Article

2003-04-24 International

Russian Arms Get Outdated, Nothing New Comes

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-04-24 01:03 am|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Also stop selling China all of your "good" stuff. You don't want to be fighting it ten years from now.

Posted by Vea Victis 2003-04-24 01:21:15|| 2003-04-24 01:21:15|| Front Page Top

#2 I don't think they're gonna let Chechnya go. It's surrounded on all sides by Russian territory. They've lost more soldiers in one attempt to take Grozny than both sides lost in the entire Iraqi campaign (including civilians, I believe). Their pride is on the line and it will be a while before they could even consider leaving.

Posted by Baba Yaga 2003-04-24 02:33:02|| 2003-04-24 02:33:02|| Front Page Top

#3 Another note on letting chechnya go... when the ...terrorists... took the movie theater hostage in chechnya last year, the Russians used a controversial tactic, sleeping gas, to take them out. in the process they hurt a lot of the wrong people While the international community cried, "Foul!", the U.S. gave a most mild rebuke, in effect telling russia and the world, "Ummm, we don't have a problem with your tactics, but just try to be a little more precise next time." Likewise, the U.S. reaction to Putin's great quote last year, the one where putin invited Islamic terrorists to come to Moscow and get a "circumcision that will never heal" was something to effect of, "that was a unfortunately worded comment, but, we're cool with that. " With tacit approval like that from the country that just blew the taliban and Iraqi regimes to atoms, Russia can feel free to go on with Chechnya any way it chooses.

disclaimer: Please believe me when Itell you that I am not much of a fan of Russia or Putin, but his outburst about the circumcision thing was pretty cool. I just wish that it hadn't come from the words of a "ex" KGB man

Posted by Dripping sarcasm 2003-04-24 07:14:54|| 2003-04-24 07:14:54|| Front Page Top

#4 The first sentence of the article does indeed show that they have got the wrong end of the stick. Compared to WWII armies, the Iraqis had a lot of modern equipment, equipment that were that article true would have allowed them to steamroller a WWII army. However, I do not believe that they could have overcome a WWII equipped American army. There would have been a lot more casualties for sure, but I think that ultimately American training would have told.

Training is what allows the technology to be used. If two armies are equally trained, then technology will make the decisive difference. Otherwise, technology is just lots of fancy gadgets that a poorly trained force cannot use because it does not have the doctrine, or even the maintenance ability to use it.

Posted by David Newton 2003-04-24 08:25:28|| 2003-04-24 08:25:28|| Front Page Top

#5 I think the most important factor in the Iraq conflict was morale. The Iraqi army just did not want to fight for Saddam. The foreign Arab contingent showed that casualties could be inflicted on the US army, although that still was not many.

I suspect that morale in the Russian army is not that high, especially for regular conscripted units. A fully professional volunteer force is the way to go today.

Posted by A 2003-04-24 11:15:30|| 2003-04-24 11:15:30|| Front Page Top

#6 A bit of perspective on this article. He keeps harping on "old" weapons. Most of the US Arsenal is more than 10 years old - a lot of it dating to the early 1980's. Hows this for "Old" (Just US Weapons)?

The USS Constellation: keel was laid down 14 September 1957, at the New York Navy Yard. 8 October 1960, delivered to the Navy 1 October 1961, and commissioned 27 October 1961. Older than 98% of the sailors and Marines that staff her.

M1 - originally designed in the late 1970's, entered service in the early 1980's.

M2 & M3 Bradleys: entered service almost 20 years ago.

USMC LVPT-7's - some of them are in excess of 30 years old, yet they rolled right to baghdad, far past their intended operations radius.

A-10: The plan the Airforce tried to kill. Designed in the 1970's as an Anti-Armor bird, its now the best tactical support aircfact in the US Inventory.

USMC AH-1: Introduced in the Vietnam war.

C-130: the vital tactical supply and transport aircraft. Another Vietnam era design. Like the DC-3 and 747, probably the best transport aricraft of its time.

F-117: Comissioned by Jimmy Carter, designed in the early 80's, operational in small numbers by the mid 1980's (classified).

B-1 - designed under Ford in the mid 1970's, Cancelled by Carter, Resurrected by Reagan.

And last but not least - the Big Ugly Fat F***er

B-52 - I read an article where one pilot is flying the same tail-number his GRANDFATHER flew! And they look likely to serve for another 10-20 years. An incredible Aircraft.

So "old" design is not that big of a factor. Look to doctrine, training, NCO proficiency & elan of the individual fighting man, continuous upgrades, and integrating all that: a C4I structure that is far superior to any in the history of the world in reach, scope and detail from top to bottom.

Posted by OldSpook 2003-04-24 11:23:36|| 2003-04-24 11:23:36|| Front Page Top

#7 Old but well maintained and upgraded on a regular basis. I suspect that the equipment in the US arsenal is *not* the same as when it roled of the assembly line.

Posted by Domingo 2003-04-24 12:39:54|| 2003-04-24 12:39:54|| Front Page Top

#8 the aircraft are old, but the munitions are relatively new. Grandfather may have flown B-52's but he didnt use them to drop JDAMS. And of course the C4I improvements you mention.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-24 16:07:41|| 2003-04-24 16:07:41|| Front Page Top

#9 Ma Deuce (.50 cal BMG)... good enough for Grandpa (hell, Great Grandpa, circa 1921), good enough for Saddam. Now there is some fully amortized tooling.

Dunno about that "one" conclusion, though: "Russian defense technology is of little use for modern armed conflicts. Otherwise, Saddam would still remain the president of the country"

Every account from the other side indicates a defensive effort so poorly planned and coordinated that it wouldn't have mattered what they had. Many battles have been won with less than state-of-the-art weapon systems, and the best technology in the world won't offset stupid deployment, poor organizational skills, and unmotivated troops.

Germany rolled over France with inferior tanks, but superior tank tactics. Finland stopped the Soviets (with some help from the Germans) while outnumbered and outgunned. The NVA kept up the fight with WWII era stuff long enough for Congress to hand the laurels over.

Not that Iraq was gonna win under any circumstances, but the conclusion about Russki military hardware seems a little harsh.

Posted by Mark IV 2003-04-24 18:35:41|| 2003-04-24 18:35:41|| Front Page Top

15:57 my name is Jane Baner
15:46 my name is Jane Baner
09:03 raptor
08:55 raptor
08:24 raptor
07:33 Hiryu
07:31 Hiryu
04:02 becky
02:44 Bulldog
01:02 Profshan
23:51 Mark IV
23:10 The Marmot
22:49 Ralph
22:43 Alaska Paul
22:25 Douglas De Bono
22:04 greg
22:03 R. McLeod
22:03 Denny
21:55 Dishman
21:47 Tibor
21:43 Tom
21:25 Mark IV
21:21 Rawsnacks
21:09 Alaska Paul