Article

2008-12-17 Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia

Russian Army Not Fit For Modern War - Top General

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 2008-12-17 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-12-17 02:55|| 2008-12-17 02:55|| Front Page Top

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-12-17 03:01|| 2008-12-17 03:01|| Front Page Top

#3 I would take anything the Russians say with a few grains of salt. Though I would say the Russians had been "feeling their oats" a little recently with the run up of oil prices and the general expansion of the economy generating a ton-o-cash to use for various things. Though a little of that smugness might be starting to wear off and some humility might be setting in.

Stepping back for a moment, one has to wonder who the Russians might need to fight a conventional war with. She couldn't hope to win a war against China, as China has more Chinese than Russia has bullets with which to shoot them.

Russia has her own oil supply, her own supply of nuclear fuel, and a pretty good food supply. The only thing she might need to fight anyone over are smaller border states in various tests of ego and Russia is likely to be able to overwhelm any of those military forces quite easily.

Long term worries would be things like "global cooling" which would make for shorter growing seasons, more difficulty in shipping, and more difficulty in extracting Siberian mineral wealth. None of those issues can be solved by an Army but an Army might be required to expand control to the South if the North begins to freeze up.

Posted by crosspatch 2008-12-17 03:13|| 2008-12-17 03:13|| Front Page Top

#4 They weren't ready either in 1941.

Posted by European Conservative 2008-12-17 03:46|| 2008-12-17 03:46|| Front Page Top

#5 I don't like the self-criticism, it's worrisome.

Posted by .5MT 2008-12-17 05:56|| www.cybernations.net]">[www.cybernations.net] 2008-12-17 05:56|| Front Page Top

#6 What I saw in Gruzia was a rabble barely able to shoot civilians let alone win in a stand up fight.

I have read that Putin has been spending his oil money of internal security, not on the military and that makes sense recalling the photos of T-72s and MTLBs we saw, soldiers unshaven, non-standard uniforms, no helmets, worn out AK-47s instead of the standard issue AK-74s, etc.

Didn't anyone see photos of the unit we were told was SPETSNAZ? In BMPs??

Does anyone really think any element of SPETSNAZ would allow their mug to appear on the worldwide web??

But were the Russian Army able to deploy all the latest toys and turn around its readiness overnight, they still have a problem with logistics. They cannot sustain a modern mobile offensive for any longer than a week. They haven't a logistical system to do it. After just a few days the Russian Amy will be foraging for food and by day ten they will be out and out looting.

All those kewl T-72s and 2S1 SPAs we saw make for neat PR, but it can't mask the deficiencies the Russian Army still has. We didn't see the Russian Army's best face earlier this year, because if that was its best face, Russian is in deeper trouble than we realize.

Posted by badanov 2008-12-17 07:45|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2008-12-17 07:45|| Front Page Top

#7 Didn't anyone see photos of the unit we were told was SPETSNAZ? In BMPs?? YES

Does anyone really think any element of SPETSNAZ would allow their mug to appear on the worldwide web?? NO!

Posted by Besoeker 2008-12-17 08:11|| 2008-12-17 08:11|| Front Page Top

#8 All they need is a pay raise, don't ask/don't tell and Colin Powell. heh

Posted by Last Breath Farm Resident 2008-12-17 08:20|| 2008-12-17 08:20|| Front Page Top

#9 I have heard from some military types that the Russian army is a diamond tipped wooden spear. There are a few really high speed and modern units, but get past those and about 95% of the military is running aged equipment and barely able to work as a unit. That analogy seems to fit everything else I see here.

Posted by DarthVader 2008-12-17 08:23|| 2008-12-17 08:23|| Front Page Top

#10 This is posturing to increase the budget.

Russia needs a volunteer military in the long run if they want quality. The Red Army should be turned into some kind of reserve or National Guard that acts as a farm team for the voluntary army. The volunteer military can then take on UN jobs as peacekeepers to ensure (a) Russia looks like a big hero to the lefties of the world (b) They get combat experience (c) someone else pays for and provides the logistics.

And they need to be realistic about what they can and will likely be asked to do. Sending ships to Venezuela is nice but it's fluff and expensive fluff at that.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-12-17 09:13|| 2008-12-17 09:13|| Front Page Top

#11 I don't like the self-criticism, it's worrisome.

You got that right. Better to liquidate all field grade officers.

Posted by ed 2008-12-17 09:24|| 2008-12-17 09:24|| Front Page Top

#12 Is it wise to have 100,000 disgruntled officers 'hanging around' looking for something to do for money?

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-12-17 09:39|| 2008-12-17 09:39|| Front Page Top

#13 They weren't ready either in 1941.

And came within the situation that between ten thousand winning moves the Germans picked the only one leading to defeat.

Consider this:

1) November 1941: The German Army has killed or captured millions of soviet soldiers while denying to the enemy tens of millions men in manpower and enormous resources (1) but autumn rains have made the ground impracticable. Historically the German Army exhausted itself fighting in the mud trying to reach Moscow all to find itself in the winter without adequate clothing and overextended thus being seriously bled during the russian winter counterattacks. Instead the Germans could have entrenched, restored supply lines, distributed winter clothing and in the spring they would have been in far better condition than historically. In condition to take Moscow. Given that Moscow was the node where all the soviet railway lines converged Soviet war production and resistance would have quickly crumbled.

2) October 1942/ the Germans came withing a hair of taking or denying use of Soviet Union's main oil sources. Anyway they have taken control of
vital heavy industries (dams, mines, furnaces). These industries cannot be built from scratch in Siberia before years. If the Germans hold them for long enough Soviet Union's war industry will be unable to remain in the race. The obvious thing to do for the Germans was to stop offensive, reinforce those vulnerable flanks guarded by Romanian, Hungarian and Italian troops who have no decent antitank weapons and wait. Instead the Germans bled themselves white in the streets of Stalingrad despite the fact they were very aware of the Soviet concentrations facing their weak allies in their flanks.

3) The russian population was not displeased of being freed from Stalin even if it was by Germans. But while Jews were to be exterminated, in the Nazi views, Russians were set to be enslaved and reduced to animal-like condition (teaching them to read and write was to be forbidden). It would have been smart to wait until victory before implementing that policy. Instead the Germans did it immediately, be it against true Russians as against Bielo-Russsians and Ukranians. Of course this fueled the partisan movement and the will to fight of russian troops.

I will pass on the fact that when the Sixth Army became surrounded and the Germans tried to supply it by air only half of their trasnsort fleet was available. The other half was trying to supply the Afrika Korps who, after El Alamein, Torch and the strengthening of Malta could no longer be supplied by sea. Without the Allies this other half would have been available to supply the Sixth Army.

Also even in 1941, the Germans were spending in their sea war against the British resources who would allowed to double their output in Mk IV tanks (their best).

(1) For propaganda reasons, partly for reducing the importance of Allied supplies, the Soviets have greatly inflated their war production in 1941. If we take the number of tnaks and guns available before the invasion, the (probably overstimated) taht the Germans allege to have destroyed and what was present on the front a year later, then, if we had to believe tyeh Soviet numbers, thousand of them would have vanished in thin air. For the counterattack on Stalingrad, that is a high priority operation the Soeviets have only 900 tanks that is less than the Germans (1000 or 1100 don't remember).

Posted by JFM">JFM 2008-12-17 09:45|| 2008-12-17 09:45|| Front Page Top

#14 More vodka, that's what's needed.

Posted by Richard of Oregon 2008-12-17 10:05|| 2008-12-17 10:05|| Front Page Top

#15 Apparently everyone is forgetting the article about a month ago stating they are going to fire 60% of the officers core. This is probably the next level of preperation for that housecleaning. Clearly the object is to purge the army of anit-putin types and streamline to a better fighting force.

Posted by jefe101 2008-12-17 10:59|| 2008-12-17 10:59|| Front Page Top

#16 well when their coscripts stay drunk and the generals too all the time it becomes kinda hard to fight , you may want too but you usually just make an ass out of yourself

Posted by sinse 2008-12-17 11:25|| 2008-12-17 11:25|| Front Page Top

#17 One thing to remember is that even during the "golden years" of the soviet union, only 1/3 of the Red Army was combat ready. So the 17% figure represents some deterioration but not a disaster.

The rest of the Red Army was partially manned (to be filled out with reservists) or only had a headquarter cadre (thus the "surplus officers"). These surplus officers are like the political appointees in our National Guard and are unfit for command in anything serious.

The Russian Army units in Georgia were probably better than average, and benefitted from the fact that Georgias best (i.e. American trained) troops were in Iraq. China is probably looking greedily at eastern Russia as we speak.

Posted by Frozen Al 2008-12-17 12:02|| 2008-12-17 12:02|| Front Page Top

#18 JFM very informative post but it misses one key point. The German Army was responding to orders given by a madman. A madman who called off the LUftwaffe at Dunkirk allowing the Brits to claim some kind of victory out of what should have been a massacre. I don't know as much about the decisions in the Eastern Front but I imagine trying to please Adolph was a top priority.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-12-17 16:19|| 2008-12-17 16:19|| Front Page Top

#19 You are right but my post was about showing how narrow was Soviet road to victory and how wide it had been for Germany, not about who took the decisions.

Hitler had been very smart at the the beginniing of his carreer, he was also the guy who protected
Guderian against the old guard. And when he disagred with his generals he was right more than once. But, with time more and more he persuaded himself to ever be right and listened less and less. More and more persuaded nothing could stop or even slow him: that is why both in 1941 and 1942 he tried to crush Soviet Union in a single blow when there was simple, near 100% sure winning strategy: inflict crippling losses both in men and in resources, consolidate, let Stalin bleed his forces in futile winter attacks against prepared positions and the year after deliver the coup de grace.

Also, Roosevelt would have been unable to persuade America to declare war to Germany and still less to put its heart in victory. Then Hitler comes and nicely declares war to a nation able to produce a gazillion B17s and P51s in addition to enough carriers to make a bridge between San Francisco and Tokyo.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2008-12-17 17:33|| 2008-12-17 17:33|| Front Page Top

#20 You are correct that FDR would have had trouble getting the US to enter the European war. Hitler saved him the trouble by declaring war on the US in solidarity with his ally, Japan. THE biggest mistake he made and the only treaty he kept.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-12-17 17:49|| 2008-12-17 17:49|| Front Page Top

#21 The Russians in WWII had to deal with a madman also. Stalin had purged all or most of the competent officers in the 30s. The ones who were left were promoted for political reliability, not military skill.
Also, Stalin refused to let the troops retreat, even to regroup.
Of course, Hitler thought of himself as a military genius, and no one dared to disagree with him either. As JFM said, the Germans went to Moscow unprepared for the winter - they expected to be done destroying it long before. Hitler wouldn't let them get prepared, since that would look like failure.

Posted by Rambler in Virginia">Rambler in Virginia 2008-12-17 19:00|| 2008-12-17 19:00|| Front Page Top

#22 Hitler regarded the Pearl Harbor attack as the greatest single strategic mistake made by his ally Japan - he recognized that war agz the USA was inevitable as he believed the USA would not sit by and watch Japan mil attack Britain and other Euros in Asia, besides any Amer interests [Philippines = US Milbases, Allied Trade].
PEARL HARBOR > HITLER KNEW IN LR IT MEANT A TWO- OR MULTI-FRONT WAR IN EUROPE, WHICH HITLER TRUSTED ONLY GERMANY TO FIGHT AND WIN.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-12-17 19:46|| 2008-12-17 19:46|| Front Page Top

23:58 eltoroverde
23:57 JFM
23:57 Abu do you love
23:55 Snogum Guelph7607
23:53 Jolutch Mussolini7800
23:39 Frank G
23:34 rjschwarz
23:33 lftbhndagn
23:18 JamesXJ
23:16 Frank G
23:08 Frank G
23:05 Barbara Skolaut
23:02 Danielle
22:57 Cornsilk Blondie
22:55 Frank G
22:36 Frank G
22:32 gorb
22:25 tipper
22:21 Cornsilk Blondie
22:18 tu3031
22:17 Rambler in Virginia
22:15 Frank G
22:15 Frank G
22:14 Frank G