Fighting Russians in Ukraine. A foreign volunteer view.

[Ivanov]

While the Russians were again following sound tactics (tanks and IFVs were blocking off the roads with infantry swarming in the buildings before moving on to the next road and repeating), their squad-level efficiency left much to be desired. 

 http://sofrep.com/47483/the-russian-paper-tiger-a-foreign-volunteer-in-the-ukrainian-armys-view-of-russian-troops/

[gnarly]

Nice find, thanks @Ivanov

[Kinophile]

Interesting. 

I remember reading that Russian losses were about 20-25% more than UKR - the not just outdated,  but simply Bad tactics described here would support that. The UKR units without a basic defense plan is appalling. 

Eye witness soldier accounts are always fascinating  - do you have any more? 

Edited February 17, 2016 by kinophile

[VladimirTarasov]

Russian army T-64s thats new.... I in 2008 before I received training in boot camp knew to advance together with my squad, I doubt the legitness of this, I've trained a bunch of soldiers who were bright and knew what to do without me telling them... The Russian tactics in entering urban areas are heavily based off experiences in Grozny, And Georgia. And Tanks are not too scared to advance, The obvious tactic to counter that situation is to pop smoke in your advance point... 

[Ivanov]

Nice find, thanks @Ivanov

Your welcome Sir!

[Ivanov]

Interesting. 

I remember reading that Russian losses were about 20-25% more than UKR - the not just outdated,  but simply Bad tactics described here would support that. The UKR units without a basic defense plan is appalling. 

In that war, I think both sides performed pretty badly due to the various reasons. Playing a devil's advocated here - I have an impression that in most of the cases, he was describing combat against what he calls "bandit" forces, not  regular Russian army. They could be volunteers from Russia with a military training, but occurrences when regular Russian ground troops were entering a direct combat, were rare. As VladimirTarasov mentioned, Russian army doesn't use T-64 anymore, but those tanks were supplied to the rebels. He talks about fighting near Shyrokina. So I guess he was a volunteer of the Azov battalion. Except for the September 2014 onslaught ( when he describes an accurate artillery fire hit Ukrainian positions ), no Russian units were involved there.

[Kinophile]

Ahah, good thank you for clarifying. 

[John Kettler]

Ivanov,

Many thanks for this, which I've bookmarked. The guy who wrote that is both astute and a terrific writer. What he's saying strongly reminds me of Cockburn's bombshell The Threat, which was heavily based on interviews with former Russian soldiers who were Jews and emigrated from a Russia happy to be rid of them. In this interview with him from 1983, it is evident he doesn't grasp certain fundamental principles of Russian weapon design, the first of which is that service life is tied chiefly to expected combat life. In turn, this feeds back into such matters as jet engine longevity. I could present other issues as well, such as his cluelessness on the MiG-25, but his most fundamental points relate to the conditions and morale of the men, the difference between prescribed maintenance and actual work done, and the impact on unit readiness and military capability. This was precisely the sort of thing I barely saw at all in my over a decade as a Russian and Warsaw Pact threat analyst, yet it was a real eye-opener for someone long immersed in the military-technical-scientific side of things. In fact, it was shocking, sending some of my colleagues into fits of denial.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[BTR]

The fault generally lies with the individual soldier himself, rather than the officer’s planning. But what would you expect from an army whose “special forces” propagandistic displays of capabilities rely on acrobatics and fancy martial arts? A good Western army regiment would be enough to win this war on its own.

Read more: http://sofrep.com/47483/the-russian-paper-tiger-a-foreign-volunteer-in-the-ukrainian-armys-view-of-russian-troops/#ixzz40V5U7VFJ

Right :D. Good conclusion, west strong.  

[Ketsa]

I enjoyed reading this. I'm currently reading a book "Chechnya Diary", a book based off the first hand events witnessed by a reporter in the Chechnya War(s), so reading this kind of gives me a new perspective of their tactics 20 years later. I would like to hear first hand from one of those Russian "bandits" or even one of the regulars that were briefly there.

[Abdolmartin]

Right :D. Good conclusion, west strong.  

*STRONK.

Yeah smells like some bad propaganda. I don't think there's a doubt that a determined military response by NATO would end pretty badly for Russia's interests in the region, but this article is more like "Outta bullets, down to harsh language" stuff.

[Jotte]

That conclusion about russian squad cohesion stemed from 2 individuals tale when they came back to their own lines? That seems like shaky source to say the least, concidering peoples tendency to exagerate things happening under pressure or  even "fishing story-tales" to look good/cool.

It is interesting to read but the wording in the end conclusion just shot any believability out of the water for me.

[Ketsa]

Agreed, the sources are not reliable which is why I'm always very skeptical towards any articles that i can't truly vet for myself. It's really all hearsay but the conclusion really seemed like a subliminal backhand to the reader lol.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Ketsa

[BTR]

I've read a large volume of first hand accounts from both sides of the story (props of Russian language), including a unique account of the same engagement from both opponents. It seems that at large, the voluntary and full-time forces had the same problems.

[Ketsa]

Would it be possible that you have the source of the literature?

[BTR]

A lot of original accounts, both Russian and Ukrainian without alteration can be found here:

http://twower.livejournal.com/?skip=20&tag=Украина

A couple of first hand accounts with questions from Russian volunteers here, both good or bad: 

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQCYG6lKBuTarUZhGcIw8RzkPGcPAAIef 

The rest are forums (gspo, vif, vk). There isn't really a proper collection in print yet, and most of the analytical accounts are too bias (west or east leaning) for the moment. 

[Ketsa]

Thanks BTR, grateful for the material.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

The whole thing gives me flashbacks to Homage to Catalonia.  The Ukrainians started with a criminally broken military, but have evolved to a somewhat functional force (emphasis on somewhat, but they're leaps and bounds above where they've started).  I'd contend the Russian volunteers have not gotten much better, but instead have some reliance on overmatch, basically they haven't had to get better, they have regular Russian support to make up for their failings.  Which gets into an odd sort of balance, the Ukrainians until they right sort themselves out or start dropping rounds on Russia itself (the first is somewhat likely, the second not so much) are going to be hard pressed regain their territory.  On the other hand, if there's ever a Russian leader who decides Donbass isn't worth the effort, it's going to end very poorly for the Russians within the invaded areas.

On the other hand, training or equipping the Russians in Ukraine better is a bit of a lost cause, they'll never be able to hold their own without a high level of Russian support, short of being given their own nuclear weapons or something.

In that regard it's a lovely setup for a sort of eternal war.  The Ukraine is doubtful to ever surrender claims on it's eastern regions (and rightfully so by most accounts), but short of Russia doing a total about face, or becoming so weak as to abandon it's semi-imperial ambitions, it's doubtful it will ever be able to restore its territorial integrity.  On the other hand, the Ukraine is now strong enough and angry enough that the Russian-fakestates will never be safe without lasting Russian support, but they come with a heavy price of sanctions, international condemnation and establishing a wide (and likely justified) ill view of Russian intentions in Eastern Europe.

The current situation is desirable to no one, but no one has or is likely to gain the mains to restore a stable solution.  I contend the most likely situation is in some years (could really be decades) Russia will likely become weak to the degree where it tries some sort of exit strategy from the region ("hey Donbass, here's a pile of Armatas, and some artillery from storage.  GOOD LUCK YOU ARE NOW SAFE") followed by a messy ethnic cleansing of the region that everyone in the west ignores because we like Ukraine, while Russians make it appear like a second holocaust ("three million innocent republic of Donbassians are slaughtered by cackling jackboot wearing cyrogentically frozen nazi strumtruppen!" vs "You don't belong here.  You have 24 hours to fix this" which while not "good" will fall well below anyone outside of the Russosphere's level of care).  

[Holms]

Open your eyes and turn on brains, guys. 

1.http://lostarmour.info/armour/

2.http://lostarmour.info/analytics/

all losses confirmed by the photos, ratio may find yourself.

and the MOST IMPORTANT thing-Russian army in the war was not. ;-).

ps. the ratio of casualties more disastrous for Ukraine.

 

 

[Ivanov]

 

and the MOST IMPORTANT thing-Russian army in the war was not. ;-)

 

 

Right:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBs71ZQvW5U

https://informnapalm.org/en/internet-users-have-identified-russian-soldiers-captured-near-ilovaisk/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zssIFN2mso

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5SbQAjbsUo

 

However the guy from the article could be wrong about fighting regular Russian army soldiers.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Ivanov

[Holms]

OK. 

There are three different things.

1. Russians people. (they live on the whole territory the former USSR),  and  in Eastern Ukraine they more than 60-70%) (Many Russian people came from different countries, not only from Russia.)

2. Russian solders and ex-soldier. (  I can yesterday to be solders, and  today ex-soldier)  (Many Russian people, including ex military  fought in the Donbas against Ukrainian nationalists.)

3. Russian army , complex mechanism comprising kind of troops, control systems, supply system,and much more...

From the Ukrainian side http://ru.slovoidilo.ua/2015/09/03/infografika/bezopasnost/rossijskie-vojska-protiv-vsu-sravnenie-vooruzhennyx-sil-na-donbasse
in  the battles participated 70000-150000 solders . From Russian if you believe the Ukrainian 40000-100000 solders.
for the entire period of the conflict I know less than 10 cases when people on camera say they are Russian soldiers. (BUT, If I take you prisoner,  you admit the murder of Kennedy.)
and  more than 10 cases of massive (more than 100 people at a time) surrender Ukrainians. I do not consider numerous cases of surrender in small groups and one.
 Conclusion. Or  there is no Russian army or they are just the gods. that you prefer ?
ps. Links need?

[Holms]

-Why you Do not  take the Crimea, and just shout, that the Crimea - Ukraine?
 - So because there are Russian troops!
 - So you say,  that in the Donbass Russian troops too,  fighting  with them the same as in the Donbass! 
- Ah! Since then,  at the Donbass Russian troops, we are only talking about! And they really are in the Crimea!

 

[A Canadian Cat]

Well you just joined here so you might not have seen the links to the analysis that shows conclusively that the Russian regular army did fight in Ukraine and that there still are various personal there now even though there is no longer any active battalions - for now.  Have a search around and you can find it.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

It is sort of a fascinating.  Like those folks who think they've disproved the holocaust because there's some ambiguity about whatever particular event they're harping on, while ignoring the greater body of evidence.

Figuring out where Russian regulars vs Russian irregulars is tricky, they're not exactly labeled, and there's no small amount of deception going on.  However that there are Russians, and have been Russian troops is not disputed anywhere in the world that doesn't start with R, and end with "ussia under Putin"

Back to the original topic:

The reluctance of the Russian armor to deploy could be both a crew quality or equipment issue. I think it was a Kettler post of all things that had some reporting from a guy who bailed on the Russian volunteers (or maybe just did his time and left, not sure).  The T-64s were provided to maintain the fiction that it was "captured" equipment, but they often came without basic equipment (like crewman headsets) or proper maintenance.  Regardless of "volunteer" or "regular" crew, it's going to be a tank that's not really FMC.  Also the performance of the Russians in the town suggests a level of timidity anyway so perhaps it was just that organization on a whole.

Again a bit of a cripple fight, you'd imagined if the Russians were any good in this one they'd have knocked out the Ukrainians when they were still pretty much broken, while the Ukrainians had an Army a 2003 Iraqi would have laughed at and it's clearly going to take a while to sort out entirely (although I'd contend it's improved beyond the point of the Russian "volunteers" to handle and would require a full on Russian intervention to defeat). 

[Holms]

 CAN YOU LOOK AT THIS LINKS ? 

1.http://lostarmour.info/armour/

2.http://lostarmour.info/analytics/