Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther Al
While I won't speak as to the others, I do feel that I have to say something about the last example. The war with Georgia isn't as much as a glowing example of how good the russians are. The fact that it was pretty much all over in 10 days isn't something the Russians should be bragging about. While it is true that the Georgian's 'officially' started the mess by over reacting to what they felt was a minor provocation by mostly internal security concerns was proven pretty threadbare when all those russian divisions, who by merest of coincidences, just 'happened' be to right there, and by strange turn of luck, just 'happened' to be fully up and ready to invade another country. The Georgians was way way out of their league against the Russian Army. The best trained and equipped forces they had wasn't available, the air was natural at best, and downright hostile most of the time, and was outnumbered by a truly significant degree. The fact that they lasted 10 days is a knock on the russians inability to deliver a knockout blow and the sheer will to fight on in the Georgians. At the end, the russians had to fall back to the old fashioned soviet doctrine of throwing enough sh*t at the wall to get some to stick. I won't go into the political debacle that surrounded the US reaction to it, since its a rather inflammatory point of view on my hand, but be it as it may, I wouldn't call the invasion of Georgia as an example of how the russian army is getting its stuff together.
|
One could say many of the same things of the U.S.-led coalition's two "wars" against Iraq (i.e. the Iraqi army plainly sucked and was pounded by numerically superior forces at the points of attack).
One of the things that makes T2K so cool is the whole "what if?" of what a major war between NATO and the WTO would look like. One simply can't predict the outcome of WWIII based on the respective combatants' performance in proxy wars against third-rate powers (or guerrilla wars).