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

There sure are a lot of America haters around here.

Why do most of you care anyway? Its not kill or be killed for you. God forbid 99.9% of you ever pick up a rifle. Its easy to formulate opinions when you're 5000 miles away from the war.

I joined this great Army to kill dirty commie Russians. Now I have several ex-pat Spetsnaz buddies who entertain me with stories of Mother Russia over far too much vodka, and I still would not hesitate to go to war with the illegitimate sons they brag so much about.

Its war, after all. Its nothing personal.

Perhaps you have heard the quote, "War is about killing people and breaking things." It does not say "killing uniformed enemy personnel" and "destroying only legitimate targets of defined military significance." Innocent people get killed. Churches, schools, and hospitals sometimes catch a stray round (or 5000 lb bomb). Its the way it is, has been, and always will be- no matter what technology is used or how skilled the operator. And don't kid yourself, war will exist as long as humans do.

What ever happened to the warriors? Who will run to the sound of the guns?

Jericho- you get a star for not laying down to the NATO haters. We can beat anyone, or at least make sure nobody is left to remember we lost.

"You don't die of old age on the Serengeti. True beauty is in the stregnth of self-preservation."

Originally posted by WhiteOneActual
Its not kill or be killed for you. God forbid 99.9% of you ever pick up a rifle.

And what would picking up a rifle prove? That one is willing to die for something that his government tells him is right?

Originally posted by WhiteOneActual
Its easy to formulate opinions when you're 5000 miles away from the war.

Don't be so sure you know where everyone on these forums is.

Originally posted by WhiteOneActual
I joined this great Army to kill dirty commie Russians.

Sorry for your disappointment - not having had a chance to fullfill your dreams.

Originally posted by WhiteOneActual
I still would not hesitate to go to war with the illegitimate sons they brag so much about.

Tough crew you hang out with there. Pour your buddies a few more shots, and they'll be telling you about how they chatted with Khruschev and Zhukov and stormed Berlin.

Originally posted by WhiteOneActual
Perhaps you have heard the quote, "War is about killing people and breaking things."

So it must be alright then. I mean it is a QUOTE after all right? What does a quote prove exactly?

Originally posted by WhiteOneActual
Innocent people get killed.

Then why did everyone get so pissed off at Nazis and Japs in WW2? I mean they were just waging good old war, with some civilian collateral damage.

Originally posted by WhiteOneActual
Churches, schools, and hospitals sometimes catch a stray round (or 5000 lb bomb).

Or 10 stray rounds. Or a 100 stray round. You know what - screw cruise missiles and smart bombs. Lets just all go back to good old carpet bombing and napalm. It did the trick in Dresden. Screw the poor bastards that get in the way. Just go nuts and blow everything to kingdom come.

Originally posted by WhiteOneActual
Jericho- you get a star for not laying down to the NATO haters. We can beat anyone, or at least make sure nobody is left to remember we lost.

A feeling of superiority is a great morale booster. That's understandable.

reply to post by maloy


You don't have to pick up a rifle for your government. Find one you agree with and defect. Hell, you don't even need a government. There are plenty of causes out there. One of them will be glad to have you. Pick a cause and fight.

War and conflict are human conditions. You like arguing with me, don't you?

And don't misinterpret my comment on Russians as any kind of resentment or prejudice- they are good fighters. They would make a good ally someday. Or opponent. Not up to me.

And nobody is going to convince me that collateral damage is avoidable. Its war. No munition is perfect, no soldier hits 100% of the time. If you want to talk about the evils of collateral damage, talk to the insurgents. They blow everything up.

[edit on 8-9-2008 by WhiteOneActual]

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

Well lets see if America take on Russia when they hold some training excercises in the Carrabiean, or did I forget America only attack countries that cant defend themself to help their petty ego.

Russian navy to visit Venezuela

Why do people criticise Russia for forcing communisiam on other neioubours in the past when America is hell bent on forcing Democracy, which obviously doesn't work otherwise Bush would of been outed a long time ago as I'm sure the people with brains over there want him out.

Personally I ashamed and more so concerned about been an Ally to America as if it all hits the fan that leaves us (Australia) open to attack in a war that I personally think America has biten off more than it can chew as I think my town would be a valid war target as we have 2 Bauxite, 1 Aluminium and a 2nd one under construction plus a major shipping port. All these things = Not good to live at in war as how many items in the world even military use some form of aluminium.

But nevermind me I'm just venting about Americas - Our way or no way policy.

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
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.

But those figures were never released, period. Even the Russian people didn't know all the numbers.

Originally posted by maloy Or 10 stray rounds. Or a 100 stray round. You know what - screw cruise missiles and smart bombs. Lets just all go back to good old carpet bombing and napalm. It did the trick in Dresden. Screw the poor bastards that get in the way. Just go nuts and blow everything to kingdom come.

When Total War is waged against you, you too must retaliate with your version of total war. Terror begats terror. That is the nature of things.

In 1940 when England stood alone against the Nazis [and the United States was doing its best to stay out of the fighting [again] and whilst the Russians were still appeasing Hitler and allowing his troops to conduct military exercises behind its borders - kind of like a reconnaissance in force, Fat Herman was trying to destroy the Chain Home Radar installations along the south coat.

When that failed, he then tried to destroy the Royal Air Force on the ground, and failed. Again.

He then decided to switch his attention to the utter destruction of London both by day and by night, in what Churchill later called, 'The Blitz'.

It should be pointed out that at this time that The Blitz need not have occured if Fat Herman had kept his promise to Hitler that, "No enemy bombs will ever fall on Berlin!"

A Heinkel 1-11 [mistakenly] unloaded its bombs over the south-eastern basin in the London Docks during an attempt to escape the marauding Hurricanes of 11 Group and the Spits of Bader's Squadron.

Churchill was outraged and ordered a retaliatory bomber strike against Berlin. Hitler, no less outraged than Churchill, countermanded the Fat Herman and ordered the utter destruction of London.

But it was not only London which was to be raised to the ground, but all Englands manufacturing centres and those cities that housed its workers.

Funny thing is tho', that Bomber Harris has been vilified by todays PC brigade and Bomber Command has yet to receive any formal thanks or recognition for its outstanding contribution that led to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Nobody remebers London, Coventry, Manchester, Liverpool or Bristol! Its always about Dresden.

Forget all the PC crap and tell it like it is! They started the Blitz; all we Brits did, was refine it and return it to its source - in spades!

Live with it and get over it!

[edit on 9-9-2008 by fritz]

[edit on 9-9-2008 by fritz]

Originally posted by fritz
In 1940 when England stood alone against the Nazis [and the United States was doing its best to stay out of the fighting [again]

The people yes, the government not at all.

and whilst the Russians were still appeasing Hitler and allowing his troops to conduct military exercises behind its borders -

Not by 1940 as far as i know. Those training exercises and cooperative training were as i remember mostly in the mid thirties.

kind of like a reconnaissance in force, Fat Herman was trying to destroy the Chain Home Radar installations along the south coat.

Actually no, they didn't make any type of concerted effort and gave up long before enough damage could be done or results seen. As per my reading they Luftwaffe simply underestimated the remaining fighter strength ( and certainly the production capabilities) and were content with forcing the RAF to fight. In that logic destroying the Chain home network would only have meant that the RAF would have a far harder time intercepting the Luftwaffe thus not giving them the opportunity to destroy the RAF... Twisted logic perhaps but that's the impression i got.

When that failed, he then tried to destroy the Royal Air Force on the ground, and failed. Again.

Again they went after the airfields because the RAF wouldn't come up to fight anything but bombers. Since you need bombers to draw them up you can just as well attack airfields which is in my reading about as coordinated as that strategy was. If they kept up the pressure on British airfields ( and they could have) they would have forced the RAF to withdraw to Northern Britain but again Goering and others underestimated remaining fighter strength and wanted a 'final battle' that would not be enabled if the RAF withdrew.

It should be pointed out that at this time that The Blitz need not have occured if Fat Herman had kept his promise to Hitler that, "No enemy bombs will ever fall on Berlin!"

A Heinkel 1-11 [mistakenly] unloaded its bombs over the south-eastern basin in the London Docks during an attempt to escape the marauding Hurricanes of 11 Group and the Spits of Bader's Squadron.

That's right but additionally the mistake belief that the RAF were all but beaten meant that the Luftwaffe thought itself 'ready' for a final showdown over London as they believed that the RAF would send everything they had left to defend it. They got the battle they wanted and the RAF proved that it wasn't 'destroyed' quite yet.

Churchill was outraged and ordered a retaliatory bomber strike against Berlin. Hitler, no less outraged than Churchill, countermanded the Fat Herman and ordered the utter destruction of London.

I doubt that Churchill was in fact 'outraged' and in my reading he just saw the opportunity to misdirect German efforts by showing that Hitler could not protect Berlin. Basically he bet on the fact that Hitler would demand retribution and that Goering and his command would not be up to the task of convincing Hitler that it wasn't the time and that the attacks against airfields/RAF infrastructure where having the desired effect. As it was Goering may very well have been advised/believed that the RAF were as good as defeated and that a 'final showdown' might in fact serve the Luftwaffe.

But it was not only London which was to be raised to the ground, but all Englands manufacturing centres and those cities that housed its workers.

They never had the capacity to do anything like that unless, obviously, one believes in German moon bases and similar UFO related stories.

Funny thing is tho', that Bomber Harris has been vilified by todays PC brigade and Bomber Command has yet to receive any formal thanks or recognition for its outstanding contribution that led to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Because it's relatively widely admitted that the British and American bomber efforts were NOT all that successful in halting the German industry. In fact the year in which Bomber command were finally starting to achieve results (well to be fair towards the end of it) were also the year in which the German industry expanded the most. The cost of the air war was also exceedingly expensive and very costly in resources committed as well as in lives lost. Between the two bomber commands they lost 160 000 men killed with a peak 'deployment' to combat units of around 1.5 million men. This was no insignificant force and if it wasn't for the Red army shouldering the burden of actually destroying the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht they could have deployed sufficient material to halt the bomber campaign which they did at various times by inflicting unsustainable casualties on it.

One may argue that it was the best way for Britain to spend it's resources but that is in my opinion basically admitting that Britain did not have the capacity to change the balance of power on their own.

Nobody remebers London, Coventry, Manchester, Liverpool or Bristol! Its always about Dresden.

Forget all the

PC crap and tell it like it is! They

started the Blitz; all we Brits did, was refine it and return it to its source - in

spades!

And depending on some presumptions Bomber command lost more personal killed in 1941,42,43 ( and possibly 44) than Germans it managed to kill. Not a very effective strategy in my opinion. Without the USAF bomber command would have had to pack it in by 1943 at the latest as attrition rates were simply too high!

Stellar

Stellar, a very simple question.

When do you think the Battle of Britain was fought?

reply to post by fritz


Whatever google/wikipedia says; my generation supposedly didn't read things with actual pages.

Next time can you ask at least two questions so i can fill at least two lines with some kind of answer? What a waste of a post....

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Because it's relatively widely admitted that the British and American bomber efforts were NOT all that successful in halting the German industry. In fact the year in which Bomber command were finally starting to achieve results (well to be fair towards the end of it) were also the year in which the German industry expanded the most. The cost of the air war was also exceedingly expensive and very costly in resources committed as well as in lives lost. Between the two bomber commands they lost 160 000 men killed with a peak 'deployment' to combat units of around 1.5 million men. This was no insignificant force and if it wasn't for the Red army shouldering the burden of actually destroying the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht they could have deployed sufficient material to halt the bomber campaign which they did at various times by inflicting unsustainable casualties on it.

Stellar

I think the problem here is that the strategic bombing offensive was a success on several levels and a faliure on others. One area of failure was the goal to break the Nazi morale and that did not happen - even though the Nazi leadership was clearly concerned.

Although the Nazi industrial capability expanded dramatically throughout the war there is no doubt that stategic bombing had an effect and in major industrial areas such as the Ruhr large numbers of factories were destroyed. OK, the factories would have been resited, but there was clearly disruption. Furthermore, the Nazis were forced to direct materiel and manpower to defend the skies over Germany and that effort cannot be underestimated.

In addition, we must not get into the trap of judging the actions of the past by today's standards. The strategic bombing campaign against Nazi Germany undertaken by Britain and the Commonwealth and later with the US happened in a world war of extroadinary complexity and ferocity which we cannot comprehend today.

I think I share Fritz's sentiments and in the world we live in with all it's fluffy privilage we tend to forget the context and be selective with our history. Dresden was terrible, but so was the bombing of Britain (and elsewhere in Europe) - something the Nazis continued to do right up to the bitter end with bombers and then when they lost the airfields, with the V weapons.

Regards

Until russia has a stealth airfoce, either UCAVs of manned aircraft and the data sharing capabilties of the US air force it will be at a disadvantage.

Originally posted by StellarX reply to ]post by fritz[/url]
Whatever google/wikipedia says; my generation supposedly didn't read things with actual pages.

Next time can you ask at least two questions so i can fill at least two lines with some kind of answer? What a waste of a post....Stellar

You so obviously have some kind of axe to grind because, along with others, you quote google/wikipedia at me.

I do not use these bloody search engines or encyclapedias because they display results by those who pay and in the case of wikipedia, you cal alter the info contained therein.

Back to my question which was, when do you think the Battle of Britain was fought?

Most people would say if asked, September 1940 which, of course, would only be partially correct.

I respectfully draw your attention to of my my former employer's website which, unlike google or wikipedia, actually knows what it is talking about!

Incidentally, I was stationed at Biggin-Hill, one of the fighter wings most heavily engaged during the battle:

www.raf.mod.uk...

As you seem to be poo-pooing my post Stellar, perhaps you would care to read the official history of the battle which hopefully puts across what I was trying to say.

If you also care to take a look at the Bomber Command pages:

www.rafbombercommand.com...

you will hopefully see what I was banging on about.

At least we Brits did not bomb a neutral country, as a unit of the US 8th Army Air Force did, when they bombed Zurich.

If my memoury serves me, wasn't Colonel James Stewart one of the officers on the Courts Martial panel?

That their weapons are not as good as some people may claim.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

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

America only attack countries that cant defend themself to help their petty ego.

Your right, taking on Nazi Germany and the Japanese simultaneously was nothing but an ego excercise!

Originally posted by drock905
Until russia has a stealth airfoce, either UCAVs of manned aircraft and the data sharing capabilties of the US air force it will be at a disadvantage.

It wont be in the disadvantage when it hasnt have stealth planes but it would be a nice addition to the force.

But those planes are under development/construction, so it is just a matter off time.

But about the datasharing stuff, i cant awnser that since i do not have info about that about Russian stuff.

I am sure the Russians have some sort off datasharing technology in house now, or that they are developing them.

Originally posted by amfirst
That their weapons are not as good as some people may claim.

Nice statement here amfirst (nice "name"). Could you enlighten me with some evidence?

If you dont want to do it for me, could you then do it for the rest off ATS?

I am sure it will make up for some nice conversations between the two off us

Originally posted by fritz
You so obviously have some kind of axe to grind because, along with others, you quote google/wikipedia at me.

Right and according to me there isn't anything wrong with that. If someone quotes wikipedia at you without having read a rather large heap of books on the topic it will probably show very quickly as history/knowledge by article rarely provides context or the continuity that allows for discussion.

I do not use these bloody search engines or encyclapedias because they display results by those who pay and in the case of wikipedia, you cal alter the info contained therein.

I don't disagree with the fact that Google/wiki is working together and find that more often than not what i find on obscure web pages ( created by people who read too many books) is reflected and considered on wikipedia. How or why that happens i can not explain but basically the information 'anarchy' that wiki is built on seem to produce much results that are well in line with my own working method. I didn't always use or 'trust' wikipedia but since i can admit when i am wrong progress is possible.

Back to my question which was, when do you think the Battle of Britain was fought?

Most people would say if asked, September 1940 which, of course, would only be partially correct.

I should say something partly insulting ( you mean to suggest that you thought i thought the battle of Britain covered only September????) but i am trying to do better.

I respectfully draw your attention to of my my former employer's website which, unlike google or wikipedia, actually knows what it is talking about!

Rigth:

The Battle of Britain (German: Luftschlacht um England) is the name given to the sustained strategic effort by the German Luftwaffe during the summer and autumn of 1940 to gain air superiority over the Royal Air Force (RAF), especially Fighter Command. The name derives from a speech made on 18 June 1940 in the House of Commons by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, "The Battle of France is over. I expect the Battle of Britain is about to begin..."[5]

British historians date the battle from 10 July to 31 October 1940, which represented the most intense period of daylight bombing. German historians usually place the beginning of the battle in mid-August 1940 and end it in May 1941, on the withdrawal of the bomber units in preparation for Operation Barbarossa, the Campaign against the USSR.

en.wikipedia.org...

Wiki isn't in my view some kind of centralized information processing hub and until it starts to resemble centralized information control i wont have any reason not to use it. Either way do you agree or disagree with the above summary?

Incidentally, I was stationed at Biggin-Hill, one of the fighter wings most heavily engaged during the battle:
www.raf.mod.uk...

Stationed when, is my question?

As you seem to be poo-pooing my post Stellar, perhaps you would care to read the official history of the battle which hopefully puts across what I was trying to say.
If you also care to take a look at the Bomber Command pages:
www.rafbombercommand.com...

If you don't at all mind i would rather have it in your own words and i will certainly read however much your willing to type. I have read a bit about the battle of Britain and my conclusion is basically that both sides so seriously mismanaged it that it's hard to know would or could have resulted in a alternate history. Obviously the larger picture is far clearer in hindsight but even without it the series of blunders the Luftwaffe made enabled a RAF victory which even a much better organized defense may have had trouble coping with.

you will hopefully see what I was banging on about.

I appreciate the effort to 'educate me' and since i know i have plenty to learn, and possibly as much ideas to correct, you can start with a summary of why you disagree with the mostly official version of events.

At least we Brits did not bomb a neutral country, as a unit of the US 8th Army Air Force did, when they bombed Zurich.

More enthusiasm than skill has been a common hallmark of the American military effort. I would rather have professionalism but i suppose you work with what your schools turn out.

If my memoury serves me, wasn't Colonel James Stewart one of the officers on the Courts Martial panel?

Irony enough to make a 500 pound bomb. Then again the history of the world is a record of how the victors saw it so the only tentative guarantee of some justice is victory.

Stellar.

I can only speak from the pictures that our media (middle europe) and eastern media showed (not seen on CNN or other west news outlets).

I was astound how they managed to blow the turrets off georgian tanks off precisely in the middle of cities and roads.
All those georgian tanks were covered from top to bottom in reactive armor, body ok, turret 20m elsewhere.
And not one tank, at least 2-4 precisely taken out could be seen in the pictures, still standing in marching row. No bombing holes nearby, just an undamaged road and topped off tanks.

Very interesting compared to pictures of gulf war I where that road (can´t remember the name, kuwait-bagdad) was a mess.

Originally posted by Shamanator
What the brief skirmish told us is Russia has a very weak air force and even a tiny country can inflict significant losses on it. Imagine the same situation only using state of the art American equipment I predict the entire Russian Air force would be extinct in a few short hours.

What we also know is that Russia will attack soft targets like civilians and I suspect they took a lot more casualty's in the brief fire fighting than they will admit.

I believe Nato could beat Russia in a week or so with no significant casualty's superior technology and superior tactics win out.

Russia didn NOT attack soft tagets, but nato DID in Serbia AND Iraq what your saying is the same B.S. that NATO likes to say about Rus to make them look weak.

I don't subscribe to this sublime belief that the US could punch Russia out. First off the Russian military has always focused on developing low cost systems that are designed to negate the advantages gained by US mega spending projects.
Their SAM systems and doctrine to use them effectivelly will negate the pitifully low number of airframes we have to face their superior numbers but debatable qualitative capabilities.
Our vaunted M1 abrams needs it's soft skinned supply train within miles of the front to fight effectivelly. knowing this the russians have spets and god knows how many other groups specifically designed to get behind an enemy and disable his logistical support. Even without fuel the abrams makes one hell of a dangerous bunker but the Russians have portable anti armor and Fuel air explosive weapons that can eviscerate non mobile targets.
Now back to lack of airframes the US has in a way. Due to internal military politricks the "Air Farce" guaranteed it's own indispensability by systematically getting any real organic ground based air defense capabilities our ground forces had access to killed off slowly. So you run into a serious issue very quickly, Simply put the ground forces will have no CAS due to the CAP's that would need to be maintained 24/7 over the ENTIRE front. And forward air strikes for target preparation would not happen either due to the very real attrition cost of any strikes beyond the front from layered air defense. This leaves our "light fighter" ground forces in a pickle they would no doubt valiantly try to surmount but where the flesh was willing the equipment issued would almost guarantee failure.