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

Originally posted by Saf85

You as well as I know Russia has cruise missiles, and they could have easily fired them into the Georgian Presidents Palace and offed him, so don't post STUPID things, about Russia could get the Gov out of power, there's a reason they left them in there, and BTW Russia DID control Afgahnistan, please provide MULTIPLE respectable sources that show Russia didn't and got beat up by Afghans.

You know nothing about war or international politics.
Otherwise, why not have simply carpet-bombed Tbilisi? Hell, why not send thousands of artillery shells into every city they found, much like Chechnya?
Because that's not how the rules work and function, even for a group so notorious for disobeying international law as Russia. If your view of war is so shallow as to think that the entire purpose is for one side to kill the other side's king, it's not worth having a discussion with you.

Furthermore, how about expounding why the government was left there? Especially given that they are currently in the minority, and there are plenty of pro-Russians to be found laying around. [Well, not anymore. You see, Russia turned most of that general area towards the West due to their delicate handling of the situation.]

Also, as you're the one making accusation, you have no right to demand evidence, let alone set criteria for it. In fact, to be ranting like this, you'd have to be providing some form of proof that what you're saying is legitimate and true.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Rogue, you are wrong. Soviets did control entire Afganistan, and many mujaheddin just simply were crossing to Pakistani border, and USSR didn't want be involved in a war with Pakistan. Read up your history.

What's your point? That is an enemy combatant crosses borders into a friendly country, they don't count? In that case, there are extraordinarily few 'enemies' of the United States in Iraq. They love us. It's certainly not that the insurgents are using nearby countries to shield themselves under the umbrella of international law [not that the United States seems to be caring as of late, as to what country they're in.]

Also, do you really believe the Soviets did so well? Provide any proof?
Here, I'll do my end:

Arghandab District
Paktia Province
Zhawar Base
Panjshir Valley

10% fatality rate, disregarding physical and mental disabilities.

Furthermore, due to supply constraints, the Soviets were never able to field enough troops to control the country, even presuming your rather odd vision of what occurred was true. It's not that they only needed 150,000, or that they thought it was a good number -- It's all that could be brought in, given the lack of railroads or other common supply lines. This is also a reason why Afghanistan has so few soldiers relative to Iraq, and why the Air Force is so busy in the area -- We've been flying supplies in.

Originally posted by rogue1
You are joking right? Either you know nothing about the Afghan War or you're fed way to much propaganda.

Ditto mister Rogue.

Russia only ever had some control over the cities, never in the country side.

They controlled for the vast majority of their presence there more than the US has so far managed in Afghanistan. Admittedly the US have never deployed similar numbers of men or material but that's not something you bothered to mention.

In fact the mujahideen staged frequent attacks in "Russian controlled" cities.

Like they are doing against American 'controlled' ( which one's other than most parts of Kabul) cities today?

To say they had control of most of the country is laughable, I wouldn't even say they controlled 5%.

They 'controlled' ( well the Soviet backed Afghan government ) for the most part the major cities as well as 20% of the countryside surrounding those cities and along the highways connecting them.

Even with the mass destruction of villages, they still couldn't control the land.

You never control land ( well empty land perhaps ) that way and that was not the reason some towns and villages were destroyed by the fighting.

Hmm as for being decimated, out fo an Amry of 100,000 men 15,000 were killed let alone the injuries of the survivors.

The Soviet personal strength ranged from 80 - 100 000 at any one time and overall about 600 000 served of which 15 000 died due to injuries or disease. Fifty thousand were wounded or suffered injuries in battle, 450, 000 fell sick and of the combined 500 000 total around ten thousand were discharged as permanently disabled.

that sounds like decimation to me. Sorry.

Russia got an ass kicking.

In fact the Russian and American experiences are very similar indeed when one takes the population numbers of Vietnam and Afghanistan into account. As compared to the total number of men and machines deployed both the US and USSR in fact suffered very similar numbers of casualties as percentage of both peak and total deployment.

Basically if you want to argue that Russia got it's ass kicked then the US got it's ass kicked the true difference being that Russia were actually attempting progressive reforms in Aghanistan ( a country bordering Russia which they could have at any time since 1945 invaded) while the US chose to destroy the progressive democratic movement in Vietnam by first attacking the defenseless South Vietnam and later bombing the North.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
They controlled for the vast majority of their presence there more than the US has so far managed in Afghanistan. Admittedly the US have never deployed similar numbers of men or material but that's not something you bothered to mention.

Completely incorrect. In fact the Soviets couldn't even control teir border with several mujahideen raids in the Soviet Union proper.

Like they are doing against American 'controlled' ( which one's other than most parts of Kabul) cities today?

Your point being what? As you point out America has far less soldiers than the Russians ever had.

They 'controlled' ( well the Soviet backed Afghan government ) for the most part the major cities as well as 20% of the countryside surrounding those cities and along the highways connecting them.

So you are just agreeing with my point. 20% ( per your figures which probably are too high) isn't most of the country.

You never control land ( well empty land perhaps ) that way and that was not the reason some towns and villages were destroyed by the fighting.

So you are agreeing with me again, thanks.

The Soviet personal strength ranged from 80 - 100 000 at any one time and overall about 600 000 served of which 15 000 died due to injuries or disease. Fifty thousand were wounded or suffered injuries in battle, 450, 000 fell sick and of the combined 500 000 total around ten thousand were discharged as permanently disabled.

And? more agreement with what I'm saying.

In fact the Russian and American experiences are very similar indeed when one takes the population numbers of Vietnam and Afghanistan into account. As compared to the total number of men and machines deployed both the US and USSR in fact suffered very similar numbers of casualties as percentage of both peak and total deployment.

Completely off topic, but you like your chest thumping

Basically if you want to argue that Russia got it's ass kicked then the US got it's ass kicked the true difference being that Russia were actually attempting progressive reforms in Aghanistan ( a country bordering Russia which they could have at any time since 1945 invaded) while the US chose to destroy the progressive democratic movement in Vietnam by first attacking the defenseless South Vietnam and later bombing the North.


Ahh so youn why are you comparing the American and VIetnam experiences? Simople fact is the US is oing a better job in Afghanistan than the Russians did. You seem to be stuck in this old century cold war chest thumping. Try and stay on topic. We are tlaking about Afghanistan not Vietnam.

Originally posted by Iblis
You know nothing about war or international politics.
Otherwise, why not have simply carpet-bombed Tbilisi? Hell, why not send thousands of artillery shells into every city they found, much like Chechnya?

Because they too learn from their mistakes and that Georgians citizens in general were not responsible for the war their leader started? What about the massed shelling and air bombardments of some other countries in very recent history?

Because that's not how the rules work and function, even for a group so notorious for disobeying international law as Russia.

Funny that. How many international laws did the US government break in recent times to invade countries on the other side of the planet? Why is it that when the Russians intervene in the affairs of neighbours we get all up in arms when the US National security state for so long turned most of South-America into a dictator run hel? I mean why so much bias mister Iblis?

If your view of war is so shallow as to think that the entire purpose is for one side to kill the other side's king, it's not worth having a discussion with you

Agreed. I mean clearly the death of a million Iraqi's during the sanctions and another million since the invasion proves that modern warfare is all about saving lives and safeguarding international law. .

Furthermore, how about expounding why the government was left there?

Because the Russian government are not arrogant enough to consider regime change by method of assasination/decapitation something they can get away with as easily as the US national security state believes it can?

Especially given that they are currently in the minority, and there are plenty of pro-Russians to be found laying around. [Well, not anymore. You see, Russia turned most of that general area towards the West due to their delicate handling of the situation.

Well if you say so. I mean western Europeans didn't get the clear message that Russia used a great deal of restraint to respond to the stupidly arrogant moves of the upstart Georgian leadership. If Mexico or Canada killed ten American peacekeepers by means of artillery bombardment i doubt so much restraint would be seen. While i can't say that i have my pulse on European sentiment the bit of coverage i did see didn't misrepresent Russian or Georgians actions nearly as much as the US/British MSM tried to do.

Also, as you're the one making accusation, you have no right to demand evidence, let alone set criteria for it. In fact, to be ranting like this, you'd have to be providing some form of proof that what you're saying is legitimate and true.

I'll let you too sort out the 'proof'.

What's your point? That is an enemy combatant crosses borders into a friendly country, they don't count? In that case, there are extraordinarily few 'enemies' of the United States in Iraq.

US generals have long made it clear that the insurgency is local and that foreign combatants consitute but a very very small minority of those involved in attacks. When they are they also seem to be least prepared, badly armed and not as well organized.

They love us. It's certainly not that the insurgents are using nearby countries to shield themselves under the umbrella of international law [not that the United States seems to be caring as of late, as to what country they're in.]

Iraqi's do not love the US and how could they considering ten years of sanctions and two sanctions? I don't know where you get this from but maybe you are confusing the fact that most Iraq's ( like Vietnamese and Koreans) don't hold American citizens responsible fot the crimes of their leaders?

Also, do you really believe the Soviets did so well? Provide any proof?
Here, I'll do my end:

Arghandab District
Paktia Province
Zhawar Base
Panjshir Valley

10% fatality rate, disregarding physical and mental disabilities.

20% ' control' ( much of it conditional as in Vietnam ) is better than NATO has so far managed in Afghanistan but obviously far short of what you need to control a country in the old fashioned sense of the word. As for the ten percent fatality rate the US peak deployment were more than half a million with their dead numbering about sixty thousand. Again this is a almost exact choice of deployments and or experiences in anti insurgency warfare. Admittedly the air war was different and there was no NVA in Afghanistan but other than that there are similar lessons to be learnt.

ore, due to supply constraints, the Soviets were never able to field enough troops to control the country, even presuming your rather odd vision of what occurred was true.

They could if they wanted to ( just like the Pentagon/Us national security state could) but there are as always political and economic considerations beyond mere logistical one's. In terms of infrastructure it may have been easier for the US to support more troops in Vietnam but frankly given the commitments in Germany and at home ( planned marches on Washington) both countries commited troops in direct relation to country size and populations of these countries. Similarly the USSR had plenty of economic/civil woes at home and basically they didn't think sending more men would accomplish much but added civil unrest and economic strain at home. These wars are hard both on men and machines and when your aim is to continue a strategic arms buildup ( the USSR surpassed the US in the late 70's, hence they could consider the forray into Afghanistan, and had a significant lead by 1985 which Reagan's defense spending managed to narrow somewhat towards the late 90's) while reforming the civilian economy you really can't afford the type of escalation in Afghanistan that would allow the US to further ramp up it's spending in support of Muslim radicals in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It's not that they only needed 150,000, or that they thought it was a good number -- It's all that could be brought in, given the lack of railroads or other common supply lines.

Their peak deployment were around 100 000 with the average nearer 90 as i remember. Either way they could have supported far more in country thus allowing more patrols and defense of supply lines. 100 000 is basically where the USSR drew the line in this 'police operation' while the trained and supported the local government forces in Afghanistan.

This is also a reason why Afghanistan has so few soldiers relative to Iraq, and why the Air Force is so busy in the area -- We've been flying supplies in.

As did they when it mattered and given the low NATO deployment numbers in Afghanistan it's no surprise that supplies have to be flown in.

In June 2008, British prime minster Gordon Brown announced the number of British troops serving in Afghanistan would increase to 8,030 - a rise of 230 personnel.[81] The same month, the UK lost its 100th serviceman killed in the war since 2001,[82] reflecting the nature of the ferocious fighting in Helmand.
On June 13, Taliban fighters demonstrated their ongoing strength, liberating all prisoners in Kandahar jail. The well-planned operation freed 1200 prisoners, 400 of whom were Taliban prisoners-of-war, causing a major embarrassment for NATO in one of its operational centres in the country.[83]
On July 13, 2008, a coordinated Taliban attack was launched on a remote NATO base at Wanat in the Kunar province. On August 19, French troops suffered their worse losses in Afghanistan in an ambush‎.[84] Later in the month, an airstrike which targeted a Taliban commander in Herat province killed 90 civilians.

en.wikipedia.org...

There are currently almost fifty thousand NATO troops in Afghanistan ( or shall i say personal) and this is apparently not sufficient to keep even those in jail in jail.

Stellar

Originally posted by rogue1
Completely incorrect. In fact the Soviets couldn't even control teir border with several mujahideen raids in the Soviet Union proper.

And the US couldn't stop hijackers from flying planes into buildings? What's your point hear other than that both countries should concentrate on TRUE self defense instead of building offensive arms with which to intimidate and attack others?

Your point being what? As you point out America has far less soldiers than the Russians ever had.

NATO currently has nearly fifty thousand troops in Afghanistan and as far as i can tell does not control 20% despite the absence of a foreign government that is funding a insurgency ( as the US government did ) to the tune of billions of dollars.

So you are just agreeing with my point. 20% ( per your figures which probably are too high) isn't most of the country.

Well i am agreeing with what i consider to be established historic fact and i really couldn't care less if you also chose to agree.... Either way you said 'possibly 5% which wasn't the case.

So you are agreeing with me again, thanks.

The point wasn't to disagree with what is correct! It's a bit worrying that i have to explain this to you... Again you suggested that mass destruction was the intent when the intent was always to keep Russians alive while countering the insurgency and their supply bases.

And? more agreement with what I'm saying.

Well you suggested that Fifteen thousand of 100 000 were killed when the casualties per year were about 1500 and the total number who served more than half a million.

Completely off topic, but you like your chest thumping

I said the experiences were similar as that's exactly what the numbers indicate. If you disagree please explain why.

Ahh so youn why are you comparing the American and VIetnam experiences?

Because they are in my opinion at least similar in their political and economic implications as well resulting social upheaval if not the compartive numbers of deployed and injured/killed?

Simople fact is the US is oing a better job in Afghanistan than the Russians did.

If you wish to explain it i am all ears as it's not obvious or in any way simple to me...

You seem to be stuck in this old century cold war chest thumping. Try and stay on topic. We are tlaking about Afghanistan not Vietnam.

What chest thumping? Who is always engaged in telling others how superior everything US of A is? Do i ever counter with my ideas as to why that isn't the case UNLESS someone else needlessly goes off topic to explain the supposed virtues of being American or being infuenced by their propaganda?

If you wish to stay on topic please set an example.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Because the Russian government are not arrogant enough to consider regime change by method of assasination/decapitation something they can get away with as easily as the US national security state believes it can?

They were arrogant enough to try and poison the Ukrainian President.

Well if you say so. I mean western Europeans didn't get the clear message that Russia used a great deal of restraint to respond to the stupidly arrogant moves of the upstart Georgian leadership. If Mexico or Canada killed ten American peacekeepers by means of artillery bombardment i doubt so much restraint would be seen.

Maybe Russia shouldn't have been trying to conduct a proxy guerilla war with Georgia. Of course you fail to mention attacks on Georgian police and shelling of Georgian villages prior to Georgia's attempt to reassert control over it's territory.

20% ' control' ( much of it conditional as in Vietnam ) is better than NATO has so far managed in Afghanistan but obviously far short of what you need to control a country in the old fashioned sense of the word. As for the ten percent fatality rate the US peak deployment were more than half a million with their dead numbering about sixty thousand. Again this is a almost exact choice of deployments and or experiences in anti insurgency warfare. Admittedly the air war was different and there was no NVA in Afghanistan but other than that there are similar lessons to be learnt.

No idea where you get this 20% control. In fact it reality your figure is far too high and actuall unquantifiable.
Hmm a difference? Let's see Mujahideen ragtag guerilla's being comapred to a well euipped well trained battle hardened force of over a million NVA soldiers. Oh and wait Vietnam was a jungle providing far more concealment.

Anyway, you are getting way off topic.

Rogue1 your way WRONG and you know it, Russia had 100,000 troops in Afghan, and 11,380 (some like to say 15,000) died from "Combat"
the other deaths are from other causes.
The U.S. had 520,000 in Vietnam and 58,000 died from "Combat"
So even if the U.S. had only 100,000 in Vietnam, thats not suggesting they
would have only lost 10,000 or 15,000, they would have lost more, because it was a more intense fighting war, the 450K/500K deaths that Stellar is talking about came from non-combat deaths, accidents/sickness,
so in final, I want you to put up reputable sources that show what your talking about (less that 5% controllage of the nation, and all that other stuff you say) because as far as I'm concerned all the research I've did clearly shows your 100,000% WRONG.





[edit on 1-11-2008 by 1000hanz]

Originally posted by 1000hanz
Rogue1 your way WRONG and you know it, Russia had 100,000 troops in Afghan, and 11,380 (some like to say 15,000) died from "Combat"
the other deaths are from other causes.
The U.S. had 520,000 in Vietnam and 58,000 died from "Combat"
So even if the U.S. had only 100,000 in Vietnam, thats not suggesting they
would have only lost 10,000 or 15,000, they would have lost more, because it was a more intense fighting war, the 450K/500K deaths that Stellar is talking about came from non-combat deaths, accidents/sickness,
so in final, I want you to put up reputable sources that show what your talking about (less that 5% controllage of the nation, and all that other stuff you say) because as far as I'm concerned all the research I've did clearly shows your 100,000% WRONG.

Well trying to compare Vietnam to Agfghnistan actually shows how naive you are. you obviously really don't know anything about the orders of battle for both conflicts. If the Afghans were as well trained and well equipped as the NVA and VC then Russia would have been defeated in the first year.
As I have said, the NVA was an actual well trained, well equipped, and extraordinarly battle hardened fighting force and actually numbered well over 2million. If you can't see the difference then you are blind.

And in actuallity the peak deployment of US troops in Vietnam was around 500,000 in 1969 before and after the troop levels were far less.






[edit on 1-11-2008 by rogue1]

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by 1000hanz
Rogue1 your way WRONG and you know it, Russia had 100,000 troops in Afghan, and 11,380 (some like to say 15,000) died from "Combat"
the other deaths are from other causes.
The U.S. had 520,000 in Vietnam and 58,000 died from "Combat"
So even if the U.S. had only 100,000 in Vietnam, thats not suggesting they
would have only lost 10,000 or 15,000, they would have lost more, because it was a more intense fighting war, the 450K/500K deaths that Stellar is talking about came from non-combat deaths, accidents/sickness,
so in final, I want you to put up reputable sources that show what your talking about (less that 5% controllage of the nation, and all that other stuff you say) because as far as I'm concerned all the research I've did clearly shows your 100,000% WRONG.

Well trying to compare Vietnam to Agfghnistan actually shows how naive you are. you obviously really don't know anything about the orders of battle for both conflicts. If the Afghans were as well trained and well equipped as the NVA and VC then Russia would have been defeated in the first year.
As I have said, the NVA was an actual well trained, well equipped, and extraordinarly battle hardened fighting force and actually numbered well over 2million. If you can't see the difference then you are blind.

And in actuallity the peak deployment of US troops in Vietnam was around 500,000 in 1969 before and after the troop levels were far less.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by rogue1] Do what I asked, by putting up your sources, you ain't tricking me to believe your cleaverly put together words as if your knowlagable.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by 1000hanz]

Originally posted by 1000hanz
Rogue1 your way WRONG and you know it, Russia had 100,000 troops in Afghan, and 11,380 (some like to say 15,000) died from "Combat"
the other deaths are from other causes.

According to.....drum roll please.... Mother Russia... The soviets were not known for ever telling the truth, I am sure they lost quite a bit more then those corrupt numbers would suggest.

Originally posted by 1000hanz[/i

[edit on 1-11-2008 by rogue1]

Do what I asked, by putting up your sources, you ain't tricking me to believe your cleaverly put together words as if your knowlagable.

I assume you're not completely internet ignorant, google it - everthing is right there. I assume you're not stupid and that I don't have to spoon feed you everything - if you had a genuine interest then GOOGLE.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by rogue1]