| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Europe | |
| Russian Generals say "Douh!" | |
| 2003-04-10 | |
| As the war in Iraq winds to its inevitable end, uneasy reflections are taking over Russia's political and military elite. No one in Moscow ever seriously believed that Saddam Hussein might indeed "defeat" the allied forces. But the speed and decisiveness of the offensive has bewildered many. Russian generals were expecting another prolonged so-called non-contact war, like the one against Yugoslavia in 1999, in Afghanistan in 2001 or the first gulf war in 1991, when a four-day ground offensive was preceded by a 39-day air bombardment. It was believed that the Americans were afraid of close hand-to-hand encounters, they would not tolerate the inevitable casualties, and that in the final analysis they were cowards who relied on technical superiority. The Russian media is generally avoiding the hard questions and serving up anti-American propaganda instead. It is alleged that the U.S. government is "concealing casualties" (like its Russian counterpart), and that hundreds if not thousands of U.S. soldiers have already been killed. Maybe this deceit will become the main semi-official excuse for disregarding the allied victory. Seems the Arab street isn't the only "credibility challenged" entity...
| |
| Posted by:Capsu78 |
| #15 Saw a docu.on History Chanel about Russian small arms.Seems the Russians have developed an assault rifle that use both recoil,and gas blowback to chamber the next round.This allows the weapon to send 2 rounds down range with 1 squeeze of the trigger,with much greater accuracy than the AK74.The problem is they can not afford the cost to supply thier military.In addition the can't sell it overseas because during and after the Cold War they flooded the Third World with so many AK47's that an Ak47 can be baught for $50US. (The Laws of Supply and Demand) |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-04-11 10:22:47 |
| #14 It will continue. It's starting to look like Moore's law in reverse. It looks right now like the improvement isn't possible... but it's already in the pipeline. I've seen some of the stuff that's coming. Right now, it's in its infancy still. It will be there, though. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2003-04-11 00:13:26 |
| #13 we were constantly being asked to do more work with fewer people, parts and money, in less time. Standard joke when I was in: "I've been asked to do so much with so little in less time, that I can now do anything with nothing, instantly." It's been going on at LEAST since Nixon, and possibly since Eisenhower. It's just gotten worse since the early 1990's. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-04-10 23:25:25 |
| #12 Interestingly enough Steve, the quality of our society is also based on the quality of our military. Lots of advances in science and technology are pioneered in US military labs has had enormous feedback on the economy. One of the things that keeps our society in the forefront of development is the fact that we keep out military in the forefront of development! There is another important difference between our military and the Russian one - ours is an under, but regularly paid, all-volunteer force. Our men and women train, and if necessary, fight everyday, knowing that they will be paid, fed, and cared for as a benefit of their service. Russians cannot count on anything nearly the same The amazing thing about the Russians is that they can find ANYONE to join their military - it is a testament to the character of those men and women in Russia that do serve - there must be VERY few of them. Let me enlighten some of you regarding the quality of US military equipment. Its the best in the world. Can you imagine how good it would be if our forces actually had enough spare parts, time, and people to accomplish what it is actually supposed to?? I left the air force about 4 years ago. Hopefully things have improved, but (as a legacy of the Clinton administration's defense budget poilcy) when I left, we were constantly being asked to do more work with fewer people, parts and money, in less time. In fact, you can probably blame some of the equipment failures in the current conflict directly on the govt's disasterous military fiscal policy during the Clinton years. Steve W. |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-04-10 20:56:15 |
| #11 The article itself ends with a rhetorical call on the Russian Army to reform itself and to come up to modern standards. What no one there wants to admit is that this isn't possible. Russia is actually a third world nation, and it cannot afford a first class army. The kind of military force, size and quality, that they nostalgically remember from the Good Old Days of the Cold War didn't actually exist, and even the attempt to maintain the sham ended up contributing massively to the end of the Soviet Union. The kind of military we have is enormously expensive. The weapons are expensive, the training is expensive, and the ammunition is expensive. Russia isn't even remotely capable of affording it, and won't be able to any time soon. And neither is anyone else in the world. You can only have a military like ours when you have a civilian economy like ours. The reason we have the military we do is because we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars every year for the last couple of decades on it. And we can do that because our economy is so huge that it can pay for that without being damaged by it. |
| Posted by: Steven Den Beste 2003-04-10 20:27:37 |
| #10 As an Army friend of mine said (frequently!), the purpose of the US Army is to kill people and break things, in an orderly fashion and under civilian leadership. They do it very well, as the Iraqis (and the rest of the world) have learned. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-04-10 16:40:33 |
| #9 They so-called experts missed a vital detail: Our troops did not fight to "control ground" as the Soviets and Germans did in WW2, our troops sought out the enemy to kill them. They didnt get stuck to taking geographic objectives, if those objectives would have slowed the pace or taken focus of the primary mission, whcih was, once again to engage, close with and kill the enemy, destroying his ability and will to fight. Its really that simple. The US has been doing this doctrinally since the 1980's, when the 2nd Armored Cavalry pioneered those very tactics. They were controversial at the time, because we were still defending Germany ad were suppsoed to be more concerned with holding ground against the Soviets. Credit the 60th Colonel of the Regiment, MG Robert E. Wagner, "The Dueler" of the 2ACR in the early 1980's for starting this change in warfighting in the US Army. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2003-04-10 14:23:07 |
| #8 As a product demonstration of Soviet/Russian military doctrine and equipment, both Gulf Wars have been a disaster for the Russians. I think this has been as big a factor in their opposition to the war as the oil deals. So Russia is doubly screwed--they won't be able to economically piggy back on high oil prices and the customer base for their hardware must be shrinking every day. Actually, that last bit is unfortunate for us. Based on the track record of Russian euipment, and especially their maintenance capabilities, I'd want our enemies and potential enemies to keep buying Russia, Inc.'s stuff. |
| Posted by: Dushan 2003-04-10 13:57:14 |
| #7 JAB's link to Ralph PEters: After its inept attempt at strategic blackmail, North Korea has grown very quiet. Doubtless, we shall hear a great deal more rhetoric as the shock of our victory begins to wear off. Wha? Aww, I was getting to enjoy the rhetoric show... Fred's right. Den Beste at USS Clueless has a good article on the future of the Tank where he discusses that very point. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-04-10 13:18:18 |
| #6 Russian generals are still fighting WWII. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-04-10 12:53:10 |
| #5 Actually, the idea that there are massive unreported US casualties from both Afghanistan and Iraq is conventional wisdom to the looney left -- and is steadily creeping into the mainstream left. Oddly enough, I do accept that idea that there might be casualties we don't know about -- possibly involving the CIA and the "darker" end of special ops. But I don't think it would be possible to hide hundreds of them. For one thing, we probably don't have hundreds of such operatives. |
| Posted by: Patrick Phillips 2003-04-10 12:11:33 |
| #4 I'da hated to be one of their tank salesmen after GWI. The T72 was not impressive when up against the Abrams. But they kept selling the doggone things. They look ferocious, and the price tag's a damn sight lower than it would be for an Abrams. And of course, when used against one's civilian population, they're perfectly servicable. |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-04-10 12:07:22 |
| #3 Ralph Peters is on this topic as well. He's worth reading. |
| Posted by: JAB 2003-04-10 11:49:17 |
| #2 It's not mentioned in the article, naturally, but a lot of Saddam's military equipment was Russian. I'd hate to be one of their tank salesmen right now. |
| Posted by: Former Russian Major 2003-04-10 11:44:37 |
| #1 I couldn't get the link to work, so try pasting this one. Godd article from the "losers bench" http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2003/04/10/009.html |
| Posted by: Capsu78 2003-04-10 11:24:44 |