Russia fighting with old cold war gear
They lacked some other gear that cost them dearly. They apparently did not have the equivalent of the HARM anti radar missiles to destroy the Georgian tracking system. They lacked the ability to throw off the seat seeking missiles. They had difficulty taking out the Georgian command an control initially.Pictures of triumphant Russian soldiers sitting on armoured personnel carriers as they were driven through towns in Georgia will be among the lasting images of the seven-day war. But the victory did not tell the whole story, analysts said yesterday.
The ageing vehicles were so lightly armed and so uncomfortable and hot to sit in that the Russian soldiers felt safer perched on top. “At least they could then react quickly if there was an attack,” Colonel Christopher Langton, an expert on Russian armed forces at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, said.
For an invading force from what used to be a military superpower, Russia's 58th Army did not look like a modern fighting unit. Victory came as a result of overwhelming numerical superiority and a textbook Soviet-style strategy based on detailed planning that leaves little room for flexibility. It was shock and awe by force of numbers, rather than by precision-guided weapons.
The Russians have learnt lessons from American campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan and from their own experiences in the Balkans, but the Georgia operation was old-style fighting with Cold War-era equipment.
The Russians arrived in Georgia not only with inadequately protected troop carriers but also lacking in airborne surveillance platforms to pinpoint targets for their gunners and bombers. They lost four aircraft, shot down by Russian-built Georgian anti-aircraft weapons. One of the aircraft was a Tupolev supersonic bomber (Tu22) known by Nato as a Blinder.
Colonel Langton said the Georgians had highly mobile anti-aircraft systems and were able to move them around to attack the Russian jets. Without the range of sophisticated unmanned aerial platforms that the Americans always deploy to watch over the battlefield, the Russians were flying blind into the war zone.
General Anatoly Kornukov, the former head of the Russian Air Force, told the Moscow-based Independent Military Review that the failure to destroy Georgian anti-aircraft capabilities before the Tu22 arrived in the region meant the crew of the bomber were sent to their deaths.
Losing aircraft at the hands of such a tiny opponent was unfortunate. Losing their overall commander, who suffered shrapnel wounds as he travelled in an armoured convoy in South Ossetia, the breakaway Georgian region, looked like carelessness. General Anatoli Khrulyov, the head of the 58th Army, was in a convoy that appeared to lack air cover.
Perhaps, most embarrassingly, the Russians discovered that some of the Georgian equipment was more advanced than their own. Georgia's T72 tanks and Su25 jet fighters were upgraded with night-vision equipment, something the Russians appeared to lack. “The Russian forces had to operate in an environment of technical inferiority,” Konstantin Makiyenko, deputy director of the Russian Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, told The Moscow Times.
...
The troops riding around on the APCs had no personal body armor. While the writer praises their preparation it took them months to get ready for a very small opponent. Their lack of surveillance equipment caused them to have to put more troops into Georgia to assess the threat to their operation in South Ossesia.
The troops were undisciplined. A video showed them looting a bank. civilians told of them demanding booze and buring down houses. They were stunbling around making enemies they did not have to like it was a punitive raid against the civilians adn non combatants.
The ageing vehicles were so lightly armed and so uncomfortable and hot to sit in that the Russian soldiers felt safer perched on top.
ReplyDeleteThis is ingenous at best, it makes the assumption that Russian designers waste time, money, energy, and cost in making troops comfortable. That is a western standard that the US started, russias old equipment never had those amenities.
So they are painting that these vehicles are old because they are not as comfortable as US military equipment is today, implying that the equipment is old and never been upgraded.
"Appear strong when you are weak and weak when you are strong"- Tsun Tsu
Unlike the US, russia may only be appearing weak when they are strong. Using the older equipment because that’s all they obviously needed. why pull out the best newest equipment every time you have an altercation? That would leave more important areas missing those more important items.
Victory came as a result of overwhelming numerical superiority and a textbook Soviet-style strategy based on detailed planning that leaves little room for flexibility. It was shock and awe by force of numbers, rather than by precision-guided weapons.
So?
This is just one more reason not to like the times. They speak with such authority when they don’t know what the heck they are talking about.
The Zulus beat the british who had machine guns by the same tactics. If the Chinese conscripted their extra males, could the US or even russia stand up to an attack by 20 million soldiers equipped with old stuff?
What they don’t get is that the newer weapons let you do more with fewer people which is why we have lower death ratios. However, that also means that there are fewer on the battle field that need to be over run.
War is about misinformation, its about clouding things. the US makes a lot out of showing off, Russia would have scared the world more if it did that, so it didn’t.
The issue is not whether you finesse a win or not, its just a win lose question, there are no points for looking sharp doing it.
The fact that they don’t have precision weapons only means that they cant be blamed for hitting things they shouldn’t. so given their ‘style’ bombing everything to hell while claiming to be trying to hit a small shed, is just fine with them. if they could empty the country of all residents they would and then move their own people in… no problem.
It’s a different mentality.
The Russians arrived in Georgia not only with inadequately protected troop carriers but also lacking in airborne surveillance platforms to pinpoint targets for their gunners and bombers. They lost four aircraft, shot down by Russian-built Georgian anti-aircraft weapons. One of the aircraft was a Tupolev supersonic bomber (Tu22) known by Nato as a Blinder.
Again I repeat… so?
The bomber was probably over confident that they didn’t have anything that could shoot them down. in case the times didn’t notice, after the first few days they didn’t lose any more, and maintained superiority the rest of the time.
Then again… didn’t they just say in the prior paragraph that there were no precision weapons? So what would pinpointing targets do for that? its not like combatants get lost and cant find the enemy… they just send scouts, and when the shooting starts, they know. again, it’s a different philosophy, they don’t necessarily care whether or not the maximum number of troops survive. Valuing life has not been their thing for a long time if ever.
Its as if they are analyzing the Russians as if they were like Americans…
To make my point:
Without the range of sophisticated unmanned aerial platforms that the Americans always deploy to watch over the battlefield, the Russians were flying blind into the war zone.
Ah… the Americans don’t have a lock up on the best way to fight a war, they have a lock on the best way to fight a war with the options they have. Russians don’t have or want those options and so they use other.
Unlike the US russia remembers how easy it was for stingers to take out those same platforms that the times is complaining they arent using.
Lets see if I can say this loud enough so that the Times can hear…
RUSSIA IS ATTEMPTING TO HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF LOWER TECH STUFF, BECAUSE THEY WISH TO OPPOSE THE AMERICANS ONE DAY.
This means that they have to play up their strengths and play down our weaknesses. The Chinese and the Russian military writings have consistently portrayed the US military and the country as way too dependent on electrical stuff.
The majority of Russians stuff is old or appears so because when something happens between the US and Russia, they intend to use tactical nuclear weapons. They are not technical because mechanical will continue to run fine after a magnetic pulse from a nuclear weapon from up high.
While our platforms fall from the sky, half our equipment no longer works, the soldiers no longer have a tech crutch to lean on.
Will those seemingly older pieces of equipment look so outdated?
Of course the US military has hardened stuff, however, they are now supported by civilian help, and those big trucks that blackwater runs don’t have hardened electronics.
This is the problem when a leftist who is an anti-American anti war dumb ass pacifist (a special type apart from other pacifists) writes for a leftist press and they decide to analyze the thing they hate.
How about pointing out what the tupolev carries? They carry nukes, and other interesting things like icbm missiles..
Then also don’t complain about the armor problem, they got the US equipment in perfect order, armored and unarmored, so they will sit and finally be able to work out chobham… oh goody.
Perhaps, most embarrassingly, the Russians discovered that some of the Georgian equipment was more advanced than their own. Georgia's T72 tanks and Su25 jet fighters were upgraded with night-vision equipment, something the Russians appeared to lack.
The key word there is “appeared”. The Russian military has night vision, they have had it for a long long time. if you don’t believe me, go on ebay and you can buy some of their stuff.
So I say, look to the tsun tsu quote above.
The whole operation says that they don’t care about human life, they care about power, and property.
If the person analyzing this knew anything of Russian tactics, like letting their own people kill their own people to prove that the fake insurgent is a real insurgent just so they can round up the insurgents is the kind of thing they do.
So if it costs them 100 people or more, even a general (of which they have a lot of them), and it proves to the enemy that they are still weak, then this will tend to slow the enemy from preparing or doing whats needed.
And the ny times poor analysis does that job for the US population.
Perhaps the first army, and other special groups are much better than the 58th army. Even our own military doesn’t distribute things ‘equally’ to all.