Current Events: Red Bear Rising?
 

Russia wants its propers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110228/wl_csm/366331

Doesn't sound like they're doing anything to actually address the problems in their military organization, just throwing some money out there in a public relations gesture.

Oh man, if we're not careful by FY2020 they could have a military mighty enough to beat us 10 years ago!

;)

lmfao :D

Sad. Maybe in the coming years they can develop a SLBM that will actually reach a target before the motor explodes. I remember really fearing the Typhoon class. Now look at them and their follow on subs, which sit toothless.

They could probably head in the right direction by scrapping most of what they have for tanks and narrow it down to heavily modernized T-55's, and the T-64/-72/-80. Everything else needs to go to a museum or scrap yard. They need to thin out their navy, especially the submarines to a force that you can actually maintain.

And what's up with them having to sell the Kiev class because they no longer had access to a dry dock of sufficient size? Really? Embarassing.

At least you could modify/replace the turret on a t-55 with modern fire contral, a manually loaded 125mm, and a better drivetrain. It won't be able to go toe-to-tow with any of the current western 120mm tanks, but might be of some use in lower echelon formations. What they have now beyond Cat 2 is a total waste of lives and resources.

It's sad to see a once proud and capable force like this reduced to a shell of it's former glory.

-Dave

Sad. Maybe in the coming years they can develop a SLBM that will actually reach a target before the motor explodes. I remember really fearing the Typhoon class. Now look at them and their follow on subs, which sit toothless.

They could probably head in the right direction by scrapping most of what they have for tanks and narrow it down to heavily modernized T-55's, and the T-64/-72/-80. Everything else needs to go to a museum or scrap yard. They need to thin out their navy, especially the submarines to a force that you can actually maintain.

And what's up with them having to sell the Kiev class because they no longer had access to a dry dock of sufficient size? Really? Embarassing.

At least you could modify/replace the turret on a T-55 with modern fire contral, a manually loaded 125mm, and a better drivetrain. It won't be able to go toe-to-tow with any of the current western 120mm tanks, but might be of some use in lower echelon formations. What they have now beyond Cat 2 is a total waste of lives and resources.

It's sad to see a once proud and capable force like this reduced to a shell of its former glory. Russian soldiers/sailors/airmen deserve better than this.

-Dave

It's so weird that one of their better MBT is actually an upgraded tank of the M47's age (T55).

Along these same lines, I think a large problem they have is that they've tried to build one ultra-specialized vehicle for everything they want to do (albeit on common chassis) - IIRC they have a T62 based "medium" tank that's dedicated to protecting an actual MBT. That's right, a tank to defend a tank. Has a couple of 30mm autocannons, rocket launchers, etc.

Man...the Russians do not, will not and cannot grasp the finer points of carrier aviation. And that's sad. Even Brazil gets it. Thailand. Thailand has a thru-deck cruiser/carrier that puts to sea more often than Adm. Kunetzov.

They could do an "M60-2000" like GDLS tries to sell and mate modern turrets to old hulls. I mean, holy crap, the Israelis were using 105mm-armed Shermans in the '67 conflict, and before they retired most and converted a few to SPA, they were in use up until the 80s.

Actually it doesn't bother me that much: most of the time it had that "glory", the pointy end was pointed at the West. And these days I think they're getting a little twitchy and wanting to point the (dull, rusty) pointy end back at us.

The sad thing by the Cat 2 units had reach the front anything they would go up against wouldn't really matter unless NATO had gotten real luck in the early battles.

I remember playing M1 Tank Platoon on my Amiga back in the day; campaigns that you "won" typically ended after an attack on a category "C" (3?) unit in the rear - at that point it was dismounts backed up by GAZ jeeps and trucks with maybe the occasional BTR-50. You could do those missions with one tank and the coax and commander's .50 cal.

"Pride cometh before the fall" gentlemen. Yes your nation is absolutely militarily preeminent now but that is unlikely to always be the case. Beware hubris.

What he said.

Webstral

Yes, but there are all those stacked Cat 1 Division that NATO has to overcome first and then hopefully the trickle of reinforcements that would make to the battlefield.

Yeah. I agree with Webstral. One can only get luck so many time before the tides turns in the other direction. Look back at European History give you clue of that.

Oh trust me, when the campaigns would kick off and you had to hold off a category 1 motor rifle company with your one platoon and a detachment of ITVs or a lone A10, Apache or artillery on call it was plenty hairy. By the time you were doing night attacks into those columns of trucks and light armored vehicles you appreciated it.

European history
 

Well - the Spaniards for instance - had a near 150 year streak not losing a single major battle until being bested at Roncroi or some such in 1643.

Or so I have been told.

Look at Vietnam -- we won every major battle and still lost the war. Afghanistan is looking to go the same way.

Yes, indeed. How many times have the proud been laid low? We've talked about this troubling phenomenon, and the potency of the Soviet military at its zenith (both IRL and, hypothetically, in the v1.0 T2K timeline), quite a bit already.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=897

I'm not suggesting that these recent purchases/reforms are going to make the Russian military competetive with the west (in the short-term, at least), but they are making an effort. The rest of the world can dismiss and deride it at their peril.

Well how many wars have the British lost battles, yet due to their Naval power one would rarely notice they had been defeated time and time again.

One of the things that Soviets realized during WWII in their fight with Germans was that large formation of Mechanized and Armored units. They didn't worry about organizing the Tank Division and Motorized Rifle Division and Combined Armies and Tank Armies.

They used Tank Corps and Mechanized Corps as well as Cavalry Corps that would have control of up several Brigades. In this system once a unit was spent and line Infantry had caught up they would be withdrawn to be rebuilt. I feel the that 2nd echelon of forces and those Mobilized only and Category C units would be line units that would hold line while the 1st Echelon and their 3rd Echelon units would be used, reorganized, and reequiped as needed.

Seeing how the Russia has re-organized most of the former Soviet Divisions into Brigade as they eliminate excess and reforming an more effective Army that is more responsive. Looks to me it was part of the plan.

It is one of the ideas that the US Army hasn't failed to notice and one of the reason why in 2003 they started to convert the combat Brigades into Unit of Action and then into Combat Brigade Teams afterwards with plans for some Divisions to have 5th CBT. There was time of searching, regarding the traditional use of Divisions HQs and Corps HQs. One of the things I don't buy into is that Division HQ and their Aviation Brigade and support units are now able to support any type of Combat Brigade. It makes sense in theory, but I still don't see the 10th Mountain, 82nd Airborne, and 101st Air Assault Division being able to effectively field an Armor or Mechanized Brigades of the old army, much less the new Heavy Brigades. Even a Stryker Brigade would push them to the limits. Then again lot of the support element that used to be in Division were either pushed down to Brigade level or up to Corp level.

Division in the new US Army is a unit that supposed to be tailor for the operating condition the Division will be operating in, in theory. Under the new system it is possible for Corps to be field with several CBT without even having a Division HQ deployed, yet once you start to get 5 or more CBT under the command Corps then introducing one or 2 Divisional HQ to break things up in order to offer more Command and Control over the elements of the Corps.

Just some thoughts...

EVERY nation with a military has lost a fight at some point in their history. It's those who acknowledge their losses and the reasons behind them that minimise future defeats.

Yes they do, but few can pull of winning a war where they have lost so many battles. Only few nations have been really successful at that. Of course, the last couple were only losing first couple years before they turned things around...

Russia's done a couple amazing turnarounds. The Napoleonic Wars and WWII are great examples of this. Yet people continue to write them off. :confused:

Yeah they are one of those nations you really don't want to piss off. Then again I can think of couple others too, that once you piss them off, they will dig in their heels and wind regardless of their leadership lacking of military skills...

Reminds me of the US attitude toward the "inferior" Japanese forces in 1941. Until they sneak-attacked our main Pacific naval base, overran the Philippines, and shot our fighters out of the sky with their inferior Zero fighters. And the US had lots of intel on the Japanese intentions and lots of high-tech goodies, like radar. Complacency is your enemy's best weapon against you.
Technical superiority in weapons is only a fraction of making war. The will to wield inferior weapons in unexpected ways has always been a major factor in warfare: Northwest Territory/Afghanistan in the late 19th Century ("save the last bullet for yourself"), Viet Cong tactics, Kamikazes/Banzai charges in WW2, ChiCom human sea charges in Korea, human bombers in Israel/Palestine, flying commercial aircraft into buildings.... And let's not forget the wielding of the WW2 Red army as a shield that absorbed everything the Wehrmacht could throw against it (at appalling casualty rates).
It comes down to who has the strongest will and is willing to sacrifice the most for ultimate victory, balanced with how much of your society's humanity are you willing to throw away to gain your goal?

One of my Rules of Life:
"There is no such thing as an obsolete weapon or tool, merely obsolete thinking used in its employ."

Like has been pointed out in some book after WWII there is really no new tactics to be developed that will win the next war. Just a new mix of using them.

Has more to do with the major shipyards being located in the Ukraine...which is now an independent country. The problem with the Kola Peninsula and Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) shipyards is that ole 6-8 months of ice and snow...this is why the French were able to land the contract to build the LPDs for the Russians, they just don't have the shipyards to build large vessels anymore....

We wonder why they have so many subs...