It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Laxpla
The seals would of saved everyone in my opinion. If you ever saw SWAT or Seal training, one hostage major wounded is major failure. And 129 dead? heh, I say its a failure but what ever you guys think is right, is right!

Come on Laxpa do you really believe what you are saying stop wathing to many American movies ,they are just movies and this is the reality . When the terrorist has his finger on the button there isnt much that you can do .

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:08 PM

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

The real question is when has Russia won any conflict since WW2. The last major conflict they had Afghanistan ended with them running home with their tails between their legs, and they were fighting a bunch of goat herders with some stinger missiles.

Yes but who was helping the Afganistan providing money and weapons

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:25 PM
That was the US acting through Pakistan.

Russia did the same thing to the US in wars like the Korean War. Heck they even went so far as to use Soviet fighter pilots who secretly fought for N Korea during the War.

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:36 PM
Well at least we dont create number one terrorists in the world like Osama Bin Landen by providing him with weapons and money.

But is seems that the Puppet turned against the Puppetier

[edit on 9-12-2005 by Russian Boy]

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 01:21 PM
Dont believe the Hype Osama was a minor factor in Afghanistan along with all foreign fightes during that war. Afghanistan was won by Afghani fighters.

The US also didnt care or order where the weapons they supplied went. We let the Pakistani intelligence agencies decide what went where. We just knew if we threw enough weapons into the mix they would be used on the Soviets.

Its not like there was any direct effort to make Osama powerful we really didnt care about him that much at the time.

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 05:07 PM
While googling for Spetsnaz videos, I came across that amusing post. The poor guy confused the word "such" with "suck", which turn his sentences into teh ghey.

Hi , my name is Taras and i am the leader of "the Unit" for those who dont know its a group of people who devote their time traing in the Russian martial arts (used my suck units as spetsnaz , alfa , VDV,FSB) . We also partisapate in suck activities as Jogging (elite style) , going camping and following the basic russian traditions suck as drinking heavely ...

posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:45 PM
If you want to learn about GRU/spetsnaz training I suggest you buy the DVD series called "Systema" which is the special forces training system they use and the combat style they incorporate into their everyday life.

During the collapse of the soviet union, many GRU/Spetz soldiers went into the Russian mafia. When someone grows antisocial tendencies and lives the way they do it is very hard to go back into a normal existance and forget how much fun life was with all of this training and knowledge. Now the russian mafia are 12th grade bullies in kindergarden and are having more success than any other organization that is connected to crime.

This is not to say all spetz are red mafia, just many after the collapse.

The spetz are EXTREMELY tough mentally and physically, and are not hombres you want to mess with even if you are an elitist navy seal. The only criticism I have of the Spetsnaz from my readings is their leadership. They do have a record of botched missions/hostage rescuing.

But again, SEARCH GOOGLE FOR SYSTEMA, this combat style is amazing and is almost psychic in its teachings... it focuses on using your mind to hurt your enemy and to totally take away the energy and pain from a physical attack instantly. An example is a an ex GRU lieutenant in the video hitting a student in the stomach, with the student immediately grabbing the "area energy" of the area he was hit, and throwing it outwards. The student stood still without any problems and he was not wearing any chest plate and the lietuenant is a bruiser who hit him with all his strength. Amazing stuff.... crazy militaristic scientists working for the U.S.S.R. discovered some out of this world information and some of it is now public, check out systema.

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 10:36 AM
You don't carry lethal toxins 'in the field' because aside from their direct danger (accident or capture by primitives) it is against either the Geneva or Hague conventions on use of chemical agents. Indeed, to be caught with them by a treaty signatory nation is itself worth an instant field court.

If you've ever read Kipling 'The Young British Soldier' you will realize that an excess of violence is a display of /lack/ of control. Trained professionals don't suffer from any such waste of energy and focus. Therefore any killing to be done must have a purpose and if it is for mercy given to a fallen comrade too injured to take with you in a land full of /frustrated/ (indigenous, poor, stupid, terrified, angry) barbarians, a bullet or a knife will do just as well to make sure he gets it done.

In a conventional war, it is unlikely that the pace of mechanized and airmobile operations would leave much worth saying beyond a couple of hours and the Russians knew that NATO lived closer to the rules than we did so there was not too much worry over treatment if the downed man was uniformed at the time of leave behind.

One other thing you need to realize about SOF of any kind. They are _people people_ in that, sure they are elitist and demand the most from each other with often brutal (if 'Chinese Skiing' hilarious) discipline in the ranks. But for that very reason (we know we are ten times better than you, so we will treat you like fond children) they tend to give the indigs better respect than the average grunt because /that is their job/.

99.999% of the time.

Going out to live with the locals in small detachments and maintaining a kind of unofficial diplomacy. Sometimes with direct action but more often than not as maintainers of 'Engagement' with questionable folks who are trying to keep a country together by any means available and are smart enough to realize that _should not_ mean 'methods too horrible to imagine'. As a fuction of getting training for men that need discipline and confidence as much as guns and tactics instruction.

As such, the SOF do tend to be masters of SUW (Small Unit Warfare) and all the /primitive/ combat arts that go with it. Even as they use high tech and high personal discipline to deal with the housekeeping, logistics and interconnectivity (force multiplication) among those in their care.

But it is done as a continual training and negotiative leverage effort rather than simply to go out and butcher.

All of which is _super_ when you want to keep Indonesia friendly enough so that 'someone always picks up when you ring the phone'. Or if the Gold Coast of Africa is about to go under for the 3rd time in the same decade and you're sick and tired of pulling out the embassy people (and losing resource rights).

Because it is a 'Mission' with a direct political gain and very low asset commitment risk or expenditure.

It is also a _controlable_ escalation of any existing combat condition because the reality of SUW is that without constant refreshal (for us and them) the skillset is /lost/, on a generational basis if nothing else. So that warriors once brought under our aegis must remain loyal and bipedal if they are to remain:

1. Paid.
2. Equipped with Winning Weapons and Ammo.
3. Atop their game with tactics and comms and occasionally some nation building for their local vills.


There is also a secondary reality which is that these kinds of very select skills and activities have almost ZERO applicability to a conventional mechanized conflict where about the only thing you can do with a 4-6 man team is monitor roads and missions with direct vision typing ID. Something which, increasingly, remote sensor platforms with classification capable SAR and/or unattended air drop systems can do over a MUCH wider coverage area. At vastly less risk if some idiot kid out shepharding the goats drives the flock atop your spider hole.

Simply because the SOFies cannot keep up with mechanized forces and their ability to stay out of trouble with dunebuggy rat patrol tactics is /highly/ dependent on the willingness of those self same local militias to not betray them. As well as the energy that main force level opponents put into screening and area surveillance/force protection missions of their own.

Now, there are exceptions such as northern Iraq wherein we had effectively presanitized (roads and trucks) an operating zone within the Kurdish protectorate. And again in AfG where you had a desperately outmanned Northern Alliance that needed some by-the-hand example at a low commited risk (albeit as Horse mounted GFACs rather than direct action oriented).

But there are also other cases where SOF is /not/ as effective, even in their given specialist areas.

SOF did not go into an Afghan village elders house by breaking the lock off his front door.

They did not feel up his women in a pat down search for concealed contraband beneath their long robes. Or or trash his hovel making him feel humiliated at the way they could so easily dismiss what was precious too him.

Airborne did. And they found weapons. And SOF was both embarrassed because they'd said the area was clean. And put at direct 'same uniform, smaller target' risk because of this.

This is one of the many weakness' of SOF in that while they tend to be able to weed the goats from the sheep through direct and remote observation as well as carefully nurtured relations.

They also have a tendency to 'go native', at least in the eyes of those they befriend and who treat them (in turn) as 'favorite kids'. Zero-threats not to be taken seriously as they work day to day evil around their smaller footprint-on-ground presence.

It is because of these differences that people tend to both over and underestimate what SOF is good for.

Yes, they can hit hard and fast. But only in areas where there is but a primitive air and surface defense which doesn't need rangers or cannot acknowledge a U.S. presence.

They can form a seamless, low-profile, occupation. But only to the extent that they can buy their way into a headman's loyalty with gifts or shared interests. As soon as those interests or payments stop. So does the influence. And they become, at best tolerated.


And that is one of the reasons why Bush' early intimations that 'Now that they have chosen to make this an unacknowledged terror war, our first-line sneaky-troops will wipe the field with their braincases' was _dead wrong_ in the psychology of expectation it set up in the American populace. And the reality of what those forces can do.

Because we lack the numbers of experienced operators to form a credible 'hamlet and village' security force to allow real nation building to occur with SOF delicacy of touch. Indeed, the average age of the Teams in the late 90's was closer to 40 than 30 and within 5 years of mandatory retirment for an /alarmingly high/ percentage of them. Requiring Army SOF, for the first time, to accept grads straight from their first assignment.).

Because association of those operators with a conventional force can compromise both (something we should have learned in The Mog). As you lose independence and covertness even when you live and work out of different bivouacs.

And because the longer you display your SOF talents, overtly, the more and more permanently, are the countermeasures to them raised. Something which is generally not a wise thing to do when the methods required to kill an individual of /any/ expertise level are really quite simple.

We need a more competent (Permanent but Performance Driven) State department to replace the questionable use of semi-official military contacts. Alternately, we need to put more power in the CINCs hands as nation builders /outside/ the military budget process. And we need to restrain ourselves from imagining the SOF community as being any more or less unfallible than the last -doable- mission they were good enough at to take away some viable experience. Because they are constantly learning, when they are not cannonfoddering, too. Right now, we are a long ways from learning much and the new kids they are trying to build out the Forces with are taking an awful pounding in both direct attrition and continuing deployments of marginal gain.


posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 10:53 AM
Fulcrum, your sinopsis of the invasion of Afghanistan was very accurate apart from one minor fault.

The forces that assassinated the President, were OZNAZ and not Spetsnaz.

The KGB were entrusted with the assassination and capture of the presidential palace, together with the radio station.

The Spetsnaz were to capture the capital's airfields and hold it until the Soviet Airborne forces could be deployed.

An interesting book which I still have, is "Spetsnaz" by the defecter Viktor Sukurov, a former ColonelGeneral of GRU and later (allegedly) Director of the GRU.

posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 09:55 PM
SE7EN, THENEO, Laxpla, and other chairborne commandos...
Where you there ? how the f*** do you know what really happened, ohh, I guess you've read it in a fu***** news paper, and now think you know it all... guess what ? you don't know sh**.
Laxpla, oww, I guess your da real deal, a real SEAL, BTDT, and all that....
you know what ? go back to your "special operations" chair, and keep playing SEAL in your favorite CS !
bunch of FFS!

I don't know why you even bother trying to explain it to people like that, I'm sure they could've done it better in CS...

John Nada
I've never in my life heard of lethal injections, sounds like a bunch of BS to me. Just think about it, would be way easier to put a 9x18 in between the eyes. But that just sounds way too stupid, they would risk their life to save a wounded comrade, not give him a lethal injection.

That book by "Suvorov" is mostly BS.
he is a big time poser by the way, was a Tank Batt Commander if im not mistaken, not a GRU GSh ranking officer, just had some friends in the know.

Tha Spetsnaz that "were often under direct orders from GRU high command" is actually SpN GRU, and they are under direct command of GRU GSh, just like the 45 ORP SpN VDV, and some SpN VMS RF.

The other ones "VItyaz", "Skif", "Rosich", "Rus'" .. etc... (OMSN) are under command of Minestry of Internal Affairs (MVD/VV).

There is also "Rys'" and a couple other ones that are under command of Justice department (migth be wrong thu)

Also, couple SpN Groups/teams that are under command of FSB (Dep A,B,OSOM), FSK, and the President.

Bunch of other VV (OSN/OMSN) ones as well.

How about Vietnam ? got your asses kicked by a bunch of peasants, eh ?
Somolia ?
Lets not forget Iraq, still getting your asses kicked there as well, eh ?
not going to talk about the body count, that's just way too low for me to talk about it.

Hope I did not offend any people exept Shadow and a couple other ones in this thread.

Best regards,

posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 09:32 AM

Originally posted by kaskad
SE7EN, THENEO, Laxpla, and other chairborne commandos...
Where you there ? how the f*** do you know what really happened, ohh, I guess you've read it in a fu***** news paper, and now think you know it all... guess what ? you don't know sh**.
Laxpla, oww, I guess your da real deal, a real SEAL, BTDT, and all that....
you know what ? go back to your "special operations" chair, and keep playing SEAL in your favorite CS !

How about Vietnam ? got your asses kicked by a bunch of peasants, eh ?
Somolia ?
Lets not forget Iraq, still getting your asses kicked there as well, eh ?
not going to talk about the body count, that's just way too low for me to talk about it.

WELL done KASKAD but take it easy . i was
at the beginig. They really think we are way behind in everything

[edit on 29-12-2005 by Russian Boy]

posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 03:16 PM
The spetsnaz are known for being deadly and Ruthless. If they have a hostage situation, I don't think they care if a FEW hostages die as long as the majority of the hostages survive. Anyway, Spetsnaz are the best trained, have the most members, and have a great array of weapons at their disposal. I wouldn't mess with the spetsnaz. By the way, if some hostages die in a situation, it isn't necessarily the special forces team's fault. Hostage situations differ, in some its possible to save all hostages, in some, its impossible to save ANY hostage. It all depends on the situation. In some situations even the best prepared special forces could fail.

posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 04:32 PM

Originally posted by kaskad

How about Vietnam ? got your asses kicked by a bunch of peasants, eh ?
Somolia ?
Lets not forget Iraq, still getting your asses kicked there as well, eh ?
not going to talk about the body count, that's just way too low for me to talk about it.

Hope I did not offend any people exept Shadow and a couple other ones in this thread.

Best regards,

kaskad, the Soviet Union went into Afghanistan full force and got their butts kicked. The U.S. military went into Vietnam with its hands tied behind its back. During most of the Vietnam War, the majority of Northern Vietnam was off-limits to bombing. The Soviet supply lines to Northern Vietnam were not bombed, and the capital was in full operation. The Northern Vietnamese thus could attack the U.S. soldiers, then retreat and re-supply and the U.S. could not retaliate.

President Johnson himself chose where to bomb, something the President is not allowed to do anymore because they don't know what they're doing. Because of his not allowing the U.S. to attack Northern Vietnam at all, the Vietnam War went on for a loooong time, resulting in the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers, innocent Southern Vietnamese, and lots of Northern Vietnamese, and causing literal hell for the innocent families that lost sons and fathers in the war.

Johnson went insane because of this, knowing he was responsible for so many deaths and so much devastation. When he left office, and Nixon (a Republican) came in, they immediately opened up Northern Vietnam to bombing. The U.S. bombed Northern Vietnam and its capital city, shut the down the capital in a matter of hours and completely cut off the Soviet supply lines. The Northern Vietnamese government, being helpless, wanted to negotiate immediately.

Which means that had Johnson allowed Northern Vietnam to be opened for bombing from the start, a LOT LESS people would have died and the Vietnam War might have been SHORTER than the Gulf War.

What is even stranger is that when the U.S. had its first big battle in Vietnam, it WON, despite the fact it was fighting with its hands tied behind its back. It won the battle, and Northern Vietnam was ready to negotiate. They knew they could not stand up against the U.S. But the MEDIA in the U.S. completely twisted the facts and made it seem as if the U.S. had lost the battle, badly. People called for the U.S. to pull out of Vietnam. The Vietnamese government and leader, upon learning this, decided to hold out, sure that public pressure would force the President to pull out the U.S. military.

But he didn't. He forced them to keep fighting with their hands tied up. It's kind of hard to fight the enemy when you cannot attack them. That is why the President is no longer allowed to make direct decisions as to where and what to bomb and attack. He tells the military what to do, and they keep him updated. This is so that no liberal, anti-war President in office can tie up the military like Johnson did.

People of the era (and hardcore liberals today) like to refer to soldiers as "baby killers," yet, this was one of the tactics the Vietnamese used against the American troops. An American soldier is not allowed to shoot a surrendering person of the enemy, and is especially not allowed to shoot a child. The Vietnamese knew this, so THEY STRAPPED BOMBS TO THEIR CHILDREN AND SENT THEM OVER TO AMERICAN G.I.s TO BLOW THEM UP. Those were your real "baby killers."

And since all Vietnamese looked the same, American troops couldn't tell if a person was Northern or Southern Vietnamese. It was incredibly easy for the Vietnamese to integrate spies amongst the American soldiers.

I couldn't believe it when I used to hear liberals saying how Bush was going to turn Iraq into "another Vietnam," back when the Iraq War was first starting. For Bush to turn Iraq into another Vietnam, he LITERALLY would have had to order the military NOT to bomb or attack ANY of Saddam Hussein's infrastructure targets. The Iraqi military would have had to have been left in full operation. Supply lines included, would not be allowed to be bombed. Then the Army would be sent in under strict orders to fight the Iraqi Army, but not allowed to go and attack Baghdad.

But the President is not allowed to do that these days. And the military has certain loopholes for getting around certain rules as to who they can shoot at. For example, if a terrorist is aiming an AK-47 at you and literally shooting, if you are manning a .50 caliber, in certain cases you are technically NOT allowed to shoot back at the guy, because your weapon is too superior. You have to get an M16 or an M4 or something to shoot at the terrorist with.

Well any idiot in their right mind will just shoot back at the terrorist if your life is on the line or your friends' lives. But then you can land in jail since the terrorist "only" had an AK-47 and you had the .50 caliber. So you say that, "No officer, I was shooting at his equipment." If you were shooting at the terrorist himself, you could go to jail. But by "shooting at his equipment," you are fine.

Now, you mention Somalia. AGAIN, the Army went in there IMPROPERLY equipped. You want to know why? Because our wonderful President at the time, Bill Clinton, assigned that anti-war guy, Les Craven, who had a known history of doing things to undermine the military, to be Secretary of Defense. The military wanted to take C-130 gunships into Somalia and the Abrams tank. But Les Craven would not allow it. Thus, the Rangers went in there poorly equipped. Despite this, they still killed a LOT more Somalies then the Somalies killed of them.

The same happened in Vietnam, too. The U.S. killed a LOT more Vietnamese then lost of its own soldiers. Contrast this with the Soviet Union, who went into Afghanistan full force without any knowledge of the term "political correctness" and STILL got their butts handed to them.

Another thing I often don't get, is I remember some liberal woman on the news saying about how she knew a Republican who met Clinton and said, "You know, he is such a nice person, you just love the guy regardless," WHO CARES. Politicians WANT people to judge them by their personality, NOT by their policies and so forth. But that is very wrong, and shows the stupidity of the public. You judge a politician by their policies and their character, not how "nice" they are to be around.

The only reason Clinton ever got into office was because he seemed so "nice" and was a good people person. A lot of his policies are what led to the current war in Iraq and the situation there.

As for Iraq currently, contrary to what the media likes to tell you, no we are not "losing" the war. We are winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people there, and any Infantry soldier who has been there for real and seen combat will tell you that.

Something would be wrong if body bags were pouring in like during Vietnam (and something then WAS wrong----the military wasn't allowed to attack the enemy, so of course lots of American troops would be slaughtered!).

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:12 PM
Most here don't seem to know crap about Soviet/Afghan war. The ones that do are yet to contribute. I'm not going to get into details, just some basic facts.

Dominating majority of Soviet losses were suffered by support personal, because they were the easiest targets to ambush. Units involved in actual combat suffered minimal losses. Mountainous region made it impossible to secure the roads, and constant ambushes literally suffocated the supply lines.

Stinger did made an incredible impact, not because it's a wonder weapon, but again, because of the mountainous region the targeted helos/aircraft had zero response time.

The plan was always simple and effective. Put a pair of guys with guided ATGMs on the hump, pop a convoy, knowing the location of the airbase deploy the "Stingman" to the 6 of inbound Hinds, jam one up the pipe and go home. You simply can't fight that, and it'll continue forever.

On the Spetsnaz, their brutality is not measured by individual acts of violence, but in how they transform the engagement zone.

Age old Russian/Soviet/Russian war tactics are based on the "life of war" ideology. Meaning warfare not as a series of tactical maneuvers with "rest" breaks in between, but literally as a life of war. Everything they do in war says "this is how we live".

Nothing is more demoralizing then knowing that you and your men just survived to fight tomorrow, while for your enemy its just another day in their life of war.

If interested in understanding their ideology of war in depth, look up the accounts of the Japanese that fought the Soviets during the end of WWII. In short, what took American forces weeks to coordinate and accomplish, for Soviet troops it was a question of a day or two.

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:34 AM
The outcome of the hostage crisis at Dubrovka was determined by Alfa and Vympel groups, Spetsnaz is a generalization.

Vega, Zenit, and other such elite groups share a unique pattern.

Upon reaching the absolute pinnacle of efficiency, they are disbanded do to their direct threat to the government. In fact, such units professionalism is measured directly by the threat they represent to the Kremlin.

Considering the history of Vympel in 1991 and in 1993 with Yeltsin, such groups are feared for their ability to easily wipe away the ruling body in a matter of a single day, thus presenting a clear danger to any ruling body in power.

After Dubrovka incident and the concurrent examination of Alfa's performance, the group was immediately disbanded. They were just to good in killing.

It is a reoccurring, ever expanding cycle, with members of disbanded group ether going private (corp crime or organized crime), or "seeding" other groups.

The sheer size and professionalism levels of various Spetsnaz type groups simply dwarf any other similar organization in the world.

Tens and tens of thousands. Considering inherent instability of the still new Russian government, it is no wonder that being a KGB officer Putin is constantly on the look out for an overthrow orchestrated by his opponents and carried out by such elite groups, or to put it more accurately blood clans of professional killers.

SWAT, SEALS, berets of all colors, etc in comparison would be something more like jobs with tasks to perform, and the above mentioned Spetsnaz groups would be the way of life.

Scary stuff.

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:59 AM
lethal injections for training accidents would surely put a dent in recruiting, i'd think.

easter-bloc and communist countries tend to use massive amounts of troops to doa job instead of a few highly trained ones like we do. the comparison between spetnez and SEAL's/Ranger's is used only becuase the 'nez is the closests thing the soviets have to sf's. my understandign is that they, like the rest of the red military is hiring out to russian mafisiao to make ends meet - it ain't like they 're getting paychecks from da gov., ya know.
another example, althought not defunct, is the chinese 'zhongdi' or maritime s.f. type soilders. they are the closests thing that i know of in the communists world that compares to our special forces.
but, for the most part, the idea of a few highlytrained/conditioned soldiers doing the work instead of sendining mass-waves of troops is a western idea. i guess the sanctity of life is more important when one has a (mostly) volunteer military and a population of less than a billion.

Boots out.

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 02:14 AM
Mr. DirtyBoots, to start with there are no more soviets, and if in your opinion the professionalism and dedication of a professional soldier is measured by the size of his paycheck, you must be thinking of the mercenary "burn outs", "soldier of fortune" type of thrill seekers.

In this discussion we're talking about deeply patriotic men that commit their whole lives to defending their home land, not getting a bigger paycheck or getting a kick from pulling a trigger.

Please try to contribute something a tad more tangible.

Feel free to start here;

posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 08:57 AM

posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 08:57 AM
reply to post by SE7EN

If you only have done a bit more research. According to a retired CAG (Delta) SMG, operation was a success, all things being equal. Casulties from gas were due to powers above refusing to disclose it's content to the medical personnel and/or provide antidode in time. Blame the politicians, not the operators.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in