Georgia war shows Russian army strong but flawed

Georgia war shows Russian army strong but flawed

www.reuters.com

The conflict -- Russia's biggest combat operation outside its borders since the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan -- showed its armed forces have emerged from years of neglect as a formidable fighting force, but revealed important deficiencies.

Those weaknesses, especially in missiles and air capability, leave Russia still lagging behind the image of a world-class military power it projects to the rest of the world.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Article is a good read. I think the conflit in Georgia has shown and possibly exposed a natural tendency in Russian military thinking to use brute force.

I know from experience in the US military during the 80s, we always knew that the Soviets had the numerical superiority, whereas we had the technological.

Article goes on to say that while still relying on brute force tactics, the Russian military had made surprising gains in the overall capacity as a fighting force...well disciplined and well equipped.

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit for spelling

[edit on 20-8-2008 by deadbang]

I assumed, given everyone's love of armchair QB'ing relations between US/Russia this would be of interest..

All I have to say is that if Georgia (who I believe is as much fault in this situation as Russia) had taken a page out of the Afghanis in the 80's or Hezbollah in the sense of what they did during their latest conflict with Isarel or even the Iraqi insurgency they could had a least fare up better with the Russians.

The Russian military (like the U.S. and China) is numerous and have all the neccessary weapons to obliterate any other country in the world, is in asymmetrical warfare that you can beat them.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by Bunch]

reply to post by deadbang


Love the av, it's neat.

True, your assessment is accurate, which motivated this person to say if the US were to use precision-bombs, Russia would use nukes:

ru.youtube.com...

[edit on 21-8-2008 by pluckynoonez]

Your looking at it wrong,

why would russia send in its prime pickings to fight a few thousand barley trained rebels?.. .over south Osettia?

I remember Russia not long ago saying they had laser technology long ago, well we didnt see anything like that here, doesnt mean they dont have it.

Secondly, the caucasus are a fair trek from central russia, i cant imagine they'd get their top stuff from moscow or st petersburg down in time for the fight.

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian soldiers rode into battle against Georgia perched on top of their armored personnel carriers, not out of bravado but because a flaw in their amour can make it more dangerous to travel inside.

So, a soldier standing outside a tank like vehicle is more safe than being inside?

... I dunno, this article stinks to me.

Russia can put sattelites in orbit, build nukes and has subs... im pretty sure that what ever tech they sent into Georgia isnt their best stuff...

Id be more asking, how did a nation like Georgia shoot down jets?
I think the US Supplied more than M16's and training!

reply to post by Agit8dChop
Yes,and the Georgian forces were far from completed in there training,it was like bringing a gerbil to a dog fight. NO chance. Besides, Russia knew far in advance what capability's the Georgian military had,why display your latest hardware if you don't have to.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Your looking at it wrong,

Id be more asking, how did a nation like Georgia shoot down jets?
I think the US Supplied more than M16's and training!

That could very well be a possibility but you should also remember that the Yugo's didnt have that much of tech and they still manage to shot down an F-117A in 1999.

It really doesnt take much to shot down an aircraft if they flying at low altitude or under the impression that air defenses have been defeated.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by Bunch]

True, but 6 of them?
( was it 6 russian jets shot down in the end? )
You can get lucky with an AK, or RPG... but any more than once Id say you were armed accordingly.

I think we can safely say that although unprepared for a full blown war,the Georgian soldiers and/or trainers, had been equipped with some advanced weaponry.

reply to post by Agit8dChop


Russian military stated that 4 planes were shot down

reply to post by manson_322

Take that multiply by 6....carry the two....
divide by the sum of the.......

You can bet that the Russians will tell you the same "correct" numbers that our government tries to pass off about Iraq casualties.

I wonder if those jets were shot down by US SF who have the training and experience to knock down those jets.

best line ever: No...In chess, the pawns go first.

how appropriate.

this is meaningless. First, this conflict can't fairly be described as a "war". More of a "domestic disturbance". Your local PD doesn't send a swat team for a noise complaint do they? Neither does Russia. It seems to me that Russia has a bit of a secret weapon in that everyone underestimates them so much.

They were able to overcome any weaknesses the Russians have by bringing overwhelming firepower and speed. Speed is the key to prevent Georgian soldiers from reacting and planning any possible counterattacks. Setting up ambushes or preparing IEDs and so on. Combine air-land attacks. Something the U.S. military copied from the Soviet Union.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

So, a soldier standing outside a tank like vehicle is more safe than being inside?

... I dunno, this article stinks to me.

Same thing with the U.S. in WWII and some of their armored vehicles. The bullet would penetrate inside the vehicle, then rattle around a bit. Yes, you are safer outside than in. Just shows you that they're still a little behind...

reply to post by MegaBears


Russian tanks have been known to blow up like a volcano because where the crew are sitting on, which is the ammunition beneath them instead of behind them like the Abrams tank that is stored in a separate comparment if the Abrams tank was penetrated and the explosion is blown upward out of the tank and not onto the crew. Russia designs is crude.

reply to post by BASSPLYR

I wonder if those jets were shot down by US SF who have the training and experience to knock down those jets.

I would seriously doubt that....we will only fight them by proxy. Hence, the Poland missile deal.

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by MegaBears

 

Russian tanks have been known to blow up like a volcano because where the crew are sitting on, which is the ammunition beneath them instead of behind them like the Abrams tank that is stored in a separate comparment if the Abrams tank was penetrated and the explosion is blown upward out of the tank and not onto the crew. Russia designs is crude.

Crude? You obviously forgot to mentioned the swanky autoloader that allows it to fire reaaaally quick:

www.youtube.com...


Cool, ain's it?