What have we learnt from the Russian weaponary in the brief Russia / Georgia war

Here are some conclusions I can come up with based on Russian independent sources, including military forums and Russian reporters and photographers who followed the troops into actions:



1.

Unlike Chechnya, Russia did rush in its experienced veteran battalions (Zapad and Vostok from Chechnya ). This was a smart move, as these fighters have seen combat in the Caucasus for last 15 years, and are well conditioned for it. However the command made a mistake of sending the 58th army contingent into the combat zone first, and the Chechen battalions went in after.


2.

The war was still not very well planned. According to a Russian journalist who followed the first Russian contingent into the combat zone, there were still many conscripts who had little idea of what was happening. Many of the casualties on the Russian side were among these conscripts (their first armor columns were hit by Georgian artillery fairly hard).


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).


4.

There was a fairly intense battle for Tskhinvali. Supposedly Georgian forced has as many as 13,000 troops there, and held it for 3 days. In the first Russian attack to repel the Georgians, Russians actually had fewer soldiers and less armor (about 100 pieces, with less than 40 being tanks). The details of this battle are unknown as of yet.


5.

VDV paratroopers reportedly played a crucial role in rooting out the Georgians. While being smaller in number, their attacks drops coincided with the tactics of the advancing Russian armor and the airstrikes and artillery. This shows considerably more thorough planning than in Chechnya.


6.

Russia had clear objectives, yet kept them secret - and kept most of the world guessing on what it was planning to do (for example rumors of invasion of Tbilisi). Russian objectives are now known to have been to secure Georgian military bases in vicinity of S Ossetia, and disarm them by taking Georgian military equipment out.


7.

Despite the fact that Russia used experienced veteran troops for the most part, it still chose to rely on largely obsolete armor and equipment, correctly betting that it would be enough to repel Georgia. The tanks used by Russia were T-72 and even largely obsolete T-64/2. No T-80 or T-90 tanks were seen anywhere near the conflict zone. Same goes for the airplanes - mostly SU-25s were used. Sources from Russia point out that the reason for using this obsolete weaponry was to deny the West a chance to learn weaknesses and stengths of newest Russian equipment.


8.

There is little in the news about the Russian attack helicopters that played a role as well. The helicopter loses were also not disclosed yet. Journalists embedded with the troops saw several Ka-52 engaged near the battle zone (the newest and most advanced Russian attack helicopter). Most likely the helicopters were used against Georgian armor. This is a first time Russia relies on attack helicopters like Ka-52 (before most Mi-24 Hinds were used)/


9.

For the first time in recent history was saw active engagement and battle-ready state of the Russian navy (a small battle ground from the Black Sea Fleet). While the engagement in the Black Sea with Georgian patrol boats does tell much - it is clear that Russia has the ability to quickly bring its ships to battle-ready state.


10.

Unlike before, Russia did not rely on overwhelming force in this war - but instead on speed and tactics. Remember that Georgians has an army of about 30,000 in and near the conflict zone. The first Russian contingent that entered S. Ossetia on August 8th numbered only 100 pieces of armor. Meanwhile the Georgians had time to entrench their positions, and had heavy artillery support. Despite being outnumbered, the Russian troops rooted the Georgians in a few days. Only after Tskhinvali was under Russian control, did the much more numerous Russian armor column enter the breakaway region.


11.

The most important factor is that this war still tells very little about the capabilities of the Russian military. Note that this was a very minor confrontation (compared to say Iraq, or Afganistan, or Chechnya). The main battle was in and around Tskhinvali. After the Georgian lost this battle - there was little in the way of further fighting, as they retreated quickly beyond Gori (leaving bases in Gori and Senaki abandoned).

While Russia actied in a quick and decisive manner - this was still a small and isolated operation. Russian airforce played almost no role in the actual battle for Tskhinvali. The tanks and armor was obsolete. Most of Russian artillery didn't arrive untill sometime after Georgians left Tskhinvalli, and did not take part in the battle. And while Zapad and Vostok are expert battalian - the 58th army is hardly the elite core of the Russian army. It should not represent the Russian army as a whole. The best and newest Russian equipment sees service not in the Caucasus, but in Siberia and near Moscow and St. Petersburg.




So while this war has some clues about how the Russian army changed its tactics since the Chechen wars, it still gives a rather vague picture of the actual Russian military capabilties. But the fact that Russian tactics are changing is important nonetheless.

To me it seems like Russia is trying to immitate the tactics and strategy utilized by U.S. in Iraq. Speed and defined objectives are key, and not overwhelming force or senseless carpet bombing and shelling. The first order of battle, just like with U.S., includes airstrikes against enemy communication and military infrastructure installations. Also the armor advancement is coreographed with paratroopers' operations, airstrikes, and artllery. Finally, the key is to make the enemy flee or put down their weapons, rather than kill them (the Georgians quickly retreated leaving their equipment behing, and fighting subsided).


[edit on 5-9-2008 by maloy]

Hmmm... another war mongering thread on ATS. No thanks, I'll sit this one out.

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 jerico65
I'm surprised at that, because in the past, the Russians really haven't been too worried about shelling their own troops.!

What shelling are you referring to? There were some friendly fire incidents in Chechnya, but none that are too noteworthy come to mind.

And the friendly fire incidents weren't because of some intentional disregard for troops. It happened in Chechnya because of poor communication and command structure, with little coordination between ground forces and airforce, and between different battalions. Reckless - definitely. But commanders are the ones to blame for that. Most of the commanders from the careless First Chechen war have been long replaced.

An interesting article on the military power of both sides in the area of conflict (obviously not the entire Russian military - but just the Caucasus Military District) from a military source:

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.

Source:

militaryphotos.net...


This gives a thorough and very detailed picture of each side's power and capabilities. The lists are lengthy, but may clear up some confusion.

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!!

Links please? Need to jog my memory, cause all it seems to be clogged with all those multiple fratricide incidents in which US assets have bombed allied positions.

Originally posted by Fromabove

This is my second part off awnsering some posts that contain false information.

As for weaponry, they have no new weaponry except some new missles.

You realy dont know what you are talking about, do you?

Just look at what the Russians got in 2005: The Sprut SD (2s25).
A light tank that is airdropable and fully amphibious with a 125MM tank gun!!
The same one as on the T-90!!

And what to think about the MI-28 "havoc" or the SU-35BM?

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.

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!

They are weak.

Proof it.

We are building up our military presence in Georgian ports and what are they doing...? Uhh... nothing because they won't take us on.

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?

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.

I am pretty sure that the Russians have also secret weapons to counter all that stuff...

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!

Russia only lags behind in electronics but for the rest, they are either equal or light years ahead.

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.

That is what you think, but it isnt true!!! The Russians only had some 25 to 30.000 soldiers maximum in the war against Georgia!! And those numbers include the sepratists fighters!

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.

A very sad fact indeed.

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"!

Then that commentator doesnt know # about Russia and should die.

Russia is far more then nukes and oil... FAR more then that.

Like all good autocracies, Russia needs a big enemy to keep the rulers in power - that enemy is the West. The West does not need Russia.

Regards

Originally posted by jerico65
Dude, the Georgian AF consisted of something like 9 aircraft!!

Still, Russia destroyed the entire airforce off 9 aircraft whilest only losing 4.

A pretty nice Kill Death ratio i would say.

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.

Yep, the Insurgency is quite the pest that haunts army's

Originally posted by jerico65
Still, they shot them down.

Losses are expected when the enemy has the equimpent to down older models off aircraft.

Not saying the US wouldn't take losses, but we do have ways of working around AAA and SAMs

The US has better to have those ways, else it would be like total carnage.

I agree, but how come when the US accidently bombs civilians, everyone freaks and geeks?

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?

In other words: they are the victim off their own propaganda.

Yes, they would.

No they wouldnt!

NATO would probably win, but things would be really ugly on both sides. I wouldn't want to see it.

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 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.

Then why should i believe the US claims off number off people killed?

500 deaths in how many years worth of fighting? That is a rather miraculous number considering everything.

I find it a extremely high deathcount since the Taliban are self supporting and not being supported with high tech weaponary like what the Russians gave to the North Vietnamnese and what the US gave to the Afghani's.

All in all, your arguments are highly flawed, and are the same old rehashed lines of a non thinker.

Wow!! I am just trying to give my point off view and correct some flawed info and this is how i am treated!?

You need to get some manners man!! "non thinker" WOW!! seriously, dude. You should treat me better man!

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.

LOL, the Russians had been massing troops for 6 months on the border, Come on open your eyes, inform yourself.

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!

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.

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

They didn't destroy the Georgian Army

I am pretty sure that the Russians have also secret weapons to counter all that stuff...

Well gee if you think they do, they must

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.

Ancient history. I just read about the Russians battling in Berlin and they said a lot of their losses were from "friendly" fire (What's so freakin' friendly about it??). They had a lot of guys crowded in a small front and they sometimes shelled/bombed each other.

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, the Russians had been massing troops for 6 months on the border, Come on open your eyes, inform yourself.

No they havent "massing" up forces over there since the equipment used wasnt state off the art and because off the relatively low numbers and the fact that only local units where used in that war.

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.

"overwhelming"? It was pretty much an even fight looking at raw numbers. Russia had ~25.000 against ~30.000 Georgians and that Russian number includes the sepratist fighters.

And iff the Georgians wanted to "husband" their forces, then they shouldnt have abandond their equipment and had a fighting orderly retreat.

They didn't destroy the Georgian Army

Georgian army IS destroyed: No airforce anymore, navy is non-existent, quarter off their entire forces big weapons being confescated and a big number off bases raided.

Well gee if you think they do, they must

Do you honestly think that the US has a monopoly on secret weapons? Because it hasnt!

And YOU need to open up your eyes that other countries have the technology, the money and the determination off making weapons that the other party's dont have...

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
[The US has better to have those ways, else it would be like total carnage.

Trust me, sportsfan, we do.

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?

I don't think anyone in the US military ever boasted of 100% precision. Nothing and no one is that precise.

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
No they wouldnt!

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!

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.

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 jerico65
Trust me, sportsfan, we do.

Then the average US citizen can sleep at ease.

I don't think anyone in the US military ever boasted of 100% precision. Nothing and no one is that precise.

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.

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!

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?

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!

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!

Rock on man!

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.

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!

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?

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.

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!

You have to be kidding me? Not about the VDV, but about the M113. Getting into that would really derail this thread.

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!

Yeah, it sure it is! . Oh well, i hope you got the point.

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.

Wrong at least on one account:

1: After the SU came crashing down, the archives where opend and the Soviets had a complete catologue/list off casulties in that battle all the way to the last digit. And those speculations where from western/german sources.

2: That is a valid reason but the number off soldiers killed is so low in this conflict for the Russians that lying would hurt more then just telling the truth.

You have to be kidding me? Not about the VDV, but about the M113. Getting into that would really derail this thread.

Yeah, that discussion is for a later thread.

reply to post by bubbles75


People forget very quickly, i realize the USA and UK are having a tough time with winning hearts and minds, because it is near impossible to change the ruling elite in some ones back yard. But at the start of the war they smashed the Iraq army in a matter of hours even with their politically correct attack plan. If this was a real world war where the governments didn't give a # about what the lefties thought # would hit the fan.

Besides alot of military experts have been saying that the attack on Georgia showed weaknesses in the Russian attack against a tiny army. Russians main battle attack is like a basic Nazi panzer swarm. Their air power was shown to be weak and was shot down with the most basic anti aircraft technology.

For a comparison since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the UK R.A.F. squadron "Jedi" has flown thousands of sorties in hostile airspace with a 100% record, not loosing one plane, but the most critical point is that this squadron doesn't fly brand new MiG. They fly 1960's Harriers. You cannot underestimate the power of air superiority. Also there are other R.A.F. squadrons that fly lower than anybody else can again in "old" aircraft the tornado. Now the R.A.F. are changing to the eurofighter they will be unstoppable, the only credible threat would be the F22 which the U.S.A.F would be flying on the same side.

The Russians always count on their tank numbers but another point to mention is the Apache helicopter which can knock all the Russians tanks out with ease due to their superior range.

The Russians have only one option, the nuclear one.