Jump to content

Russian army under equipped?


Recommended Posts

@VladimirTarasov  haha -- yes, I can only imagine how frustrating it is to be constantly cast as the "evil" one in global politics (from the western perspective), but it is what it is.  I didn't write that to accuse you of anything, only to tell you how things are with western public opinion.  The west does not trust Putin or Russia one iota, and assumes he is generally up to something that is not in our interests.  (and yes, I do think the west poked the bear too much with things like pushing it's missile defense systems too close).

As for making up our minds -- cold war, we were terrified of you.  Collapse of USSR, we saw a ton of incompetence, and wrote you off, and assumed you would want to field a military and flex your muscles more in line with what your economy and GDP are capable of.  Pretty much most people forgot about the threat of nuclear war.  Then Putin started rattling the cage again to make sure the west paid attention to Russia, and people woke up to the fact that you still have a ton of equipment, nuclear weapons, and a chip on your shoulder.  You are totally messing with the past 20 years of the U.S. feeling they are THE power broker in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh, okay turning and burning:

Re: Training

Just no.  You have literally nothing like NTC, JRTC, or even YTC.  The Russian military does not conduct the same sort of exercises, with the same degree of difficulty, and it shows in your leadership.  On a list of things the US Army worries about if it has to face Russia, the ground based direct fire component of your forces does not rank highly.  You guys have come some distance from 2008, but it remains to be seen how far you will come.

Simply because you conduct exercises does not mean you have the same end product.

Re: Angry NCOs

The National Training Center is pretty much in Death Valley California.  It was selected as a training installation for anti-aircraft units at first simply because it was a howling terrible open nothingness in which god neglected to place anything of value.  The Joint Readiness Training Center is in Fort Polk Louisiana in which every body of water on post is labeled with alligator warnings.   Either environment will generate no small amount of  unhappiness, and it tends to lead to an opposing force with no concern for morality or fairness, and observer-controllers who have gone somewhat feral (I had an instructor who once served as an OC at NTC.  Rather than bother driving back to main post from the hinterlands so he could get in his normal human car and drive home to sleep for three hours to go back out again, he simply pimped out the back of his HMMWV nearly went Colonel Kurtz out in the desert).

Re: Chechnya

Same deal.  Also if you're a Chechen and an ethnic Russian who is obviously in the military, or similar organization asks you your opinions on their relationship with Russia, they're not going to give you the most honest answers.  Steve covered it pretty well, Chechnya is something you can hold onto, but there's some pretty strong doubts you can keep it.

Re: VDV

Our paratroopers still exist because there's several realistic global missions that could call for a brigade of light infantry overnight.  When they're not airdropping, the Airborne BCTs are standard IBCTs, capable of air assault operations, or just operating as "leg" troops.  

The missions you have listed are frankly, marginal.  If you're bolstering friendly forces, simply flying into existing airports, or using ground transport to bring in more conventional mech-armor type forces makes sense, or even just landing the VDV as is on a runway given the increased risk and complications of airdrops.  Dropping over the Ukraine is suicide given how large aircraft fair against stealth SU-25s, or failing that there's still enough ADA threat to make it high adventure for the super awesome advantage of...yeah something?    I mean I know you're big on the whole "havoc behind the lines!" line, but what are you going to accomplish that a conventional land based attack wont for cheaper?

Re: NATO KILLED ALL THE IRAQS!

NATO was not part of the Iraq mission.  Afghanistan was a NATO mission because it involved a direct attack against a NATO member.  Iraq was the US and people who opted to come along too.  Some of whom were NATO members, quite a few were not.

I don't think you honestly actually know enough about NATO to comment on it to be honest.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Just no.  You have literally nothing like NTC, JRTC, or even YTC.  The Russian military does not conduct the same sort of exercises, with the same degree of difficulty, and it shows in your leadership.  On a list of things the US Army worries about if it has to face Russia, the ground based direct fire component of your forces does not rank highly.  You guys have come some distance from 2008, but it remains to be seen how far you will come.

Simply because you conduct exercises does not mean you have the same end product.

Actually, we have academies that train soldiers even to the junior ranks in Russia. However you would not know about it, and assume that our troops are trained out of the air. Again, we've had this capability since the Soviet Union, just after the fall the standards weren't as good. Now it however, not knowing Russian can surely limit one's view of Russian related topics. And sometimes lead to bias views.

15 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

The National Training Center is pretty much in Death Valley California.  It was selected as a training installation for anti-aircraft units at first simply because it was a howling terrible open nothingness in which god neglected to place anything of value.  The Joint Readiness Training Center is in Fort Polk Louisiana in which every body of water on post is labeled with alligator warnings.   Either environment will generate no small amount of  unhappiness, and it tends to lead to an opposing force with no concern for morality or fairness, and observer-controllers who have gone somewhat feral (I had an instructor who once served as an OC at NTC.  Rather than bother driving back to main post from the hinterlands so he could get in his normal human car and drive home to sleep for three hours to go back out again, he simply pimped out the back of his HMMWV nearly went Colonel Kurtz out in the desert).

LOL crazy.

16 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Our paratroopers still exist because there's several realistic global missions that could call for a brigade of light infantry overnight.  When they're not airdropping, the Airborne BCTs are standard IBCTs, capable of air assault operations, or just operating as "leg" troops.  

The missions you have listed are frankly, marginal.  If you're bolstering friendly forces, simply flying into existing airports, or using ground transport to bring in more conventional mech-armor type forces makes sense, or even just landing the VDV as is on a runway given the increased risk and complications of airdrops.  Dropping over the Ukraine is suicide given how large aircraft fair against stealth SU-25s, or failing that there's still enough ADA threat to make it high adventure for the super awesome advantage of...yeah something?    I mean I know you're big on the whole "havoc behind the lines!" line, but what are you going to accomplish that a conventional land based attack wont for cheaper?

The Air Force will be conducting SEAD missions on the git go of such a war, it is very plausible for a VDV paradrop into safe zones in Ukraine. But anyways, we're just going back and forth. I'll just agree to disagree.

17 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Same deal.  Also if you're a Chechen and an ethnic Russian who is obviously in the military, or similar organization asks you your opinions on their relationship with Russia, they're not going to give you the most honest answers.  Steve covered it pretty well, Chechnya is something you can hold onto, but there's some pretty strong doubts you can keep it.

Knowing many people from the the "Kavkaz" especially Chechnya, most of them tend to support the government. One lad however was very critical, so I'd like to think from my point of view that Chechens are okay being under the Russian Federation. Not like they're gonna be better off without. I know a Chechen lad when I was in the army, he was a contract guy, the dude was more of a patriotic Russian than me :D good lads they are.

20 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

NATO was not part of the Iraq mission.  Afghanistan was a NATO mission because it involved a direct attack against a NATO member.  Iraq was the US and people who opted to come along too.  Some of whom were NATO members, quite a few were not.

My bad, I should have said US led coalition instead of NATO. I just generalized because when I think of NATO, US, UK, France ect come to mind. I had a total slip, so apologies for bashing NATO for Iraq. I should have been more specific, that's what happens when you don't get enough sleep. :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, kinophile said:

A rebellion led by Kadyrov would be a nightmare for Russia.

And a money sucking authoritarian rival that even the FSB can't touch is also a nightmare for Russia.  Putin made a deal with the devil to end the 2nd Chechen War, and that rarely ends well.

13 hours ago, kinophile said:

I'd imagine he's ruthless enough, popular enough (within a certain segment),  organized enough and motivated enough to attempt uniting a significant portion of the Caucasus if Russia is sufficiently distracted or weakened (either through domestic conflict or endemic infighting amongst the elite).

The prospect of a Kadyrov "Caliphate" (using a more moderate Islam to gloss over his glaring conflicts) is not totally insane.... 

Considering he's had this long to build a loyal,  disciplined, organized and dedicated paramilitary force  I'd guess he's easily the single most potentially dangerous and destabilizing element in Russia right now.  

Kadyrov is biding his time, I am sure of it.  Kadyrov's regime is sucking huge amounts of money from the rest of Russia, which of course goes into his pockets (and his supporters, of course). If he goes totally independent that money train stops.  But what if the money train stops or slows down?  It will tempt Kadyrov to threaten to go independent again, which could provoke a response from Moscow either in the form of more bribes or in the form of military forces.

If Russia goes to war against NATO it will, without any doubt, suffer massive economic declines.  The sanctions that are currently in place are the equivalent to a parking ticket compared to what it could do to Russia if it was motivated to.  A war against NATO would provide that motivation.  Therefore, whether Russian wins or loses a war against NATO, it's economy will be destroyed.  Win or lose against NATO there will be significant Russian losses and massive shifts of forces to the west (we're already seeing that happen).  If Russia is unable to pay off Kadyrov AND not able to militarily punish him... it will get ugly fast.

I am sure Putin knows this and fears it.

11 hours ago, hattori said:

@VladimirTarasov  I'm not sure you appreciate that with Putin's saber rattling, it has revived some of those old feelings from the cold war when Russia was THE threat to future existence.  The west also sees a lot of Putin's actions as being similar to Hitler's in the 30's when he was constantly pushing the boundaries.  I don't think there would be any problems with motivation in the west fighting any Russian aggression.

I still have very little against Russians because I understand them too much to blame them for what is going on.  Unfortunately, I can not say the same about the Russian government.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Thanks

This heritage and industrial ties with Germany did not effect the results US troops delivered in world war 1 for the allies. I am very confident everyone knew the US will be able to help the Brits and French in world war 2 after the huge losses they were taking in the Eastern front. I am very familiar with the US's isolationism during the period lol...

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

Quote

There is obviously NO EVIDENCE to support that. You guys are the epitome of causing what is known as provocations, Show me evidence that we are waging a cyber war. Statements from the truthful US government does not count, if it is not backed up by any evidence.

Interesting.  So what do you consider "evidence"?  Obviously your government won't admit to anything.  It lied to the world when it's forces were invading Crimea, so why do you think it's going to admit to waging cyber warfare against the West?

You can continue to live your world of denial.  You'll at least keep up a consistent record of being wrong.

Quote

Again, I said the US can still face off against Russia in Ukraine, but I am more than damn sure they wouldn't be as motivated as a Russian soldier in Ukraine. As even the troops that may have fought in there fought dead motivated, we can look at the recent conflict, in Donbas. 

By your logic a US soldier invading France couldn't be as motivated to fight as a German invader defending it.  If you understood history as it really happened you would know that logic is wrong.  Therefore, you should not be so sure about a match up in Ukraine between US and Russian forces.

Quote

Inferior equipped Russian troops made very short work of "Superior" trained and equipped Georgian forces, without having the numerical superiority as said by some military experts. So until I actually see US troops fighting Russian troops, I'm not going to jump to conclusions like you other than compare what we can. 

We've already been over this and you were wrong then as you are now.  Georgian forces were in no way "superior" to Russia's armed forces.  Which is why Russia so easily crushed them.

Quote

That's to say if Russia's opposition isn't crippled enough to change their mind on a full scale attack onto Russian defenses. What the US does have to worry, Russian defense is Stealth planes. Of course, these planes are not as dangerous to advanced modern AD networks, they can still cause damage to exposed forces. However, I will not jump to conclusions rather just get points out on certain capabilities.

I do not think NATO would try to enter Russian territory.  This would risk a nuclear war and there is no need for such a risk.  NATO could destroy Russia's forces in Ukraine sufficient enough to end the war there.

Quote

We weren't defeated but we also didn't get the results we wanted, we got the territories we wanted, however the heavy losses we took were a defeat on its own. Many good men died because of poor leadership. Anyways the Soviet army of the 1930s is not comparable to the Russian army of 2016. Totally different leadership, different standards, and different era. To say Russia still suffers from the same issues it did during then is basically "pulling" a Napoleon about the Russian army. And I mean underestimating. 

You are missing the point.  Russia has a history of overestimating it's capabilities, both as the Soviet Union and as the Russian Federation.  This is not unique to Russia because the US has also, at times, overestimated it's abilities.  Obviously many others did as well, for example France in 1940.  My point is that you seem to think this sort of thing no longer applies to Russia.  It does.

16 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I've explored and talked to many people there, however I did not participate in any form of battle. I did hear the grandmothers crying that their sons and daughters being killed by shells. I'm very convinced that a certain side of the war has been committing bloody murder. Of course we can sit here and shout out the evil Russian army was in Ukraine, and ignore totally other topics that show some interesting facts about a certain "legitimate" government.

And what do you say to the Ukrainian mothers on the other side of the front line who have lost their sons to Russian Army artillery shells?

No Russian invasion, no war.  No war, no death.  Therefore Russia bears responsibility for *ALL* deaths. 

Vladimir, you seem like a good person who is comforting himself with the lies of your government instead of facing the unpleasant reality that the rest of the world so plainly sees.  Your view of Ukraine, and therefore your government, has already been shown deeply flawed, yet you continue to maintain your factually flawed positions.  As the old English saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink".

Quote

Eh of course reading articles that provide no actual evidence that Kadyrov was involved with any "murderous thug" things, are to be taken serious. Kadyrov is very much supported in Chechnya, and I won't change my mind about it, unless you have legitimate evidence of him being a "murderous thug". Or a Putin crony. Or whatever name calling you guys have to offer.

Oh boy.  Well, you also think there is no evidence that Assad is a murderous tyrant of that Putin is a dictator.  I don't think it's even worth trying to debate you since your threshold for "proof" apparently requires the people involved to admit who they are to you personally.  Even then you'd probably say it was some sort of CIA scheme.

Quote

Sorry, did I miss the hell NATO has brought to the world in the past 20 years???? I don't know for example, going to Afghanistan and causing massive damage to infrastructure there, going to Iraq killing a dictator but while at it destroying Iraqi infrastructure. Supporting illegitimate rebellions against "dictators" and making the country a worst place than when the Dictator was in charge? I for one believe that Russia is not to be blamed for threating world security.

And here we go with Russian "Whataboutism"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

NATO's crimes, real and imagined by Kremlin propaganda, do not mean that Russia is a "good guy" in comparison.

Quote

NATO calls us weak, then calls us strong? Can you please make up your minds? Are we really a threat, or are we just another way to get your propaganda off to yourselves. This is seriously ANNOYING. If what Putin is doing is saber rattling than I'm all for it.

Our "propaganda" is fairly consistent, actually.  For the most part the mainstream view is that Russia is weak economically, militarily, and geopolitically.  However, that doesn't mean Russia isn't dangerous.  It is dangerous.  Just ask Ukraine.

Quote

Atleast my country does not go half way across the world and destroy whole countries.

It would if it could.

Quote

Seriously comparing Putin to Hitler is the most ignorant thing to do, and I feel bad for people who think so.

I did not compare Putin to Hitler.  Stalin and Hitler were very similar.  Putin, on the other hand, is just a fairly successful dictator who is desperately trying to hold onto power as things are falling apart.  The blood on Putin's hands is significant, but it's nothing compared to some of the worst dictators in the 20th Century.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Actually, we have academies that train soldiers even to the junior ranks in Russia. However you would not know about it, and assume that our troops are trained out of the air. Again, we've had this capability since the Soviet Union, just after the fall the standards weren't as good. Now it however, not knowing Russian can surely limit one's view of Russian related topics. And sometimes lead to bias views.

I think you are completely missing his point. We have training "academies" as well.  The NTC and JRTC are a fundamentally different facility that I don't believe are replicated anywhere else (at least partly due to the significant cost). They present a training capability well beyond what can be expected for any other military in the world.

You can go to the NTC website to get some idea, there is also an ABC documentary on the 3rd Cav regiments rotation there prior to deployment to Afghanistan (called Blood and Steel)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sburke said:

I think you are completely missing his point. We have training "academies" as well.  The NTC and JRTC are a fundamentally different facility that I don't believe are replicated anywhere else (at least partly due to the significant cost). They present a training capability well beyond what can be expected for any other military in the world.

You can go to the NTC website to get some idea, there is also an ABC documentary on the 3rd Cav regiments rotation there prior to deployment to Afghanistan (called Blood and Steel)  

As far as I know, nobody else in NATO has anything similar either.  The most relevant point is the NTC is permanently staffed by a Regiment that is dedicated to being the OPFOR (opposition force).  These guys live there and their ONLY duty is to defeat the BCTs coming in to train.  They use Soviet, insurgent, and other "doctrine" to best simulate real opponents.  They use simulated equipment of opposition forces and their organization.  They also employ actors to simulate civilians.  Combined this approach is, as been described here, very brutal.

The permanent stationing of the OPFOR, combined with the long term service of its soldiers, means these people are highly experienced at playing the role of an enemy.  They also "cheat" by observing what the training unit is doing and then hitting it with just the right thing at just the right time.  Picture a unit training with a full enemy staff in their HQ and with each unit AND having radio contact with the enemy forces.  It means the training unit has to be on guard and extra clever to have any element of surprise and to not be surprised themselves.

Let me make this very clear.  The point of NTC is to humble, if not humiliate, the units rotating in for training.  The units in training are expected to lose and lose big.  This is not a fluffy "snap drill", this is the most realistic large scale training scenario on Earth.

All BCTs rotate through NTC on a regular basis, not just the "elite" units.  As Sburke said, this is extremely expensive to do.  Very expensive.

Vladimir, here is a short video that summarizes what NTC is:

 

Here is a longer video from a (dated) documentary of what NTC is:

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sburke said:

I think you are completely missing his point. We have training "academies" as well.  The NTC and JRTC are a fundamentally different facility that I don't believe are replicated anywhere else (at least partly due to the significant cost). They present a training capability well beyond what can be expected for any other military in the world.

You can go to the NTC website to get some idea, there is also an ABC documentary on the 3rd Cav regiments rotation there prior to deployment to Afghanistan (called Blood and Steel)  

I believe Israel has a smaller but quite capable facility for desert mobile/MOUT warfare. 

Britain built a well equipped facility for MOUT and COIN (My brother trained in both,  military tactics and civilian interaction,  ie riots, Snipers on crowds, hostile population).

Through the Commonwealth, Britain also has the use of large training areas in different ecologies and environments around the world, an unusual asset that few counties have or have properly developed. My brother participated in straight drills and large scale exercises,  but also Red v Blue open exercises where anything went,  you're often heavily outnumbered,  strong civilian (actors) presence and your mission is retarded (his words :-) ).  His success ruining the OpFors comms on a Kenyan exercise earned him an extra stripe. While these UK exercises were not as integrated as JRTC I believe is because the UK army is a smaller affair, without the budget. But they're still a very very integrated force,  almost US Marine level,  according to him. Their training areas are top flight. I don't think they have a dedicated OpFor force,  but certainly they take many turns against each other,  and the OpFor has the similar level of access to the BluFor /Victim's data as in the US. 

China has some JRTC-like facilities, but nothing on the scale or integration of the US one.

Russia,  I believe has some smaller MOUT facilities but not above brigade level (I believe). 

Finally,  I think India is building a JTRC like facility. Don't know how far they've gotten.. 

Edited by kinophile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, kinophile said:

I believe Israel has a smaller but quite capable facility for desert mobile/MOUT warfare. 

Britain built a well equipped facility for MOUT and COIN (My brother trained in both,  military tactics and civilian interaction,  ie riots, Snipers on crowds, hostile population).

Through the Commonwealth, Britain also has the use of large training areas in different ecologies and environments around the world, an unusual asset that few counties have or have properly developed. My brother participated in straight drills and large scale exercises,  but also Red v Blue open exercises where anything went,  you're often heavily outnumbered,  strong civilian (actors) presence and your mission is retarded (his words :-) ).  His success ruining the OpFors comms on a Kenyan exercise earned him an extra stripe. While these UK exercises were not as integrated as JRTC I believe is because the UK army is a smaller affair, without the budget. But they're still a very very integrated force,  almost US Marine level,  according to him. Their training areas are top flight. I don't think they have a dedicated OpFor force,  but certainly they take many turns against each other,  and the OpFor has the similar level of access to the BluFor /Victim's data as in the US. 

China has some JRTC-like facilities, but nothing on the scale or integration of the US one.

Russia,  I believe has some smaller MOUT facilities but not above brigade level (I believe). 

Finally,  I think India is building a JTRC like facility. Don't know how far they've gotten.. 

Yup, there are definitely some good training areas out there, but NTC is unique in terms of its combination of technology, diversity, permanent OPFOR, and scale.  As has been stated, part of the reason is the cost.  10 Brigades (50,000 soldiers) are rotated through for training each year.  That's not cheap.  In fact, there are some articles over the past few years talking about how Sequestration (budget constraints) are making it difficult for the NTC to do what they need to do.  And this is from the nation with the largest military budget in the world.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

Steve, I mean let's look at history. US helped the allies greatly in the first world war with the same type of isolationism it did during the second world war. Just by looking at the odds, with Germany already lost its momentum and taking losses, it was very plausible for US forces to add onto the hell that was given to the Nazis. (well atleast in the Eastern front, the western front wasn't doing so well till America came along)

 

18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Interesting.  So what do you consider "evidence"?  Obviously your government won't admit to anything.  It lied to the world when it's forces were invading Crimea, so why do you think it's going to admit to waging cyber warfare against the West?

I consider evidence to provide atleast 80% back up, such as evidence of Russian troops at critical times being inserted into Ukraine. I didn't believe this based on the Russian government's denial of being in there. After doing some research on my own, I have personally come to believe that there were Russian troops in Ukraine, during critical times. If you can provide evidence the same way, you've brought forth against Russian troops being in Ukraine, I will gladly believe it. However, without any evidence being needed from my end, It to me looks very obvious that this is just another media frenzy, and just to blame Russia. It is insanely hard to figure out who hacked who. 

18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

By your logic a US soldier invading France couldn't be as motivated to fight as a German invader defending it.  If you understood history as it really happened you would know that logic is wrong.  Therefore, you should not be so sure about a match up in Ukraine between US and Russian forces.

Let me rephrase what I've been saying. I'm saying that the Russian trooper will be more motivated, and feeling more at home, than US troops in Ukraine. I did not say US troops will coward at fighting Russian troops. Of course they wont, they're soldiers they are trained to kill, and follow orders for their country. 

18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

We've already been over this and you were wrong then as you are now.  Georgian forces were in no way "superior" to Russia's armed forces.  Which is why Russia so easily crushed them

Well I was being sarcastic in terms of the superior training, because Georgian forces were receiving training from NATO countries. I believe the US provided them with training too, if memory serves right. What I was getting at is, there are many factors that can play into a tactical scenario. I know you know this, I'm just saying btw. US troops on average are of course, receiving more advanced training than the Russian counterpart, however what I've been getting at this whole time is that Russian units can be equal to US troops as well, in tactical situations. Depending on other factors, the US unit will come on top, or the Russian unit will come out on top, or it could be a stalemate. But we cannot determine without maybe discussing a detailed scenario. 

18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

You are missing the point.  Russia has a history of overestimating it's capabilities,

Every country overestimates its capabilities IMO. Russia does have some cases in history where we have overestimated our capabilities in a war. The most recent one being the First Chechen war. But I'm very sure Russia knows its capabilities now, after a few recent wars. 

18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

And what do you say to the Ukrainian mothers on the other side of the front line who have lost their sons to Russian Army artillery shells?

No Russian invasion, no war.  No war, no death.  Therefore Russia bears responsibility for *ALL* deaths. 

I also feel very bad for Ukrainian soldiers whom have to die because of that God forsaken maidan revolution. I feel bad for the state of Ukraine as whole, suffering through horrible economy, and no recovery in sight for a while. However, this is not Russia's fault. To see who is at fault, we must look at the videos where violent riots start chaos amongst the country. Where the president of the time rather let his government be toppled than to sign an order for the army to crack down on the riots. I blame not only the Ukrainian government, but also the supporters of the riot. Spending money on media to ensure riots go more bloody and violent. 

18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Vladimir, you seem like a good person who is comforting himself with the lies of your government instead of facing the unpleasant reality that the rest of the world so plainly sees. 

Steve, with respect, you have nothing to lose from this conflict. You look through the lenses of the US which is 100% for Ukraine being taken out of Russian influence. You will see the truth in some areas in which my government propagandas over. And I will see the truth where your government propagandas over. I am not comforting myself with any lies, I comfort myself with being Russian, and defending what is right to us as a people. In a sense, what Russia did in Ukraine is just as illegal, as the brutal riots in Maidan, which ousted the former president. You justify it, but you also know it is illegal. The same way I justify Russia taking Crimea.

18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I did not compare Putin to Hitler.

I know

Edited by VladimirTarasov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I like what I'm seeing in that video, it is very impressive. Is it always desert environment? 

Unless global warming turns it into something else.. yeah :D  It does have mountains and urban facilities, but the point of the whole facility is large scale unit training and you can't just move that around.  There are other facilities for training in specific environments.  (for example in Okinawa)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, sburke said:

Unless global warming turns it into something else.. yeah :D  It does have mountains and urban facilities, but the point of the whole facility is large scale unit training and you can't just move that around.  There are other facilities for training in specific environments.  (for example in Okinawa)

Roger that, looks cool anyways. Invite me over I'd like to participate in a training drill :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: "Academies"

Deeply missing the point, as has been stated.  

Re: "Other JRTCs"

Again, missing the point. Plenty of other countries have large training reservations, but it's the meeting of dedicated personnel, equipment, training, and space that makes it a unique experience that is frankly terrible for all parties.

Re: "Always desert?"

NTC offers primarily:

1. Open desert of unending suffering, that is broken up by wadis (dry riverbeds), wind created land features, and sprinkled with full on towns of varying construction (some have many large buildings, constructed like something humans may actually live in, others are still fairly large complexes constructed with some creativity using shipping containers).  Great country for armor operations, and there's places entire battalions can do live fires.

2. Rocky unforgiving mountainsides, passes, and everything you'd expect from going to war on Mars.

It does allow you to move large forces freely, and as a result can offer all sorts of pain for the visiting training unit (ranging from being caught up in a "rope a dope" fight with enemy light armor, full on clashes of the titans with dozens of AFVs, to intimate, terrible house by house fights).  

JRTC runs pretty much the same only instead:

1. Swampy terrain, filled with various murderous wildlife

2. Swampy forests filled with various murderous wildlife

3. Dense forests filled with various murderous wildlife.

4. Dense urban clusters filled with various murderous wildlife.

Historically NTC trains mostly "heavy" units with not infrequent visits from light or Stryker units, while JRTC mostly takes "light" units with not infrequent visits from heavy or Stryker units.  NTC is much more "educational" for conventional warfare as it has an entire Armored Cavalry Regiment (Brigade sized element) that plays the bad guys, with supporting aviation and other funtimes assets.  JRTC still does a pretty good number on the conventional front and has its own fun times (it used to have a small number of authentic Russian helicopters to add a bit of realism to the battle).

There are also a wide variety of training areas on, and off major posts, but they do not come with a homegrown OPFOR (usually, sometimes they'll borrow troops from NTC or something, or have a reserve/guard unit set up camp and be bad guys for the summer).  They do usually have digital live fire courses (which is to say computer controlled targets and scoring), and virtually all of them have several "towns."

Regardless all a bit more valuable than "academies" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Steve, I mean let's look at history. US helped the allies greatly in the first world war with the same type of isolationism it did during the second world war. Just by looking at the odds, with Germany already lost its momentum and taking losses, it was very plausible for US forces to add onto the hell that was given to the Nazis. (well atleast in the Eastern front, the western front wasn't doing so well till America came along)

I understand that Russians feel their contribution to defeating Nazi Germany is underappreciated by those in the West, but I'm not one of those people.  But your comments show how absolutely ignorant you are about the contributions of the other Allies, in particular the United States.  The fighting in North Africa, Italy, and the Western Front was brutal.  In fact, one of the reasons Bagration did so well was almost all of Germany's armor was in Normandy getting slaughtered.

But I don't have time to correct your view.  Needless to say, this is just one more area of history you need to be better educated in.  The important part here is that you don't understand American motivations in war throughout history, therefore you have made a completely baseless assumption about how they might fight in Ukraine.

Quote

I consider evidence to provide atleast 80% back up, such as evidence of Russian troops at critical times being inserted into Ukraine.

In my opinion the evidence was solidly at 100% and you still denied it for a year.

Quote

I didn't believe this based on the Russian government's denial of being in there. After doing some research on my own, I have personally come to believe that there were Russian troops in Ukraine, during critical times. If you can provide evidence the same way, you've brought forth against Russian troops being in Ukraine, I will gladly believe it. However, without any evidence being needed from my end, It to me looks very obvious that this is just another media frenzy, and just to blame Russia. It is insanely hard to figure out who hacked who. 

That is nuts.  What sort of evidence could I possibly show you?!?  It's a CYBER WAR!  The evidence is something that only hackers understand.  And that evidence isn't even being shared for obvious security reasons.  So... a man that took a year to believe thousands of pieces of physical evidence (pictures, satellite photos, voice intercepts, videos, etc.) is going to be swayed by some computer code that he doesn't have a prayer of understanding?

I got to hand it to you, your self defense denial mechanism is fantastic.

Quote

Let me rephrase what I've been saying. I'm saying that the Russian trooper will be more motivated, and feeling more at home, than US troops in Ukraine. I did not say US troops will coward at fighting Russian troops. Of course they wont, they're soldiers they are trained to kill, and follow orders for their country. 

Again, you do not understand how America fights wars.  The conditions that would cause the US to go to war with Russia would be sufficient to motivate Americans to fight. I do not think there would be any tangible difference between the motivation of US and Russian forces.  At least to start with.  Losses might change things for one or both sides.

Quote

Well I was being sarcastic in terms of the superior training, because Georgian forces were receiving training from NATO countries. I believe the US provided them with training too, if memory serves right. What I was getting at is, there are many factors that can play into a tactical scenario. I know you know this, I'm just saying btw. US troops on average are of course, receiving more advanced training than the Russian counterpart, however what I've been getting at this whole time is that Russian units can be equal to US troops as well, in tactical situations. Depending on other factors, the US unit will come on top, or the Russian unit will come out on top, or it could be a stalemate. But we cannot determine without maybe discussing a detailed scenario. 

While I agree it is possible for X US unit to fight poorly and Y Russian unit to fight amazingly well, the odds are that a US unit will fight better most of the time in most situations.  Motivation is not enough to balance out everything else.  Especially when the side with superior training, experience, and weapons is also motivated to use them.

Quote

Every country overestimates its capabilities IMO. Russia does have some cases in history where we have overestimated our capabilities in a war. The most recent one being the First Chechen war. But I'm very sure Russia knows its capabilities now, after a few recent wars. 

This was a possible position to take before Ukraine.  But with Donbas what it is, clearly Russia "bit off more than it can chew".

Quote

I also feel very bad for Ukrainian soldiers whom have to die because of that God forsaken maidan revolution. I feel bad for the state of Ukraine as whole, suffering through horrible economy, and no recovery in sight for a while. However, this is not Russia's fault. To see who is at fault, we must look at the videos where violent riots start chaos amongst the country. Where the president of the time rather let his government be toppled than to sign an order for the army to crack down on the riots. I blame not only the Ukrainian government, but also the supporters of the riot. Spending money on media to ensure riots go more bloody and violent. 

Of course this has nothing to do with the facts.  Russia created the war from the very beginning.  This was never a civil war, ever.  Buit I understand why you can not admit this.  It should make you ask very uncomfortable questions.  Though you already should be asking those questions since you do seem to understand your President illegally invading Ukraine and had NO PROBLEM lying about it to you and everybody else.  It should make you think about what else he's lying about.

Quote

Steve, with respect, you have nothing to lose from this conflict. You look through the lenses of the US which is 100% for Ukraine being taken out of Russian influence. You will see the truth in some areas in which my government propagandas over. And I will see the truth where your government propagandas over. I am not comforting myself with any lies, I comfort myself with being Russian, and defending what is right to us as a people. In a sense, what Russia did in Ukraine is just as illegal, as the brutal riots in Maidan, which ousted the former president. You justify it, but you also know it is illegal. The same way I justify Russia taking Crimea.

Ukrainians did not want to be ruled by a corrupt dictator.  Why should Russia have a say in that?  Why should Russia be able to not live up to its treaty obligations because it doesn't feel like it?  Why should Russia be able to murder thousands of people and destroy billions of Dollars worth of infrastructure and lie about it every single day?

And yes, I have a "dog in this fight" because my country has to deal with the mess your country is making of the world.  My country has to deal with your country flying planes within 3m of our planes.  We have to deal with the threats of you using nuclear weapons.  We have to deal with cyber attacks and your money being used to fund fascist groups in democracies.

I wish we in the West could ignore Russia.  But as Russia's war against Ukraine and support of the mass murdering Assad continues that is not possible.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

I understand that Russians feel their contribution to defeating Nazi Germany is underappreciated by those in the West, but I'm not one of those people.  But your comments show how absolutely ignorant you are about the contributions of the other Allies, in particular the United States.  The fighting in North Africa, Italy, and the Western Front was brutal.  In fact, one of the reasons Bagration did so well was almost all of Germany's armor was in Normandy getting slaughtered.

No friend you misunderstood me, I very well appreciate the contribution of our western allies of the time, especially for the lend lease. and the effort as Allies we've put together fighting a common enemy of the time. I just meant that the odds were in the US's favor when they came into Europe in the grand scheme of things, as a counter to you saying it was thought the US would not fair well in World War 2. You're probably right during the period of that time, but one who does research can see that all the odds were on the Allies side especially when the US came to the Western Front. 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

In my opinion the evidence was solidly at 100% and you still denied it for a year.

I denied because I didn't do research like I should have. I have admitted that I was wrong, and I never did deny Russia at some point sending in advisors and training the DPR/LPR.

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

That is nuts.  What sort of evidence could I possibly show you?!?  It's a CYBER WAR!  The evidence is something that only hackers understand.  And that evidence isn't even being shared for obvious security reasons.  So... a man that took a year to believe thousands of pieces of physical evidence (pictures, satellite photos, voice intercepts, videos, etc.) is going to be swayed by some computer code that he doesn't have a prayer of understanding?

You see, I've changed my mind on what forces were in Ukraine or not. If the US government can show evidence of Russian troops operating in Ukraine, I'd also like some critical piece of evidence that it was indeed the Russian government which was hacking. If provided, I will also change my mind. For the time being, I don't see any evidence other than someone hacked, and the blame is pivoted towards the Russian government. 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Again, you do not understand how America fights wars.  The conditions that would cause the US to go to war with Russia would be sufficient to motivate Americans to fight. I do not think there would be any tangible difference between the motivation of US and Russian forces.  At least to start with.  Losses might change things for one or both sides.

I'll agree.

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

While I agree it is possible for X US unit to fight poorly and Y Russian unit to fight amazingly well, the odds are that a US unit will fight better most of the time in most situations.  Motivation is not enough to balance out everything else.  Especially when the side with superior training, experience, and weapons is also motivated to use them

Of course this is true but you're still underestimating Russian capabilities, especially since we'd be so close to our borders in the hypothetical Ukrainian conflict of CMBS. In no means am I trying to convey the Russian military being able to swiftly crush a  viable US force in Ukraine, I'm saying we wouldn't fair poorly either depending on the situation.

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Of course this has nothing to do with the facts.  Russia created the war from the very beginning.  This was never a civil war, ever.  Buit I understand why you can not admit this.  It should make you ask very uncomfortable questions.  Though you already should be asking those questions since you do seem to understand your President illegally invading Ukraine and had NO PROBLEM lying about it to you and everybody else.  It should make you think about what else he's lying about.

I'm not in the mood for a further continuation of Ukrainian politics, however I have nothing that I haven't admitted already. Anyways, I have my trust in Putin. Just like alot of Russians. I know in the west he's viewed as our problem. But more so we consider the West to be a problem to us. Sanctions for doing something the countries in question have been doing on a more brutal and horrific scale than compared to events in Ukraine. And then putting the full blame onto the Russian government. I don't despise any western government or country, but it is totally unfair on what they do. 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Ukrainians did not want to be ruled by a corrupt dictator.  Why should Russia have a say in that?  Why should Russia be able to not live up to its treaty obligations because it doesn't feel like it?  Why should Russia be able to murder thousands of people and destroy billions of Dollars worth of infrastructure and lie about it every single day?

A dictator to a chunk of Ukraine, but a elected leader to the other (smaller but viable) chunk. If the balance of power is removed from under Russia's grasp, and Russians in Ukraine which have been there, are being effected, it fully justifies Russian intervention. I personally wish Putin did not lie about there not being Russian troops in Ukraine, as it lowers credibility to folks like you. And it's understandable. But there's more to it than a Russian intervention. 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

And yes, I have a "dog in this fight" because my country has to deal with the mess your country is making of the world.  My country has to deal with your country flying planes within 3m of our planes.  We have to deal with the threats of you using nuclear weapons.  We have to deal with cyber attacks and your money being used to fund fascist groups in democracies.

The Russian pilot IMO did get too close however. It wasn't very professional of him to do so. I can understand why NATO would be mad about that.

Edited by VladimirTarasov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The presense of American citizens in Mexico who might be at danger from drug violence totally justifies us invading and carving off portions of Northern Mexico.  The presents of Americans in Canada means that if their leader is opposed to us, Abrams in Ottawa are greatly justified.  

If those were Russians in the Ukraine, then they belong back over the internationally recognized border in Russia, not in the Ukraine.  Russia has no right to invade its neighbors, and it disgusts me that war has returned to Europe for such a sham reason.  
 

I have no respect for Russia as a country.  Your troops are unwelcome by anyone who isn't in the process of gassing their own people.  Your "word" means nothing.  Your country's contribution to international relations is regular injections of weapons and precious little else.  

Our statues to our fallen in Europe remain, standing unmolested.  Yours are cast down, your sacrifices as a nation erased by the rape of Eastern Europe, and oppression of free people.  Your former "allies" flock to NATO to seek protection because they fully believe if they don't, they will again see your troops killing their people, and you just proved this to be true with your nation's actions in the Ukraine.

But hey, Putin's got 82% popularity so why worry about the rest of the world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

No friend you misunderstood me, I very well appreciate the contribution of our western allies of the time, especially for the lend lease. and the effort as Allies we've put together fighting a common enemy of the time. I just meant that the odds were in the US's favor when they came into Europe in the grand scheme of things, as a counter to you saying it was thought the US would not fair well in World War 2. You're probably right during the period of that time, but one who does research can see that all the odds were on the Allies side especially when the US came to the Western Front. 

Germany was at its height of power in the summer of 1942.  The US entered the war in early 1942.  It took Germany 3 years to get to that point and it took roughly 3 years more to get rid of it.  Germany was not even close to defeated when the US started to engage it.  And as far as motivation is concerned, the American people had no problem supporting two huge wars on both sides of the globe, concurrently, while also producing weapons and munitions so its allies (including the Soviet Union) could help in the fight to rid the world of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.  The entire population was mobilized and enthusiastic, if not fanatical, about the wars.

When America feels there's a reason to fight it fights and fights hard.  For years and in spite of incompetent leadership, if necessary.  The biggest miscalculation Russia could ever make is thinking like the Germans in WW2 did...

"I don't see much future for the Americans ... it's a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities ... my feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance ... everything about the behaviour of American society reveals that it's half Judaised, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold together? "

Adolf Hitler - January 7, 1942

And yet, somehow it didn't work out so well for the Third Reich :D

Quote

I denied because I didn't do research like I should have. I have admitted that I was wrong, and I never did deny Russia at some point sending in advisors and training the DPR/LPR.

You do show more ability to recognize facts than many other Russians I've debated.  In fact, you're better than a particular ex-Pat American that used to post here for a time.  However, you still haven't grasped the totality.  It's like you've admitted that the milk is a bit sour, not that it is a coagulated mess that isn't even milk.

What do you make of this?  The West has been pretty slow to discuss it because it is uncomfortable for them as well.  Not that this is "news" to me because it was crystal clear what Russia was doing at the time.  The evidence, if one "researched it" was all there at the time it was happening.  Note the English translation here sucks, but it's the best that is available.  There's plenty of copies of the original Russian version out there.

Quote

You see, I've changed my mind on what forces were in Ukraine or not. If the US government can show evidence of Russian troops operating in Ukraine, I'd also like some critical piece of evidence that it was indeed the Russian government which was hacking. If provided, I will also change my mind. For the time being, I don't see any evidence other than someone hacked, and the blame is pivoted towards the Russian government. 

The problem is that the nature of such warfare does not leave clear traces.  All governments, in particular yours and the Chinese, are extremely good at developing "plausible deniability" to average people who are inclined to believe such things.  As I said, you were able to ignore traditional, easy to understand evidence for more than a year and you still deny lots of other evidence about such things as MH-17.  Therefore, whatever evidence there is of Russia's cyber activity is obviously not going to meet your definition of "evidence".

Russia engages a number of different means to cover it's tracks.  It is also very good at it.  Don't expect "smoking guns" for this sort of warfare.  It will likely never happen.

Quote

I'll agree.

Of course this is true but you're still underestimating Russian capabilities, especially since we'd be so close to our borders in the hypothetical Ukrainian conflict of CMBS. In no means am I trying to convey the Russian military being able to swiftly crush a  viable US force in Ukraine, I'm saying we wouldn't fair poorly either depending on the situation.

I think Russia's short supply lines do give it an advantage in some circumstances.  But it's the sort of advantage that only works if everything else is going pretty much OK.  For example, in 1945 Germany had the shortest logistics distances of the entire war since 1939/1940 and its enemies, on all three fronts, had the longest distances ever.  Much further than Germany ever had.  Yet it didn't amount to anything more than lengthening the war and causing its enemies more suffering.  It did not change the course of the war because by itself it wasn't the most important factor.

For example, let us say that in this hypothetical war Russia has 100 Armata tanks and commits all of them to the battle.  Let's say 50 of them are destroyed in the first month.  What difference does it make how close Russia is to the frontline if it takes 6 months to build a single tank?

What Russia faces in a war with NATO more than anything else is massive, sudden attrition.  Even Russia's current best equipment is no match for NATO's in most categories.  Even when the equipment is good or perhaps even better, there isn't a lot of it.  Once it's destroyed it can not be replaced.  So very quickly Russia will find itself with lower and lower quality equipment across the spectrum.  No matter how many casualties Russia causes NATO, this dynamic will not change because even NATO's 2nd rate stuff is better than most of Russia's 1st rate stuff.

Quote

I'm not in the mood for a further continuation of Ukrainian politics, however I have nothing that I haven't admitted already. Anyways, I have my trust in Putin. Just like alot of Russians.

All dictators have their supporters.  Many support Putin under the long standing Russian concept of "better with the devil you know than the one you don't" mindset.  But the problem with this is that Putin is still not good for Russia or the world.  And increasingly his actions on the Russian people are getting more autocratic and punitive.  The days when you could speak out about Putin and not have the FSB show up and harass you are growing ever dimmer.  As a historian I've seen this cycle before and I can promise you this will not end well for your country.  I feel sorry for you, but I also feel sorry for everybody else that has to deal with the messes made by his regime.

Quote

I know in the west he's viewed as our problem. But more so we consider the West to be a problem to us. Sanctions for doing something the countries in question have been doing on a more brutal and horrific scale than compared to events in Ukraine. And then putting the full blame onto the Russian government. I don't despise any western government or country, but it is totally unfair on what they do. 

"Whataboutism" at play here, again.  The facts are still facts... Russia is waging a war of aggression against Ukraine and is refusing to admit it.  You also refuse to admit it.  What the West did in Libya or Iraq is irrelevant.

Quote

A dictator to a chunk of Ukraine, but a elected leader to the other (smaller but viable) chunk. If the balance of power is removed from under Russia's grasp, and Russians in Ukraine which have been there, are being effected, it fully justifies Russian intervention. I personally wish Putin did not lie about there not being Russian troops in Ukraine, as it lowers credibility to folks like you. And it's understandable. But there's more to it than a Russian intervention. 

Of course there was more too it.  However, without Russia there would be no war.  Period.  End of story.  Therefore, the war and all of its results are 100% the responsibility of the Russian government.

Quote

The Russian pilot IMO did get too close however. It wasn't very professional of him to do so. I can understand why NATO would be mad about that.

It wasn't the first time and it probably won't be the last time either.  The US has been within its legal and moral rights to shoot down several of your planes for their activities.  It is irresponsible for Russia to tempt such things.  And blaming the pilot is crazy... these situations do NOT happen because of the decision of an individual.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you guys even bother? 

I appreciate the extra info provided in trying to clarify/explain, but it's all pretty pointless in terms of achieving any real change in mindset or opinion, or even unqualified admission of ignorance/propaganda spouting. 

Just around and around and around... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vlad the odds clearly werent on the US side in Anzio or Salerno in Italy.

Normandy was a blood bath that had gains only slightly greater than WW1 1918 offensives.

The outcome of daylight bombing was never a clear outcome and actually it was statistically impossible for a bomber crew to complete its 25 machines from mid 42 to about may 44. After that the amount of missions increased and it was still a deadly business. But the combined bomber offense drew huge amounts of 88 FLAKS manpower and airpower to Germany and absolutely was a bloody front of its own.

You also dont acknowledge at all the battle of the Atlantic or the more or less single handed US victory over Japan which was no cake walk. Lend lease provided hordes of weapons and equipment especially when Russia needed them most. Never mind that deep operations would have been impossible without all those Western vehicles. Its just a fact. Your nation wouldnt have been able.to focus on weapons and leave hundreds of thousands of vehicles, food, logistical planes, and more advanced fighters until you got your own without the massive lend lease effort and thousands of Westerners who died helping Russia. And there was also the Iran route.

And even if the odds were much more in doubt when Russia and England were alone, I say the Russians deserved it. You made a pact with the devil. Ww2 wouldnt have began the way it didwithout the Soviet agreement of a German invasion of Poland and then after  3 weeks snapping a third of the nation up.

And Stalin was the first to congratulate Hitler about his victory over France by cable.

Shall we discuss Katyn? The Lublin government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be accurate,  "russians" didn't sign the Molotov Ribbentrop pact - they didn't even get to vote on who would.

Stating they, as a people, made the choice is wrong.  They didn't. Stalin did. And he made certain no one contested that decision using an established nation-wide system of terror, torture, enforced famine, population death marches, genocide, murder and debasement of ordinary Russian (and pretty much every other nationality) men,  women and children.  

Stalin and his henchmen,  I should clarify. 

Edited by kinophile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...