Russian army under equipped?

[Sublime]

Hmm yes. But the mechanized units in the VDV that are air transportable arent good at all. Better to ditch the air transportable stuff and work on reverse engineering say US C17s. Then the VDV could be rapid response with their effective heavier armor could follow. Maybe they could end up with all the T80Us and that way the tanks be specific to that one organization simplifying logistics some.

Or they could keep the mechanised component but not really permanent  jnstead have prepositioned stocks on every farflung edve of Russia and any country that still allows Russian bases and Kaliningrad. Then in case of wanting to invade or intimidate you fly the elite VDV in or air drop them near the sites of where all their armor is.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

If anything I would go the other way. At least the VDV are fully mechanized which gives them some mission flexibility (VDV divisions are sorta like large SBCTs if Strykers were air-dropable). The role of the 82nd would be relatively more problematic in a high-intensity conflict since they would not be jumping into it either but would still be light infantry on the ground.

I agree that in general the Russians are well represented in-game in terms of TO&E. There are some game mechanics that tend to favor the US a bit but most of those will hopefully be fixed in future updates.

There's a reason the VDV didn't operate the BMD in Afghanistan after a fairly short stint.  There's a practical limit to how complex/heavy you can make an airdroppable vehicle, and it does impact how useful that platform is.  On the other end of the spectrum, the BMD isn't any less prone to maintenance issues and will still consume Class III (fuel, lubricants etc) just as much as similar non-airborne vehicles which adds more to the support burden, which when done via airdrop is again, problematic (especially if you've got an LZ that's forward of the FEBA).  

You can make a good IFV, or a good airdropped vehicle, and everything you do to make it better at one of those, virtually always is at the expense of the other. The BMD just isn't much value added for its cost, and it only really made sense when Russian "deep battle" plans for airborne troops did not fly in the face of how lethal skies can get these days.  

US Airborne had, last time I checked two airdropped things that were supposed to be in the works in terms of adding mobility/maneuver assets:

1.  Troop transport.  The stuff I saw looked a lot like a cut-down M998 crossed with an ATV, basically a light transport able to move 9 guys quickly with gear and nothing else.

2. Some sort of light tank.  This was written more in jello, but could be seen as finally reviving the same recon-anti-tank-fire support mission the Sheridan did and XM8 was supposed to cover down on.  

[VladimirTarasov]

BMD-2 is definitely not modern by today's standards, that's why the BMD-4M is being brought into service. That's not to say the VDV still can't be used in its respective roll. The US airborne forces cannot be compared to the Russian VDV, we operate by totally different ideas. We have forces that can be paradropped where required, capable of mechanized operations. If I'm the high command and I have mechanized units capable of airdrop deploying on large scale, and then self moving 200-300 plus kilometers without needing to fuel, that provides me with more options, and gives me flexible units. On top of that, my vehicles are amphibious. Drawbacks of the VDV currently are the lack of armor, and lack of sensors on our BMDs. Until the BMD-4M enters in standard service, we will still lack in those regards in the VDV. 

Edited September 11, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[Sublime]

Of course Vlad you.d be tryng to airdrop these troops in the face of histories all time number one without a doubt the worlds number one air power. Going by aces one would think it was Germany but it really truly has been the USAF since it was the AAF in WW2.

I personally if i were the Russian commander and even with a surge type operation- would probably know if I wasnt dead from jdams from a b2 hitting my command post- that i would lose easily half my forces due to AMRAAMS Patriots stingers and sidewinders. Seriously the massive amount of amraams the USAF has which has better range and goes smart on its own  quicker ( allowing the F15 which isnt even the air forces premier fighter now and has never lost an a2a engagement) than the Russian R77 and the massive amount of airpower the USAF and Navy and Marines could put up in addition to the near certainty of countries that may not add ground troops flying air support, ( heres looking at you England France and Germany, though I really think Britain would jump in with us completely)and countries that certainly eagerly would join the US in engaging Russian forces who just aggressively occupied or moved into the UKR kike the Balts, Poland, and perhaps Finland... the amount of planes dwarfs what Russia can field of all types and a massive airborne drop behind US lines would have fighters on afterburner for several countries over. The VDV would drop but I think it.d be generous if it had 50 percent strength already KIA from the beginning never mind the usual problems once youve parachuted behind enemy lines.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

BMD-2 is definitely not modern by today's standards, that's why the BMD-4M is being brought into service. That's not to say the VDV still can't be used in its respective roll. The US airborne forces cannot be compared to the Russian VDV, we operate by totally different ideas. We have forces that can be paradropped where required, capable of mechanized operations. If I'm the high command and I have mechanized units capable of airdrop deploying on large scale, and then self moving 200-300 plus kilometers without needing to fuel, that provides me with more options, and gives me flexible units. On top of that, my vehicles are amphibious. Drawbacks of the VDV currently are the lack of armor, and lack of sensors on our BMDs. Until the BMD-4M enters in standard service, we will still lack in those regards in the VDV. 

The BMD still isn't enough vehicle for the job.  It's too light to handle a direct fire fight, and even a disorganized rabble in Afghanistan proved too much for it with direct fire type weapons.  The BMD-4 isn't much better protected or capable.  

A good parallel we're facing right now in the US Army side of things is how to take a Stryker unit on the offensive against an enemy with modern to semi-modern armor and weapons.  The BMD isn't much better off in this case, and relies on the same sort of tools to overcome the enemy.  BMD is a little better for direct fire weapons (for now) but worse off as a unit in terms of supporting tools.  We had an exercise a few years back in which a platoon of National Guard armor held off an entire Stryker Battalion for hours before falling back because they ran out of ammo.

On the offensive, with paradropped forces alone a "light" mechanized unit doesn't have the sort of capabilities a mechanized unit needs to conduct mechanized unit type operations.  Even falling behind the line, look to Market Garden for a great example of what happens in terms of paratrooper timelines, supply routes, and of limited axis advances.  

Basically with Russian paratroops you have:

1. Against a Near-Peer (mostly China) or NATO type conflict, Russia is too weak to gain the sort of air control required to keep it from being a suicide mission. VDV is deployed as inferior capability (although perhaps not training) motor rifle troops.    

2. Against an inferior enemy, air drop is possible, but the inferior enemy are weak enough that there's no need for paratroopers given the high operational losses incurred by air assault type missions.  It's solving a problem that doesn't exist.  Russia does not have the global reach or influence to reasonably conduct operations outside of its immediate border area, or already deploying into permissive environments. 

With US type paratroopers:

1. Against a near peer threat the air drop is out, but light infantry still has a clear role that cannot be better filled by "heavy" type forces.  In complex terrain, dismounted troops are very powerful.  Failing that, they offer economy of force capabilities given the relative "cheapness" of the force relative to staying power on the defensive.  

2. The US does have the influence and global operations capability, and the requirement to rapidly push troops to support allies, or intervene in developing crisis situations.  The Airborne IBCTs are perfect for this force, and can conduct forced entry operations as required, and can be augmented by fly-in SBCT or even assets from ABCTs once the airhead is established, negating the need for bad IFV that can parachute.

[VladimirTarasov]

29 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

The BMD still isn't enough vehicle for the job.  It's too light to handle a direct fire fight, and even a disorganized rabble in Afghanistan proved too much for it with direct fire type weapons.  The BMD-4 isn't much better protected or capable.  

BMD-4 is still better than the BMD-2 by alot. And it'd help the VDV out immensely. I don't like the BMD-2 at all, it's too old... In Afghanistan the armor was not coping well with the terrain there. BMD-2s were being jacked up by ambushes, especially since they had thinner armor than BMP-2s. 

31 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

A good parallel we're facing right now in the US Army side of things is how to take a Stryker unit on the offensive against an enemy with modern to semi-modern armor and weapons.  The BMD isn't much better off in this case, and relies on the same sort of tools to overcome the enemy.  BMD is a little better for direct fire weapons (for now) but worse off as a unit in terms of supporting tools. 

Thing is, with the Stykers you guys have better sensors, and essentially better targeting. The good thing about BMD-2s is that they are amphibious, and have great firepower. For airborne forces the BMD-2 answers the firepower, but the armor is too weak. It has no thermals, and also it's outdated. Another plus to the BMD is it offers AT capabilities to the VDV, so in a defensive operation you have long range AT capabilities. You can dismount the ATGMs ontop of the BMDs and use those. However, those ATGMs in particular against US forces would only prove effective against your IFVs. Unless lucky side shots, or lucky shots period are achieved, against heavy armor such as the ones some NATO countries field.

35 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

1. Against a Near-Peer (mostly China) or NATO type conflict, Russia is too weak to gain the sort of air control required to keep it from being a suicide mission. VDV is deployed as inferior capability (although perhaps not training) motor rifle troops.   

True to a certain extent. If used before the war gears off into the US starting large scale air missions it is still viable. Especially if it is deployed under our aerial denial zones, close to the area of operations. However, deploying the VDV outside of aerial denial zones is indeed suicide. 

37 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

2. Against an inferior enemy, air drop is possible, but the inferior enemy are weak enough that there's no need for paratroopers given the high operational losses incurred by air assault type missions.  It's solving a problem that doesn't exist.  Russia does not have the global reach or influence to reasonably conduct operations outside of its immediate border area, or already deploying into permissive environments. 

Could still serve some mission objectives, against inferior enemies.

38 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

1. Against a near peer threat the air drop is out, but light infantry still has a clear role that cannot be better filled by "heavy" type forces.  In complex terrain, dismounted troops are very powerful.  Failing that, they offer economy of force capabilities given the relative "cheapness" of the force relative to staying power on the defensive.  

Of course, light infantry can be a headache to even heavy forces. However keep in mind, the VDV could be used as "light infantry" in complex terrain.

39 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

2. The US does have the influence and global operations capability, and the requirement to rapidly push troops to support allies, or intervene in developing crisis situations.  The Airborne IBCTs are perfect for this force, and can conduct forced entry operations as required, and can be augmented by fly-in SBCT or even assets from ABCTs once the airhead is established, negating the need for bad IFV that can parachute.

Quite true, but again the VDV can be used like this as well depending on the conflict. 

41 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

We had an exercise a few years back in which a platoon of National Guard armor held off an entire Stryker Battalion for hours before falling back because they ran out of ammo.

I wouldn't send the VDV in a death assault towards armored positions either. Light probes, harrasments, and setting up perimeters near such a objective so the army can advance without trouble. If we have a MLRS or artillery attachment nearby, FOs can call it in to unleash hell onto an objective if must be.

Don't the Stryker battalions have ATGMs with them? What happened to the Javelins and TOWs?  that's crazy how a armored platoon held off a Stryker battalion. 

[VladimirTarasov]

1 hour ago, Sublime said:

 

Of course Vlad you.d be tryng to airdrop these troops in the face of histories all time number one without a doubt the worlds number one air power. Going by aces one would think it was Germany but it really truly has been the USAF since it was the AAF in WW2.

 

The Russian air force wont go in on its own against the US air force ever, unless the advantages are our side in a limited engagement. That's why we've developed advanced SAM systems, so our air force can coordinate under aerial denial zones, so it isn't so lopsided. I think you said you played DCS? Set up a true to life Russian AD zone and try doing strike missions with those threats out. You cant. Until the USAF destroys aerial denial, it is very plausible for airborne drops to happen atleast 100 kilometers away from the objective. I honestly forgot how far the BMD units can go on their own after a drop, but depending on terrain I believe it was atleast 200 kilometers. I'm not saying the VDV is going to paradrop men right ontop of enemy lines, that doesn't work out so well. It can drop the forces a distance away and work to it. Secure routes, open up defensive positions, probes, and you know other headaches. I never said IL-76 stronk is going to drop troops over heavy AA threats.

[sburke]

really - you think the Russian army can go 100km past the FEBA and do an air drop?  Might want to define who you think the Russian army could pull that off against first and then why you'd bother doing an air drop. It is an interesting capability, but as others have tried to point out - why?  Name an adversary you think there is even a remote possibility where this might be useful to maintain.  At some point Russia needs to define what is the functional role of it's military and figure out what it needs to accomplish that mission.  Otherwise you spend lots of much needed cash for a military that might look good on paper, but doesn't really have a reason for it's existence.

As Panzer....(stuff)...   has pointed out, the US maintains an airborne force because it actually has a functional use for a light infantry force.  The US military projects globally and has the lift capacity and friends to do so.  They do everything from policing and humanitarian missions to actual forced entry against non peer threat. (though even those instances are becoming dated  - Panama, Grenada for example.)  Look at Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan though as an example where things can go horribly wrong and how difficult it is for an airborne light infantry force to regain the initiative.

Honestly I can't see the Russian army trying any kind of deep air assault mission against any state it borders and if it can't do it there, where is it going to do it?  Russia has few friends in the world and lacks the force projection capability to do much else useful.

 

[HUSKER2142]

 

Today is a holiday of tank troops of the Russian Federation. Armor is strong and our tanks are fast.

 

[Sublime]

7 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

The Russian air force wont go in on its own against the US air force ever, unless the advantages are our side in a limited engagement. That's why we've developed advanced SAM systems, so our air force can coordinate under aerial denial zones, so it isn't so lopsided. I think you said you played DCS? Set up a true to life Russian AD zone and try doing strike missions with those threats out. You cant. Until the USAF destroys aerial denial, it is very plausible for airborne drops to happen atleast 100 kilometers away from the objective. I honestly forgot how far the BMD units can go on their own after a drop, but depending on terrain I believe it was atleast 200 kilometers. I'm not saying the VDV is going to paradrop men right ontop of enemy lines, that doesn't work out so well. It can drop the forces a distance away and work to it. Secure routes, open up defensive positions, probes, and you know other headaches. I never said IL-76 stronk is going to drop troops over heavy AA threats.

I actually played DCS quite a bit in missions with full realism where you had to penetrate Russian ADA and air power to strike say an A50 AWACs or tankers. Its not easy at all. Youve got sams from the deck all the way up fla kers etc. (But DCS  also doesnt have F22s nor b2s nor the latest Russian aircraft either.)

Also the Kavkaz map ( and the regions terrain ) helps. You can really sneak around flying literally 100 ft off the ground in valleys etc to escape air planes and ADA.

These missions always had a small footprint and were incursions. Now reverse it. You got the sam network but instead of 2 F15cs you have dozens and f16s f18s and f22s. Plus patriots. And polish mig21s 29s etc. Maybe some typhoons.

Even under the Russian umbrella losses would be horrendous.

 

And of course you wouldnt send the VDV to its death. You.re ex VDV as a cmdr they.re all to real as people to you. Better to send in some conscript motor rifle unit

Edited September 11, 2016 by Sublime

[Sublime]

Also vlad consodering there are forum.members who are active in military aviation i feel compelled to say using any video game as credentials for experience on a military subject is laughable. Im competent at best at dcs and anyone such as Duchess would have hundreds more hours of real basic flying before ever even getting to sit in an F18 and train and fly combat. Meaning US pilots and US airpower id ALWAYS the first thing to show up in modern times and can react within a few hrs or less if needed that badly.

American airpower doctrine has always been achieve air superiority then supremacy and destroy the ADA network before moving on to decaptation strikes and letting each squadron go to its specialty. 

Meaning whilst US ground troops who wont even really be there in numbers wont initially habe a lot of CAS Russian SAMs would be getting hit by tomahawks jdams everything almost  instantly.

Also the US would not only try to destroy the VVS, itd encourage confrontations. Itd seek out IL76 AWACS and tankers, itd fly dummy missions to force the VVS to fight because even attrition wise the USAF can win. In Vietnam N Vietnam had the strongest air defense network on the world.  The US flew preditcable.routes had incompetent top level ( LBJ )leadership interfering in what should have beem Colonels and Generals work, and a spy ( Walker ) sending the US air strike routes to the Russians who would give it to the NVietnamese within the same day and act upon such information. This is all fact.

The US lost a lot of planes in Vietnam in favt F105s basically disappeared because the war. Still the USAF never gave up. No US unit ever gave up. The army started having largw problems but on a case of individuals and small groups. As far as any arms air power it was spectacularly- despite insane rules of emgagement etc- professional and when allowed to really fight they massacred the vietnamese. When forced to figgr basically with fists against someone with a samurai sword they still would take bad losses but always win evem if winning just meant they blew up some trees.

N Vietnam has nothing like Russias air force which is awhole new dimension. But it had a lot of advantages Russia probably wouldnt have. The spy. Political interference. The US has never really fought a half war since.

Weve played with it in Iraq etc but whereas sin Vietnam despite Tet it was always kid gloves and stuff we would and did repeatedly lose our temper and realy do some damage.

In retrospect if we stayed in Iraq with surge numbers another few years ISIS has a fair chance of not existing . Al baghdadi was zarqawis disciple and student. We really destroyed al qaeda in iraq wxcept for a small core that when we left was hiding on the syrian border and survived. Shame. A couple of predator strikes and that would have been it. Of course another group would exist. But theyd lack the experiemce and leadership imo.

 

 

So to sum up the US airpoqwr would take losses but I think largely dismantle the Russian ADA network and destroy anyVVS elements involved at all. I think the USAF would bomb and shoot down planes over Russia. I could be wrong thars very risky. But itd be easy enough to.deny Ukraines border and isolate kaliningrad etc ourselves and only.shoot down or strike stuff outside Russia.

[VladimirTarasov]

8 hours ago, sburke said:

really - you think the Russian army can go 100km past the FEBA and do an air drop?  Might want to define who you think the Russian army could pull that off against first and then why you'd bother doing an air drop.

Sorry, I was braindead sleepy when I wrote that and did not be specific. Like my previous scenario, we're talking about conflict in Ukraine. Before US forces can deploy their main assets into Ukraine, it's more than possible to drop VDV units in the Russian territories, and cross into Ukraine in large scale. Of course on their own the VDV is not going to be launching offensives. They can secure the routes, set up positions, limited probes ect. Even then if Ukraine has AD units nearby, paradropping onto their territories are not going to work. SEAD operations have to take care of those. However, again the VDV can be deployed very rapidly to a region.

3 hours ago, Sublime said:

I actually played DCS quite a bit in missions with full realism where you had to penetrate Russian ADA and air power to strike say an A50 AWACs or tankers. Its not easy at all. Youve got sams from the deck all the way up fla kers etc. (But DCS  also doesnt have F22s nor b2s nor the latest Russian aircraft either.)

Also the Kavkaz map ( and the regions terrain ) helps. You can really sneak around flying literally 100 ft off the ground in valleys etc to escape air planes and ADA.

Yeah DCS is fun just wanted to mention it, because even with a bunch of stuff missing for both sides, it shows the intensity of such wars.

16 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Also vlad consodering there are forum.members who are active in military aviation i feel compelled to say using any video game as credentials for experience on a military subject is laughable. Im competent at best at dcs and anyone such as Duchess would have hundreds more hours of real basic flying before ever even getting to sit in an F18 and train and fly combat. Meaning US pilots and US airpower id ALWAYS the first thing to show up in modern times and can react within a few hrs or less if needed that badly.

Of course DCS is nothing like reality. I was just using an example since you've played that game.

17 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Meaning whilst US ground troops who wont even really be there in numbers wont initially habe a lot of CAS Russian SAMs would be getting hit by tomahawks jdams everything almost  instantly.

Let me go into detail of Russian ADs. Firstly you have long range assets like S-300s and S-400s, Then comes the medium range stuff, BUKs for example, then short range stuff like Tunguskas, Panstir-S1s, TORs, ect. Short range AA assets are capable of engaging cruise missiles, and even guided missiles from attack jets. Then, to supplement the SAMs we have our air force to plug in holes, and operate under the umbrella. It isn't just SAMs by itself. 

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: BMD-4M

It's better, but does it change the name of the game?  It's still barely armored.  It's still equipped with similar weapons to other IFVs.  

Basically it's better at what a BMD-2 does, but it still suffers from virtually all of the same problems the BMD-2 has.  It's just not enough vehicle to reasonably take against an enemy using real bullets.

Re: "Early" deployment against US Forces

Here's the thing.  You're going to have to gather all your forces, alert your paratroopers, collect up all your transports and stage them to go somewhere.  Unless Russia truly is going the way of invading its neighbors without warning, this will likely come in the context of a building US air presence, which frankly makes any sort of airborne operating likely to be interrupted by AIM-120s over the DZ.  Even if that wasn't going to happen for whatever reason, it's still enough of a risk that I cannot imagine a reasonable Russian planner would look at the gathering US air power and say "you know what, I think a IL76 can slip by an F-22."

Re: inferior enemies

Name a mission that couldn't be accomplished with lower risk by ground forces. The US uses paratroopers because we might need to open up an airhead on the other side of the world, but you guys have no viable mission where you couldn't just drive a tank from Russia.

Re: "But the VDV can still be used as light infantry"

And I'd contend that'd be the best use of them.  The BMD just doesn't add enough value to the formation to be worth holding onto, but it looks great for dog and pony operations.

Re: Tanks 

In a nutshell a tank's engagement cycle is much faster than an ATGM equipped vehicle's.  This might not be the case with a hypothetical vehicle mounted Javelin, but the acquire-launch-guide cycle takes long enough while a tank just "lases and blazes."  The tank, also being highly mobile could simply select when it was going to engage (or basically if the Stryker unit dismounted infantry to try to sneak up on the tanks, the tanks would fall back to the next terrain feature if they couldn't get at the infantry).

Even in an ultimately successful engagement, this is the sort of thing that kills airborne forces.  Without rapid link up to friendly forces, basically extermination occurs as the enemy is able to bring to bear all the heavy stuff that airborne has no realistic answer for, mechanized or no, and your supply links are a lot more ethereal.   



So again, VDV as is, much too weak as mechanized forces, much too heavy as airborne, your massed mech drops are canine-equine extravaganzas.   

[Vergeltungswaffe]

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

7 minutes ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

That is the finest paratrooper drop I have ever seen.  I just teared up a little.  

[sburke]

49 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Sorry, I was braindead sleepy when I wrote that and did not be specific. Like my previous scenario, we're talking about conflict in Ukraine. Before US forces can deploy their main assets into Ukraine, it's more than possible to drop VDV units in the Russian territories, and cross into Ukraine in large scale. Of course on their own the VDV is not going to be launching offensives. They can secure the routes, set up positions, limited probes ect. Even then if Ukraine has AD units nearby, paradropping onto their territories are not going to work. SEAD operations have to take care of those. However, again the VDV can be deployed very rapidly to a region.

 

Okay so you have a unit that is easily transportable to a theater where you already have established military bases and units.  The air mobile force is gonna drop and marry up with a force hopefully including more than BMDs to fight in a country right on your border.... still looks like a force looking for a mission as opposed to a mission looking for a force.  You already have forces positioned to do the very mission you are citing as an example for VDV units.  Sounds more like what we would call here "pork barrel politics", something created with some excuse or another just to provide budget money.  We tend to have a lot of that, but mostly for keeping military bases that don't have much function or military industries that could be done cheaper elsewhere.

And just to say it, their recent experiences crossing that border haven't always been very good.  Getting "lost" and captured tends to tarnish ones reputation.

Edited September 11, 2016 by sburke

[VladimirTarasov]

2 hours ago, sburke said:

Okay so you have a unit that is easily transportable to a theater where you already have established military bases and units.  The air mobile force is gonna drop and marry up with a force hopefully including more than BMDs to fight in a country right on your border.... still looks like a force looking for a mission as opposed to a mission looking for a force.  You already have forces positioned to do the very mission you are citing as an example for VDV units.  Sounds more like what we would call here "pork barrel politics", something created with some excuse or another just to provide budget money.  We tend to have a lot of that, but mostly for keeping military bases that don't have much function or military industries that could be done cheaper elsewhere.

And just to say it, their recent experiences crossing that border haven't always been very good.  Getting "lost" and captured tends to tarnish ones reputation.

GPS malfunction, navigation mistakes happen sometimes 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

GPS malfunction, navigation mistakes happen sometimes 

Considering the Soviet Union killed a few hundred people for same, that's really not funny broham.  

[VladimirTarasov]

2 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Considering the Soviet Union killed a few hundred people for same, that's really not funny broham.  

Let's just say getting "lost" is probably the most embarrassing thing a unit can do... Especially the given circumstances of the conflict in Ukraine. Of course war is no joke, I wasn't joking about anyone dying or anything. That's not funny at all.

[cool breeze]

OK, uh oh, I'm gonna bite.  Russia isn't the only country to spend a lot of "unnecessary" money/productivity on making sure it has "nuclear war potent" force as a deterrent to nuclear war.  The USA leads the pack of many nations that spend much effort and treasure making sure their military will be effective in a conventional war and a full spectrum/nuclear war. 

Basically I think the VDV makes sense for Russia because

1) Russia is huge enough that flying things around makes sense as a time saver.  Sometimes. 

2)  To be survivable on a potentially nuclear battle field, the army would deploy very deep and unconcentrated.  VDV lets you quickly add mass where needed.

3) Russia seems a little obsessed with the reconnaissance strike complex, it makes sense that they would be scared of ours.  Its easy to imagine the west hitting Russia's transportation net with some long range strikes and that could potentially jam up the train and road net pretty bad, but its pretty hard to shut down all of a nations unimproved airstrip capability.  

4)  Although I see all the really strong reasons why a modern offensive airdrop might be easily destroyed,  I'm not sure the huge WW2 examples are entirely applicable, I think dropping mechanized infantry with IFVs makes it maybe a different enough thing to be an apples and oranges comparison, with the oranges untested.

 

 

I been really enjoying the discussion, but I gotta say I think "y'all" been giving Vlad a bit too hard of a time, although it is good to argue hard.  I think hes been really good about agreeing with y'all about the facts, and admitting he was wrong when shown he was.  Seems like his points generally aren't really fully at odds with what you guys are saying yet nobody wants to give validity to any of it.  I think in general the whataboutism stuff is totally valid, and just because we aren't having a foreign adventure "right now", oh wait we are,  doesn't mean it isn't totally hypocritical for our government to complain about the Russian government doing that sort of thing.  Just because we aren't currently invading anybody in this new electronical  golden age of politically correct "world peace" doesn't mean governments are all of a sudden going to stop being Machiavellian.  Like if we are just going to call bad bad then fine, war is bad, and the war in the Ukraine is bad, and Russia makes it keep going so that is bad, ok.  But I don't think Vlad is even trying to argue with that.  I think he is saying its justified.  It's justified by what the USA has done all  over the world and particularly the Americas.  It's justified by the cold war.  Its pretty reasonable for the Russians to be paranoid about the west considering how much money we have spent over the years to be able to kill them, and our long history of doing sneaky revolution starting stuff all over the world.  Whether or not the West actually helped instigate the violent revolution that deposed the pro Russian president to replace him with a pro western one, it is the furthest thing from surprising that the average Russian would blame the west and see it as yet another attempt to steal some of their sphere of influence.  Whether or not it was in fact a plot by the west that made it happen, in a sense Putin had to do something to show his people he would not be walked all over like his predecessor, and would instead do what ever sort of "well precedent-ed by the USA" things he can do to defend his country (which includes its sphere of influence).  Even if Putin knew it was not a plot he might have felt he had to do it to stay popular because the people would believe what they wanted, which was: the West did it. 

 

 

P.S.  Justified as in precedent, not as in Justice

Edited September 12, 2016 by cool breeze

[cool breeze]

And I'm not trying to say Russia is more justified than the west or the USA or Ukraine or anything like that.  I don't think anyone is arguing about who's more justified than who, although maybe you are.  You can't really get more justified than defending your sovereign territory, so the Ukraine's got that.  And I root for the USA (and the world , and peace, we should all just get along and be friends).  But as long as we have a huge line up of nuclear missiles aimed at Russia its fair for them to consider it a life or death struggle and act accordingly.  Not saying its right or smart just that its justified and fair.

Edited September 12, 2016 by cool breeze

[JUAN DEAG]

@panzersaurkrautwerfer

What is your ideal application for airborne troops if you reject Russia's? By what doctrinal principles will these ideal paratroopers operate, and why? What will their TO&E look like? How will they avoid the deficiencies often associated with airborne troops (e.g. supply and logistics, organic firepower, etc.) I just want to get a cursory overview of the competing doctrines because I personally see the VDV as highly relevant force for Russia.

Russia is an expansive country that is over 17,075,200 sq km in size. Russia cannot physically maintain all the fronts necessary because of obvious logistical, manpower, and economical issues. So a unit that is slightly inferior to a mechanized force (BMP-2 > BMD-2) but retains high mobility would be seen as indispensable in my eyes. Since transporting a tank over long distances requires a train and a lot of cars and equipment as well as time to load and unload the vehicles; only applicable if the operation doesn't require an element of surprise and/or short notice. However, a large airborne force can be scrambled in no time and avoids the issue of delays (super secret CIA agent derails train loaded down with the entire 1st Guards Tank Army on the only track between Murmansk and Vladivostok with nothing but a paper clip).

 

Edited September 12, 2016 by JUAN DEAG

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

12 minutes ago, JUAN DEAG said:

@panzersaurkrautwerfer

What is your ideal application for airborne troops if you reject Russia's? By what doctrinal principles will these ideal paratroopers operate, and why? What will their TO&E look like? How will they avoid the deficiencies often associated with airborne troops (e.g. supply and logistics, organic firepower, etc.) I just want to get a cursory overview of the competing doctrines because I personally see the VDV as highly relevant force for Russia.

Russia is an expansive country that is over 17,075,200 sq km in size. Russia cannot physically maintain all the fronts necessary because of obvious logistical, manpower, and economical issues. So a unit that is slightly inferior to a mechanized force (BMP-2 > BMD-2) but retains high mobility would be seen as indispensable in my eyes. Since transporting a tank over long distances requires a train and a lot of cars and equipment as well as time to load and unload the vehicles; only applicable if the operation doesn't require an element of surprise and/or short notice. However, a large airborne force can be scrambled in no time and avoids the issue of delays (super secret CIA agent derails train loaded down with the entire 1st Guards Tank Army on the only track between Murmansk and Vladivostok with nothing but a paper clip).

 

It's really quite simple.  I'd realize as the Russian military I was doomed to utter and terrible defeat at the hands of NATO and my only hope was total and utter preemptive capitulation.  

More correctly, I would field a much reduced "light" airborne element, who would focus chiefly on taking and holding high value targets.  You just can't cram enough firepower into a formation that drops from the sky to reasonably go on the offensive against a peer level force.  Seizing an objective from rear security type forces and holding it however is much less difficult, and especially against a less than peer threat, still pretty reasonable.  It also comes at a great savings in cost, and offers a highly trained, rapidly deployable force that's well suited to COIN or stability operations given a high amount of "boots" per unit in the formation.  

There's nothing "wrong" with a highly deployable force.  The problem arises from the lack of realistic mission for a large number of mechanized vehicles falling from the sky relative to cost of a specialty vehicle, training, equipment, and an increased rate of operational losses.  

Something closer to the Stryker type force in that its designed to roll up onto an airplane with minimal preparation, and exit on an airstrip is much more reasonable.  It's significantly more cost effective in regards to training hours and complexity (no need for retrorockets to keep your PCs from dirt darting), and allows for a much more robust force.  You never really had the ability to deploy forces "deep" in a realistic sense, so even what you described is still a job for air-transportable vs airborne, and there's still plenty of airfields capable of supporting Russian transports in the hinterlands of Russia itself (especially given that most Russian transports were designed with unimproved landing conditions in mind).

It might not even need special equipment, but simply be a unit that has equipment pre-palletized and aligned against supplies ready to be flown on short notice, or it could even use BMDs if the mission set was largely deploy and protect Russian territory from external threats, or conduct a "guard" type mission until heavy forces arrive by train.  

Regardless of the circumstances, a large scale mechanized assault parachute landing  (and offensive actions once on the ground) is pretty far outside of what is reasonable in the face of a near peer threat, and it's simply not required against lesser enemies.   

[Sublime]

Cool breeze without goin into why i disagree with all of your post Id just like to point out Id disagree Putin had to. He.d already shown his Putin stronk credemtials atyacking Chechnya 2nd time (whether or not he orchestrated it with the FSB) the Georgian war, and if all that wasnt enough seizing the Crimea would have been and is really the only strategically vital (to russia) Ukr piece of land unless you mean as space to retreat in in future planned wars.

Theres Syria too but thats after the fact

[Sublime]

10 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

(super secret CIA agent derails train loaded down with the entire 1st Guards Tank Army on the only track between Murmansk and Vladivostok with nothing but a paper clip).

 

Rofl very funny (not being sarcastic)

Edited September 12, 2016 by Sublime