebels against such a murderous regime, correct? Syria has no connection to America what so ever and the US is justified for that. Now let's look at Ukraine, a country where Russians and Ukrainians originate from, lived together since the beginning of its history, arguably the same people, but when similar events in Ukraine happens, and Russia justifies its support in a by far less bloody way than conflicts in Libya, and Syria. Russia is sanctioned, and people have to suffer.
-
27 minutes ago, Oleg said:
"In some areas, their skills and equipment are far more advanced than in comparable Nato armies. "
In what exactly? EW? I can tell you for sure - we know exactly coordinates of every EW russian unit. And we did not destroyed it yet with 2S7 Pion or Tochka-U only because of "Minsk agreements". Russian EW astonish europe only because europe has forbidden Ukraine to destroy it when they put ennormouse pressure on Ukraine to force us sign "Minsk agreements".
Its almost like europe afraid Ukraine can win, so they artificially restricting it. Its not so wild thought as it may appear at first. If you think this. Europe has been accustomed with Russia being "regional director". But if Ukraine will beat Russia - Russia will loose its status of "regional director". So the whole world will change for Europe. It will be new unknown world, and everyone is afraid of unknown things.
Oh come on man, you had the chance to destroy an EW unit, yet you didn't do so until the minsk agreements happened? And EW units do not stay in one location, they have multiple points they operate from to avoid being targeted, even in peace time.
-
6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
Exactly
Russia assumed it would crush the Chechens very quickly. Both times. And both times this did not happen.
Actually it was assumed that in the first time, in the second time it was known very well that it wasn't going to be easy. And as we see, Russia has came out victorious in the end of things in Chechnya. Militarily and politically.
8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:There were many assumptions made about the war in Georgia that turned out to be wrong.
It was assumed Georgia would be crushed, and the end result was they were crushed.
8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:More recently Russia assumed Ukraine would crumble after the invasion of Crimea so that it could get what it wanted.
I don't think anyone in the Russian government assumed that. If we get into the geopolitical view of taking Crimea, there are other obvious reasons.
9 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:Russia then assumed direct military pressure in Donbas would force the Kiev government to give into its demands
Direct military pressure? Is that why the Russian government has been denying any presence in Donbas? Think of what happened in Donbas, as more of keeping the only thing that isn't anti-Russian in Ukraine alive. I'm sure you know about this thing called "geopolitics." Ukraine as you know was the birthplace of Russians(Kievan-Rus). So imagine your influence in this country in which you have been together with since the beginning is ripped away from you, and in geopolitical terms, is lost to someone else. (EU influence) If you've noticed, events in Ukraine where pro-Russian unrest has been happening are in majority Russian speaking regions. I don't think Putin would think supporting a Donbas proxy would make Kiev give into its demands. That makes no sense what so ever.
11 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:If I were a Russian, I would not make assumptions about what its military force can achieve.
Well what else can I do Steve? Should I ask my government to pour in units into Ukraine so I can see the truth? Assumptions are made from what is on paper, and proven capabilities. I don't think there is any other way for us to be able to discuss "what if" wars without assumptions.
-
16 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
"Weight of numbers" ensured Russia would win against the unprepared Georgian forces no matter what, so none of the problems identified were significant issues in the end. However, Russian leadership with imagination saw that the operation should have gone off a lot better than it did. They "projected forward" to a larger conflict, one that was not so massively lopsided, and doubted the Russian military was structured to win.
Quite true, however tactics also helped the Russian army. The Georgian army had a few flaws in their strategy.
16 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:Absolutely. But until Russia has waged a very large scale (by today's standards) mechanized war against a determined and capable enemy, as we American say... "don't count your chickens before they hatch". I am very, very confident that Russian logistics are vastly better than they were in 2008, however the reforms in concept and action were primarily concerned with smaller actions such as Crimea. In theory those improvements should scale up to larger actions, however history (especially Russian/Soviet history) shows that scaling up is easier to do on paper than in reality. Therefore, I remain generally positive about Russia's capabilities for smaller actions, skeptical of larger ones. Especially for a large action that results in major losses and drags out for weeks or more.
Still, I think Russia has a better chance of coming out ahead with a 100,000 invasion force of Ukraine in 2017 than it would the Baltics. That is mostly because Ukraine is not NATO, therefore I put a heavy emphasis on losses affecting Russian performance more than I do the successes of the 2008 reforms.
I agree with you. Until a large scale war is waged we won't able to know for sure, however we can assume in most cases.
-
15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Back to the logistics issue. I skimmed a few analysis of the war and found that issues related to logistics seem to be blamed more on poor command/control than anything else.
You're right about that actually, but it wasn't a major problem although a important issue.
15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:I honestly don't know where things stand today. As I've said it seems that Russia has been able to keep the DPR/LPR adequately supplied over the past 2 years, but it has been largely a static front with only occasional spikes of fighting so that's something to consider.
Logistics have improved, everything is more organized than it was in 2008. We can assume it is way better than before the reforms. In Syria, I've noticed great logistics being provided by the Russian military, lessons are probably being taken from that conflict.
-
TKN-3 does not make you blind, you can spot well out to some areas depending on the terrain. However at night, the commander is almost good as blind using the TKN-3. However I've noticed that armored vehicles especially on the US side spot infantry pretty good even from the sides or rear. When in reality a tank is to focused in scanning what's in front. So there could be some tweaks to spotting you're right. But the TKN-3MK is not too bad, it is poorish compared to todays standards though. I myself am confused as to why the T-72B3 has the ancient TKN-3MK... Here's to hoping they get T-72B3Ms into service by the end of the year.
-
23 minutes ago, Sublime said:
Vlad the 507th story in a nutshell is the US was going hell for leather for Baghdad and some bypassed Iraqi units basically ran into some rear echelon US personnel who were not meant to be "tip of the spear" combat troops(including a female soldier J Lynch) and so some parts of the 507th basicallly either took a wrong turn or simply got ambushed in the vacuum between the US combat units and the supply units racing to keep pace.
Because of the ambush the US suffered casualties but also more importantly several US soldiers were captured.
Sounds crazy, I was reading about the Gulf wars sometime ago, and it is crazy how low the coalition casualties are compared to the Iraqis. What happened with the US POWs?
-
55 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
The Georgians didn't have an airforce worth talking about, had a tiny military, and was defending a very small geographical area. Yet Russia ran into huge and unexpected problems with the operation. It was never going to fail because it simply was too big to fail, but the details were not good. This led to 7 years of intensive and very expensive reforms. Those reforms have definitely (in my view) fixed the problems with a Georgia like scenario. What we don't know is if the reforms have gone far enough towards taking on a much larger challenge. The more the scenario differs from Georgia the less certain one should be.
Of course, the main problems of this was coordination problems, and communications, and quality of equipment. The Georgian troops were very well coordinated how ever, being superior to the Russian peacekeeping battalion and Ossetian troops, they weren't able to fully secure their objectives. Russians troops with poorer equipment fared very well against these troops even when they were pouring in a battalion at a time through the Roki tunnel. Other issues notable are the Russian air forces embarrassing losses... the 5 air craft downed by enemy fire, add on two friendly fire incidents... However minus these faults the Russian air power was able to secure air superiority after successful SEAD operations. These issues forced Russia to modernize the Russian military because no matter how successful it was, there were embarrassing issues revealed.
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:his is a narrow view of how logistics can be negatively affected. There are other conditions such as weather, road conditions, distance, diversity, quantities, coordination, etc. Georgia is a perfect example of this. The Georgians were almost completely unable to disrupt Russia's supply lines, but Russian logistics were found to be quite bad.
You're right that the Georgians did not disrupt any of Russia's supply lines, but I don't think the Russian logistics were bad at all during the war. The Roki tunnel was basically the only entrance into the area, the mountain roads are pretty narrow, so slow logistics did happen in the beginning. Is there an event I'm missing on? I'm not sure supplies were in bad condition.
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:A small example of this is documented cases of Russian units getting lost inside of Donbas. The Russian Major that was captured because he drove into a Ukrainian checkpoint by mistake is the highest profile goof.
That was a total goof... Embarrassing.
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:And it happens even to the United States, which is by far the best logistical force in the world. The story of the 507th Maintenance Company (Jessica Lynch) is well known to anybody who studies the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Indeed America is the most sophisticated in logistics in quite a few areas in logistics, a very organized force. I don't know about the 507th company story, I'll read on it now though.
-
17 hours ago, Peter Cairns said:
We seem to have three distinct views; Me, Steve and Vlad the Inhaler ( He takes a sharp intake of breath every time one of us posts)
sometimes
58 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:Absolutely. And that is, basically, the difference between a large scale Russian invasion in Spring 2014 vs. one in Spring 2017. The 2014 scenario would have likely seen Russian forces quickly achieving their territorial objectives without much fighting. The push would have lasted a few days tops and could have been supplemented by seizing local sources of fuel, food, and water along the way if necessary. Once they got to where they needed to be then it would be similar to Donbas, only without major logistics demands because the war would likely have been effectively over. At least in the short term.
You're right here, Ukraine is definitely more ready for a Russian invasion than it was in 2014. How ever, I wouldn't go as far as to say that they will fair well against an air campaign together with multiple offensives in 2017. They still have many issues, how ever these issues are not as bad as 2014.
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:By contrast a large scale offensive in 2017 would meet significant resistance right from the start. Logistics would be stressed, at least in locations, before the operation's overall territorial objectives were achieved. If they were even achieved. And that starts everything down the downslope towards military disaster mid to long term. Perhaps even short term.
Significant resistance will be met of course, this is natural. However there isn't much resistance that logistics will face, Ukraine doesn't have the air force to target logistics effectively. They do have MLRS and artillery of the like which could target logistics services, how ever this isn't much of a problem unless they will be targeting static targets. Other issues could be ambushes if security for logistic routes are not secured how ever I don't think this will be much of a problem, this will vary depending on the scenario. Ukraine's logistics will be in way more trouble than Russia's, aviation will be their main threat. Of course I understand that Ukraine has capable air defenses, and if the Russian Air Force plays dumb and doesn't take the time needed to find SAM threats, losses can be inflicted upon the Russian Air Force. Which can slow down the momentum of the Russian army.
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:In my opinion the large scale "snap drills" the Russians are so proud of prove, without any doubt, that it has the capability to conduct very large, complex maneuvers on relatively short notice. To think that they don't have this capacity is to ignore rather plain facts. However, snap drills are just that... drills. They are not simulated warfare and they certainly aren't the real thing.
I agree with you 100% drills aren't meant to simulate combat like how it would be in real life, how ever it does help determine readiness rates, and the ability for maneuver increases. And it does offer training on needed levels. Of course you cannot compare actually being in a shootout to training, I'd like to think shootouts are the craziest moments in battles. Even if you're a good shot and do everything by the book, all it takes is a random spray of bullets to kill you. Although, Syria shows training is also needed, combat experience doesn't cut it.
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:Think about it this way. Crimea 2014 was basically a peacetime "snap drill". It faced ZERO opposition and was fairly small in scope. If Ukraine's forces had responded it is unlikely they would have affected the outcome given their disposition and condition in February 2014.
Just about, thank god no shootouts took place. The Russian military overwhelmed Ukrainian garrisons before any plan could even take place IMO.
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:The 2014 counter offensive, which did meet heavy opposition, was a mixed success. Where Russian achieved operational surprise and superiority of numbers it had very good success. Where it ran into tougher head on resistance things didn't go nearly as well.
There is too much battles with not enough information to determine what was actually real Russian, mixed, or plain militia units. T-72B3s in Militia hands are Russian units, how ever that doesn't mean just because we see a platoon of T-72B3s the whole tank unit is a Russian company or battalion. It could be a mix, maybe a small amount maybe a large amount. I'm open to any analytics of a battle however.
-
7 hours ago, Peter Cairns said:
Report after report including those published by the Russians themselves, show rampant corruption, terrible equipment shortages and availability, terrible living conditions and treatment of soldiers, an almost total breakdown in respect and discipline between, offers, NCO's contract troops and conscripts and what might be termed logistical sclerosis.
In short an army probably incapable of doing anything more than, well what it has already, in quick surprise actions in areas it has support and the opponent in weak like Crimea and supporting an ally against a low capability opponent like in Syria.
Much like Iraq under Saddam, Russia can bully a weak neighbour and do a smash and grab, but can't fight a major war.
In fact I'd go as far as to say Russia's recent actions, in the Ukraine, Syria and in increasing Air and Sea Operations in the Atlantic aren't so much shows of strength as attempts to mask it's weakness.
Rampant corruption is a thing of the pass, if an officer is corrupt his days are limited he will be found in the end. There are many evidence that show the Russian military has increased in competence and effectivity. If you look at the reforms and snap drills that have basically flattened low level readiness and corruption. You will notice that Russia has been turning its force into a more effective force. How ever you can take isolated events and bloat it up to make the Russian military look in a miserable shape. It is not in a miserable shape, everything is improving as time goes on. Russia is not a bully, how ever that will take us to another off topic full of no reasoning what so ever. I had wrote a very detailed reply to you but something made me log out the website and my whole reply was gone. So you'll have to forgive me for a summarized reply.
-
That is one of the worst assessments of the Russian military I have read in a month.
-
Steve,
me and you share complete opposite views. You justify your view with your "facts" and I justify mine with my "facts". Because of some people's beliefs on the forum, they directly call the president of my nation a dictator, where as us the people of Russia do not. So yeah in my perspective there is a lot of Russia bashing going on.
It is as if you ignore the violent riots in Kiev, which caused the deaths of dozens of policemen, and innocent people. You cannot deny that everything in Ukraine, happened because of the over throw of the democratically elected president. This is a joke, you ignore total critical points in the start of the conflict. Tell me please, how can Russia not be justified to grab Crimea with the support of the people when the people of Crimea (majority Russian) didnt get a say on what happened in Kiev? Tell me please, did the Donbas people get a say?
You've been watching the Ukrainian event since the start, have you missed the destruction the ATO has brought to Donbas regardless if the DPR/LPR is "Totally Russian federation supported"?
Believe me when I say, that the only reason I'm writing this is because you mentioned it, the only reason I am not going in total discussion on the forum is because it gets very personal, and I'd hate to make a topic go off topic, as well as cause friction on a forum. I enjoy arguing and discussing military topics with you, and other people on the forum. But it always leads to politics, and the justification for it, is that "it happened"
I get that this is an American forum, and I come off ignorant to most Americans on this forum, for sharing a totally opposite view. How ever, it comes off offensive to someone who is Russian. I hope you can see why I said there's Russia bashing going on. I'm not trying to call anyone out.
Hypothetical Ukraine war:
You make good points about the costs and damage it could bring to Russia, I will admit that you've brought some good information, that I've looked over. How ever, operating in the DPR/LPR and very near vicinity will be possible for Russia going by claims that 9,000-12,000 Russian troops operated in Donbas it is more than possible for Russia to full on go active, and enjoy major successes and not face an insurgency in this region leaving full conventional fighting which Russia is more capable of than Ukraine. But this is totally hypothetical, politics would not allow such a conflict. Pressure given to Russia already is more than enough IMO.
-
The usual Russia bashing is a must love reading it.
-
Re Georgian war,
Communications, and lack of coordination equipment was the result of those planes being shot down, out of those 7, 2 were hit by friendly fire indicating lack of air-ground coordination. All those issues are fixed, and the Russian air force is more than capable enough to do missions in Ukraine, be it SEAD, strikes, or CAS. Syria is a good show case, for some aspect on how the Russian air force has improved since Georgia.
-
I dont think casualties will go anything that will make us shake our heads. Remember once Russia gains air dominance its largely game over. Once Iraq lost its air defense, it was game over. If NATO intervenes in such a conflict in Ukraine, and destroys Russian AD, its game over. So it is my opinion, that Russian forces on average will fare well against Ukrainian forces. How ever I'm not saying air power will be a God of a battlefield, it plays a very important tactical role. In Syria for example, there are many cases where RuAF saved Syrian units in defensive operations, and also help propel them in offensive operations.
Of course you will have urban operations where a Ukrainian unit will depending on variables like tactics, be able to halt a Russian assault and be able to inflict heavy casualties.
-
-
1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:
Absolutely. And was pointed out a while ago, militarily Russia lost the Second Chechen War. Or more generously it could be stated that it never had to finish it because of the deal with Kadyrov (which IMHO is a long term loss for Russia). In part because the Russian people probably wouldn't have supported another long term counter insurgency even on its home turf. In Ukraine? Forget about it. Russia could start to level cities and massacre civilians as it did in the Caucuses, but it wouldn't work. Least of all because that would trigger significant NATO assistance to Ukraine which would, in turn, hasten an end to the conflict.
Steve
Steve sir... That was the most out rageous claim about history on this chat.... You are saying we lost the Second Chechen war??? Militarily too??? In Chechnya there's no chance of any terrorist factions forming anymore because of our military success, the second even a small terrorist group goes active in a small village, FSB and MVD units are all over it and its game over by the day. I mean sure, Russia isn't going to be happy facing a Ukrainian insurgency in event of a war, how ever there can be solutions to it, effective or not. But going by this standard since Russia is occupying Crimea, where is the insurgency? Did I miss the IEDs flinging a squad ontop of a BTR across the street?
-
1 hour ago, Sublime said:
@VladimirTarasov I wasnt actually serious though as others mentioned the SVR does have people whose job is really to troll forums. Even if you were I wouldnt be serious - youd never admit it and I could never prove it. as far as most insulting thing how about this - ill apologize when you admit Putin is a dictator and Russia invaded the Ukraine, in the Crimea and Donbass, lied about using cluster munitions in Syria, and largely ignored ISIS to pursue Assads war aims despite stating otherwise during the Syrian adventure.
Let's not go that route please. I would be more than happy to counter these claims how ever thats an automatic lock of a thread where regular discussions were happening...
-
8 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
Here's the thing though, why would the Ukraine allow its military to be smashed? They too sat through the Georgian war and likely took some notes. Forcing Russia to commit to a pursuit deep in the Ukraine plays to their strengths, and also places Russia in a position that if it fails to totally and utterly destroy the Ukrainian military, which is likely beyond Russia's capabilities even in favorable circumstances, that the issue will simply be revisited at some later date.
More likely than not Russia would commit forces, they'd chase a Ukrainian force deeper across hostile territory. Casualties rack up, victory is illusive, Russian soldiers start dying in new and interesting ways not accounted for in previous planning, and a smart Russian leader declares "victory" and retreats back to the status pre-invasion, with the Ukrainians parked outside the silly little "republics" while a dumb one doubles down and rides Russia to ruin. There's no likely winning play, and there's certainly no quick victory.Let me be more clear, I dont mean Russia will destroy all of the UAF, how ever, let me give you a scenario so we can be very statistic, and argue in better detail.
Ok ATO 3.0 right, usual obvious UAF advantage in numbers and equipment against the militias. Say dashes all across the borders. At this point, Russia assigns forces from the southern and western military districts to launch a counter offensive in full force. Obviously the tactical air superiority will be apparent right away. Steve I think said UAF has 50-70K forces in the ATO vicinity. Let's say, 50K of these forces thrust into Donbas, now Donbas militias have a 30 thousand active force, with also reserves. Ukraine will obviously not smash right through, they dont have the needed air superiority to achieve rapid conventional advances.
Now if Russia deploys forces in the similar amount to the ATO, Russia together with the Donbas militias will outnumber this offensive. Sure nothing crazy but Ukraine being on the offense puts them into trouble. If the Russian army was able to smash a Ukrainian offensive as recent as 2015, in limited capabilities, I am more than sure with aerial superiority, full active forces together with the militias will be more than enough to destroy this ATO operation. Now assuming 2015 is to be taking as a reference if the UAF withdraw from the operation, Russia will be able to pursue these forces, even in a limited offensive, be it an air campaign or combined warfare operations and if Russia can inflict damage further thats a victory on its own. And this is the most justified scenario possible, if Russia goes into Ukraine for any other reason, other than defending Donbas that would be political suicide.
-
@Sublime you're history is off, and I have no overseers or anything... Do you think I'm a Putin "bot"... That's gotta be the most offensive thing I've read on here.
@sburke when I said dude I didn't mean to insult you.
on topic: I am sure an insurgency will happen in Ukraine, that is why I was saying Russia's goals in such a war would be to destroy Ukraine's military, and force a treaty on their side as quick as possible. If Ukraine does not sit at the treaty table after having their military smashed in the ATO, that wont matter as long as Russia has completed its military goal. I dont think Russia would need the economical burden of taking over the vast spaces of Ukraine for nothing in return.
So as I've said since the start, Russia would instead of occupying Ukraine, have powerful short goals. And the only way Russia would invade Ukraine is if another Ukrainian offensive is launched onto DPR/LPR. So in essence, a Russian counter offensive.
Russia assumed it would crush the Chechens very quickly. Both times. And both times this did not happen.
sometimes
T-72B3 has overpowered optics ingame (IRL commanders optics is terrible)
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Go ahead tear me into pieces
I wasn't a tankist like you, I wouldn't know. Would you mind telling how you tank guys work, when spotting/scanning?