It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by maloy
3.
Russia chose not to have much reliance on its airforce. Most air strikes were against military targets deep in Georgia (military bases near Tbilisi). The reason why there wasn't much airforce support in S. Ossetia - is because of the mountanous terrain and very compact combat zone (high possibility of friendly fire).
Originally posted by jerico65
I'm surprised at that, because in the past, the Russians really haven't been too worried about shelling their own troops.!
Georgian Military Power:
The Georgian military before the conflict numbered approximately 20,000 combat troops, with another 10,000 logistical and administrative personnel and a further 7,000 of Interior Ministry troops (glorified SWAT teams with armored vehicles). Equipment was generally of Soviet make, with official pre-war strength at 82 T-72 and 110 T-55 tanks of all marks with first-generation ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor); about 150 BMP armored fighting vehicles, another 80-100 medium and heavy APCs and at least 100 light wheeled APCs; roughly 40-50 self-propelled (all 152mm) and 130 towed (about 100 122mm, the rest 152mm) artillery pieces, plus 35-45 multiple rocket launch systems; 15-20 combat aircraft plus another 15 light jet trainers and roughly 80 helicopters of all types.
That's the official Georgian data per Tbilisi's various disclosures, e.g. to the UN. Unofficially, the numbers vary somewhat; for example, Russian data as of July 20 suggested that the Georgians had 165 T-72s (75 T-72M, the rest T-72 B1 and AV; the AV model has first-generation ERA, the T-72M is the export version with downgraded weapon systems, and the B1 has improved armor and fire control systems plus ERA but drops the ATGM capability) and 40 T-55-AM tanks (the modernized version but with a weaker engine than the current upgrade of T-55s), rather than 82 and 110, respectively ; 373 artillery pieces of all types excluding multiple rocket launchers rather than the 170-180 implied above; just over 20 combat aircraft (mostly Su-25s) plus 33 light attack aircraft (L-159 ALCA) and 25-26 rather than 80 combat helicopters; and a number of missile boats and patrol ships.
The numbers above should also be viewed in light of the following disclosures about arms shipments to Georgia over 2004-2008: 10 UH-1-H helicopters and 230 wheeled vehicles (including 15 Hummers delivered by AM General, LLC - a firm whose financials I know as intimately as is possible...) from the U.S., with 15 UH-60 Blackhawks on tap; 7 152mm self-propelled guns, 16 ZSU-23 AAA guns, and 300 RPG-7s, 500 "Igla" MANPADS (man-portable air defense systems) and 150 "Kornet" and "Konkurs" ATGMs, 4 SU-25 attack aircraft, two light troop ships, 10 thousand crates of AK-47 assault rifles and RPG 22s plus ammunition, and 650 tons of ammunition from Bulgaria; 66 APCs, 1186 AMD-65 assault rifles, 44 PKM machine-guns, 600 82mm mortar rounds and an unspecified amount of 7.62mm ammunition from Hungary; 1 missile boat and 2 patrol ships plus 60 mortars from Greece; 14 thousand AK assault rifles from Lithuania; 60 RN-94 APCs, 2 UH-1 helicopters, one patrol ship, 2,500 MP5A1(k) SMGs, 1,500 G3 A3 assault rifles, 4,000 122mm rockets and 20,000 155mm artillery shells, plus a large amount of 7.62mm ammunition and hand grenades from Turkey; one multiple rocket launcher with 4 Mirage fighter aircraft, 2 missile boats and upwards of 60-65 "Mistrale" and "Mistrale-2" MANPADS from France; 120 T-54 or T-55 and 55 T-72 tanks, plus 24 "Dana" 152mm self-propelled artillery vehicles, 25 M-75 120mm mortars, 200 "Strela" MANPADs and more than 40 tons of ammunition of all types from the Czech Republic; 8 "Hermes-450" and "Skylark" unmanned recon aircraft from Israel; 45 120mm and 25 82mm mortars plus 500 262mm rockets from Bosnia & Herzegovina; 20 million 7.62mm bullets, plus 1,000 HEAT and 1,690 APFSDS tank shells and other ammunition from Serbia; 31 T-72s, 20 BTR-80s, 40 BMP-2s, 12 152mm "Akatsia" self-propelled artillery vehicles, 9 Mi-24, 2 Mi-8MT and 2 Mi-4 helicopters, 40 tons of ammunition, multiple other specialist vehicles and at least three "Buk"-M1-2 medium-range mobile SAM systems (basically a next-generation version of the SA-11) from the Ukraine.
I'm not including hundreds of radios, a SIM-3C-10 computer platoon training simulator from Estonia, tons of spare parts, assorted odds and ends like engineering equipment, and, of course, training. The U.S. alone still had 95 advisors and 130 "civilian contractors" in Georgia when things broke out.
The Separatists:
On the other side of the mountains, we have Abkhazia with between 5,000 and 10,000 regular troops (the number varies year-to-year) plus 28,000 reservists; roughly 60 tanks, about 40 of them T-72s and the remainder T-55s; 116 APCs and BMP IFVs; 85 artillery pieces and mortars (total); 5 SU-25 aircraft, about a half-dozen other fixed-wing and 2 rotary aircraft, and 21 patrol boats. Think - a brigade, maybe two, with modest armor and artillery support.
Finally, pre-war South Ossetia - a region with a total population of significantly lower than 120,000 (just how much lower depends on whether one counts the ethnic Georgians, most of whom have now surely fled; 70,000 to 80,000 is likely the "real" number here) - had 3,000 regular troops and 15,000 reservists (pretty much any male old enough to hold a gun and not yet so old as to preclude him from using it effectively), plus 200 "militarized SWAT" and 900 police; nominally 75 T-72s and 12 T-55s, 80 BMP-1 and BMP-2 IFVs and 85 BTR-70 and BTR-80 APCs; 42 122mm and 152mm "Gvozdika" and "Akatsia" self-propelled artillery vehicles plus another 80 towed artillery and mortar pieces; a few ZSU-23 "Shilka" and towed 100mm AAA, plus "Igla" MANPADS, an unspecified amount of RPG-7 and RPG-22 weapons, and 4 Mi-8 helicopters. There may have been a few more combat helicopters, including - ground reports indicate - at least 3 American UH-1s (don't ask me how they got there...). Basically, one brigade, plus or minus. As it turned out, "minus", due to the issue with Ossetia's tanks and BMPs (see below).
Russian Caucasus Military District:
And oh yes - the Russians. The Russians, as it happened, had designated the entire area as the "Caucasus Military District", with the bulk of the military forces therein provided by the 58th Army, with air support provided by the 4th Air and Air Defense Army. The 58th's somewhat-dated OOB included the 19th Motor Rifle Division, the 205th Motor Rifle Brigade, the 136th Guards Motor Rifle Brigade, the 135th Motor Rifle Regiment, the 291st Artillery Brigade (equipped with towed 152mm 2A65 guns); the 943rd Multiple Rocket Launcher Regiment (220mm "Uragan" MRLS); the 1128th Anti-tank Regiment; the 67th AA Rocket Brigade (first- and next-generation SA-11); and the 487th Helicopter Regiment (Mi-8 and Mi-24 "Hind" helos). The 19th Motor Rifle includes 3 Motor Rifle regiment (each with a tank battalion), a separate tank regiment (mostly T-72s, I believe), an "Akatsia" 152mm SP artillery regiment; and organic air defense. Prior to the conflict, apparently the 58th Army was reinforced with some of the newer weapon systems in the Russian arsenal, such as the S-300 long-range SAM, the new MRLS system (forgot the designation, but makes the 220mm Uragan pale by comparison), etc. The 4th Air Army has several regiments of Mig-29 (F-16-like) and Su-27 (F-15-like) fighters as well as Su-24 (F-111 equivalent), Su-25 (A-10-like) and Tu-22 bombers and recon aircraft, plus Mi-24 Hinds and a bunch of transport helicopters.
Oh yes - the final piece of the puzzle were the peacekeeper battalions - 500 Russians and 500 Georgians deployed in each "separatist region" - lightly armed, with only a few BMPs and transport helicopters in each.
Originally posted by jerico65
Originally posted by maloy
3.
Russia chose not to have much reliance on its airforce. Most air strikes were against military targets deep in Georgia (military bases near Tbilisi). The reason why there wasn't much airforce support in S. Ossetia - is because of the mountanous terrain and very compact combat zone (high possibility of friendly fire).
I'm surprised at that, because in the past, the Russians really haven't been too worried about shelling their own troops.!
Great post! Thanks!!
Originally posted by Fromabove
As for weaponry, they have no new weaponry except some new missles.
It took five days to take two ity bity pieces of Georgia, and only after the Georgians retreated because the Russians were destoying non military infrastructure.
They are weak.
We are building up our military presence in Georgian ports and what are they doing...? Uhh... nothing because they won't take us on.
As for new weaponry, yes, we have it all. It would take time to say it here so I'll make the below posts from outside sources and you be the judge. And these are just the declassified stuff. I'll leave it to the imagination what the classified stuff might be. Needless to say, when we fight Russia, it will be but a short war.
Originally posted by paraphi
I would like to know what those certain areas actually are! Artist's impressions are one area the US lags behind!
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Russian actions, the fact remains that their military is rather larger than Georgia and pure force of numbers will have won the day.
The actions of Russia probably illustrate the reason why some nations in Russia's "sphere" want to join an alliance which would work to defend them from agression - i.e. NATO and an economic block such as the EU.
At the end of the day Russia has a rather alot of nukes and a goodly amount of oil and gas. Apart from those items Russia is not really very much - a recent commentator on BBC Radio 4 described Russia as a "Saudi Arabia with snow"!
Originally posted by jerico65
Dude, the Georgian AF consisted of something like 9 aircraft!!
It was for the US, too. It's the insurgency that always bogs things down. Of course, the old Soviets were a bit more aggressive when it comes to putting down stuff like that.
Originally posted by jerico65
Still, they shot them down.
Not saying the US wouldn't take losses, but we do have ways of working around AAA and SAMs
I agree, but how come when the US accidently bombs civilians, everyone freaks and geeks?
Yes, they would.
NATO would probably win, but things would be really ugly on both sides. I wouldn't want to see it.
Originally posted by West Coast
That is if you wish to believe the soviet claims, which I think are highly suspect to further scrutiny. In all honesty, the soviets probably lost as many, if not more than the US did in Vietnam.
500 deaths in how many years worth of fighting? That is a rather miraculous number considering everything.
All in all, your arguments are highly flawed, and are the same old rehashed lines of a non thinker.
Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
The US had months off preperations for Iraq to have a quick rush to Baghdad.
The Russians didnt have those long preperations and still get those areas so quickly wich on my account, is impressive.
And why would the Georgian army retreat when the Russians where supposed to only targetting civil targets? Why would they even abbandoning their equipment? Its because the Russians where butchering the Georgian army up!
Why would the Russians do something like that when they have reached their goals off utterly destroying the Georgian army and liberated Abchazie and SO
I am pretty sure that the Russians have also secret weapons to counter all that stuff...
Originally posted by maloy
What shelling are you referring to? There were some friendly fire incidents in Chechnya, but none that are too noteworthy come to mind.
Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, the Russians had been massing troops for 6 months on the border, Come on open your eyes, inform yourself.
That's what happens when you are attacked using overwhelming force. The Georgians made a decision to husband their forces for a Russian drive to take the entire country.
They didn't destroy the Georgian Army
Well gee if you think they do, they must
Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
[The US has better to have those ways, else it would be like total carnage.
Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
Since the US Army is boasting to be the most modern army in the world with 100% precision weaponary that makes no misstakes. So it would be odd that "the" US army would make mistakes right?
Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
No they wouldnt!
Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
NATO cant win, since it doesnt master the art off total 3D mech strike perfectly. Iff you dont know what that term means, then NATO has already lost.
Originally posted by jerico65
Trust me, sportsfan, we do.
I don't think anyone in the US military ever boasted of 100% precision. Nothing and no one is that precise.
Oh, really? You honestly think the Soviets have never lied about the amount of casualities that they have taken in battle? Time to hit the books, Gus!
Asymmetric Maneuver Warfare. And you're under the impression that the Russians have this locked, and NATO doesn't? You're sadly, sadly mistaken. Don't tell me you've been reading crap from the 1st Tactical Studies Group (Airborne) Combat Reform Group? That guy is a major joke!
Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
Well, not litteraly but it comes close. The point is that the US Army is supposed to be the most modern there is and has the abbilty to deliver its good precise. And what the average joe on the street watching Discovery Channel is seeing the show Future Weapons. So they eventualy get conditioned to make an outrage for just an accident that would happen to any millitary in the world.
Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
There are 2 reasons off why i believe the Russians:
1: The Russians love bureaucracy. So everything is catelogged perfectly.
A nice example would be the exact deathtoll for the Russians in the battle for Berlin. It has been catologged to the last digit. Remember, this was WWII with Stalin at the helm!
2: Why would they do it in the first place?
Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
The Russians have certainly locked this form off warfare with the VDV.
NATO has those capabillities too, but the US is throwing away the needed vehicles; The M113.
And why is that guy a total joke? Please explain it and you might convince me!
Originally posted by jerico65
Well, telling everyone, "Our weapons are pretty good. Maybe 67.25% precise" sure isn't a good selling point! And really fails to strike fear into the heart of the enemy!
1. Not really. General Krivosheev put out a book detailing Soviet casualities in WW2. His book came out in 1993, long after the war was over and Stalin was dead. Before that, the number of dead was just speculation and varied alot.
2. Why not? Don't let anyone know what your losses are and they can't figure out how many troops you have left, etc.
You have to be kidding me? Not about the VDV, but about the M113. Getting into that would really derail this thread.