Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:44 am

    The Czech 122mm rocket launcher has always been held in the west as superior to the Soviet model because the Czech model has a full reload on the back of the truck and can be reloaded in about 3 minutes.
    The simple fact of the matter is that it is not superior because that 3 minutes should be used to reposition the unit for the second shot.
    After firing the first salvo if the enemy has any counter battery capability the mortar would be tucked up and the unit moved for every shot... so rate of fire would not be so important.

    The Tulip was absolutely loved in Afghanistan because it was the only weapon that could clear mountains and hit mountain caves with enough HE to have an effect.
    Even without guided rounds its accuracy was good enough to be a very effective weapon.

    There was a habit of the Muj and therefore western services to call any Soviet effective weapon a devils chariot. The Mi-24, the Su-25 (also called the german jet), the ZSU-23-4, BM-21.
    They didn't call the Tulip anything because they had no idea what hit them.

    In a shoot and scoot environment having 6 x 130kg HE rounds falling up to 19km away from the mortar the effect on target is similar to an airstrike but at a fraction of the cost and all weather day or night... something that wasn't an option at the time for the Soviets.
    Now they are adding GLONASS guided bombs and digital fire control systems they are just getting more accurate which means rate of fire becomes less important.

    The rate of fire issue is directly related to shell weight and that is probably what killed the 160mm mortar with its 41kg shells which were effective but required a vehicle to operate properly.

    The 120mm is on the border in that a vehicle is not absolutely necessary but improves performance and accuracy and rate of fire and crew protection and mobility.

    For the 240mm is is necessary because although it does not improve crew protection it improves mobility so it can be shoot and scoot.
    For guided shells the laser marking component is seperate from the firing component so the laser marking could be done by a UAV almost 20km away from the battery that fires and then moves.
    A 120mm battery could do the same but over less than half the distance.
    The effect would also be quite different as a 16kg shell does not have the same effect on target as a 130kg shell.
    avatar
    Kysusha

    Posts : 204
    Points : 218
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Kysusha on Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:03 am

    GaryB,

    I guess it boils down to what role you are looking for your support weapons to provide. Granted if you are employing them in and H+I role – a shoot and scoot option probably will save them.

    Being an Infantry guy, I like my support under command and at priority call. When I call it, it comes and for as long as I need it. That was what was so good about Bn mortars – if the CO gave them to you and you then had the MFC – you had HE to get you out of the shit. Silent register on your route, designated DF’s and you felt confident to face the world. You could even have FPF in danger close in real tight spots. Often you would have 105mm as at priority call – so if they were available, you got them too – that way you could get the FO to rotate the fire missions so that you could move the firing lines.

    But to call in that support, you needed to be sure that when you wanted it – it wasn’t mobile! A hell of a lot can happen in the time taken for a mobile unit to get into action! Whereas, the 81mm and 120mm mortars were there and basically only time of flight away – splash over!
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:10 am

    Yeah, I agree, rate of fire looks horrible, any numbers regarding that? Also, would thermobaric warheads be avalible? Very Happy
    avatar
    Kysusha

    Posts : 204
    Points : 218
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Kysusha on Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:31 am

    I don’t think that is an issue Ironsightsniper – thermobaric is great for one off and area suppression/neutralisation, but quite hopeless when you’re in a fire fight and calling support. For example, VC would get so close as to hug you – the closer in he got the harder it was to bring fire on him – firstly, he got inside your arming range for the M79 so you couldn’t grenade him and at that range, you needed pin-point accuracy from your support weapons – mortars preferably as they “dropped” on him rather than a more gradual trajectory of artillery which may detonate in the trees over your position – something you want to avoid! Whatever you are calling in though, it is danger close and the 81mm mortar allows accuracy and a reasonable bang for your buck; certainly enough to put your adversary off his coffee.

    Thermobaric would be useful in the H+I role as used by the mobile launchers – shoot and scoot guys. [And for large area targets]. I’m unsure as to the effectiveness against caves/tunnels – I imagine that there is substantial oxygen depletion in the detonation so it might work well against creatures in the caves/tunnels. This weapon came along long after I got out – maybe there are others out there with some info on this.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:15 am

    God save the queen!


    Back on topic-1 round a minute, Surprised

    I suppose, 1 or 2 of these along with Smelchak and a UAV w/ designator would work well for fire support if Su-25s aren't airborne, but highly mobile, rapid fire and precision guided 122 mm rounds would work better IMO.
    avatar
    Kysusha

    Posts : 204
    Points : 218
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Kysusha on Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:35 am

    Hard to say - horses for courses as we say. Nothing seems to kill troopies better than Artillery and howitzers would offer the benefits of mortar with the advantaces of artillery. But with almost any system, there is a counter-system [you just hope "he" hasn't deployed it in your sector!]. Because of the Hoz's short range per sae - it is very vunerable to CB fire and as soon as they start getting in-coming, you got a good chance of loosing your fire support.

    What's the options then? As many assests as you can get your hands on and use them all!
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2191
    Points : 3083
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:39 am

    Kysusha wrote:I don’t think that is an issue Ironsightsniper – thermobaric is great for one off and area suppression/neutralisation, but quite hopeless when you’re in a fire fight and calling support. For example, VC would get so close as to hug you – the closer in he got the harder it was to bring fire on him – firstly, he got inside your arming range for the M79 so you couldn’t grenade him and at that range, you needed pin-point accuracy from your support weapons – mortars preferably as they “dropped” on him rather than a more gradual trajectory of artillery which may detonate in the trees over your position – something you want to avoid! Whatever you are calling in though, it is danger close and the 81mm mortar allows accuracy and a reasonable bang for your buck; certainly enough to put your adversary off his coffee.


    If they get that close, there isn't much point in calling for fire support anyway. Pull out the RPGs...

    I witnessed Buratinos used in Chechnya to clear rebel positions, it was quite effective even if you missed the target. One barrage wiped out an entire block.

    Thermobaric would be useful in the H+I role as used by the mobile launchers – shoot and scoot guys. [And for large area targets]. I’m unsure as to the effectiveness against caves/tunnels – I imagine that there is substantial oxygen depletion in the detonation so it might work well against creatures in the caves/tunnels. This weapon came along long after I got out – maybe there are others out there with some info on this.

    Thermobaric by its very nature sucks the oxygen out of the environment, stick one at the mouth of a cave and everyone will burn their lungs taking a breath.


    avatar
    Kysusha

    Posts : 204
    Points : 218
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Kysusha on Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:31 am

    Tough - we didn't have [don't have] RPG's. VC and the RNVA got in very close. For them it was simply survival! Fire power that could be called in on them was far greater than anything they could muster. Hand-to-hand reduced the odds considerably as support had to stand off. Claymore mines were very useful - 700 aimed ballbearings with about .7kg of plastic behind them.

    BTW, contact ranges could be as close as handgrenade range and the problem with them in a jungle setting is they often hit vines etc and would bounce back! The M79 at least had an arming range which ment that any rebound was usually not armed.


    Last edited by Kysusha on Fri Oct 22, 2010 6:03 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:39 am

    I guess it boils down to what role you are looking for your support weapons to provide. Granted if you are employing them in and H+I role – a shoot and scoot option probably will save them.

    The point is that the Tulip is not a take everywhere do everything tool.
    Like I said it is most effective in the mountains and while it is probably better in a more one sided conflict like Afghanistan it is certainly able to hold its own in a conventional war... dropping shells beside tall buildings would be a forte that would otherwise be in the artillery shadow of a gun.


    But to call in that support, you needed to be sure that when you wanted it – it wasn’t mobile! A hell of a lot can happen in the time taken for a mobile unit to get into action! Whereas, the 81mm and 120mm mortars were there and basically only time of flight away – splash over!

    Well if you are on foot patrol it could probably cover you without moving.

    Yeah, I agree, rate of fire looks horrible, any numbers regarding that? Also, would thermobaric warheads be avalible? Very Happy

    Rate of fire is given as one round per minute per gun, so a battery will land 6 shells per minute. I don't know of any thermobaric rounds, but cluster munition rounds, HE rounds and laser guided shells are known to be in the inventory. I understand the nuclear bomb shell has been withdrawn from service and the chemical and bio weapon shells are probably withdrawn too.
    A Thermobaric round is probably likely as they have thermobaric warheads on their ATGMs as HE options.
    To be most effective however thermobaric warheads work better in large volleys like with the TOS.

    I’m unsure as to the effectiveness against caves/tunnels – I imagine that there is substantial oxygen depletion in the detonation so it might work well against creatures in the caves/tunnels.

    A Soviet favourite. Kills creatures underground in bunkers and tunnels by suffocation and heat... they burn real hot.

    I suppose, 1 or 2 of these along with Smelchak and a UAV w/ designator would work well for fire support if Su-25s aren't airborne, but highly mobile, rapid fire and precision guided 122 mm rounds would work better IMO.

    A guy operating in front of the Russian army will have quite a few options from 82mm mortars and 30mm grenade launchers, to 120mm mortars, 122mm rockets, 240mm mortars, 240mm rockets, 300mm rockets out to 90km, then you have the tube artillery of 122mm, 152mm, 203mm (the 203mm fires a 110kg shell BTW compared to Tulips 130kg), and then you have the tactical guided weapons like Tochka and Iskander... and that is not including tank guns and MIFV guns.
    Fire power is not something in short supply.

    Hard to say - horses for courses as we say. Nothing seems to kill troopies better than Artillery and howitzers would offer the benefits of mortar with the advantaces of artillery. But with almost any system, there is a counter-system [you just hope "he" hasn't deployed it in your sector!]. Because of the Hoz's short range per sae - it is very vunerable to CB fire and as soon as they start getting in-coming, you got a good chance of loosing your fire support.

    The standard counter battery fire weapon the Russians use is the 300mm SMERCH. It can launch a UAV from a rocket tube that can fly 120km to the target area and find targets and then assess damage.
    The standard anti enemy battery round would be the 9N176 rocket which contains 646 HEAT fragmentation minelets, range is 90kms, but they are working on a model with a range of 150km. The current rockets have gyroscopes to stabilise the rockets in flight and to ensure tighter groups on target, but they are set for a slight diversion when used in roles with minelet warheads to spread the love so to speak.

    Tough - we didn't have [don't have] RPG's. VC and the RNVA got in very close. For them it was simply survival! Fire power that could be called in on them was far greater than anything they could muster. Hand-to-hand reduced the odds considerably as support had to stand off. Claymore mines were very useful - 700 aimed ballbearings with about .7kg of plastic behind them.

    I am sure the VC and NVA would have changed tactics and fought fair if you promised not to use all your overwhelming military superiority on them... Smile

    BTW the Russians have a series of claymore like weapons called the MON series. The MON-50 is rather like the Claymore, but the MON-100, MON-200 and MON-300 have no western equivelents AFAIK.

    Hard to say - horses for courses as we say. Nothing seems to kill troopies better than Artillery and howitzers would offer the benefits of mortar with the advantaces of artillery.

    Like I said, sometimes the steep terrain makes a mortar better.
    The Soviet forces liked the 120mm mortar because they took it with them so it was always available to support them... unlike their airforce that took a beating to start off with and didn't really recover till about '43.
    avatar
    Kysusha

    Posts : 204
    Points : 218
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Kysusha on Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:49 am

    [quote="GarryB"][quote]


    Like I said, sometimes the steep terrain makes a mortar better.
    The Soviet forces liked the 120mm mortar because they took it with them so it was always available to support them... unlike their airforce that took a beating to start off with and didn't really recover till about '43.

    Spoken like an Infantry man! Your house is on your back and your support is what YOU carry. If it's not in your possession, don't count on it.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:56 am

    I should point out that for the "coming over the fence" at the firebase type situation the standard Soviet response in Afghanistan was 30mm automatic grenade launchers as well as RPG-18s (ie LAWs).
    Bases often had weapons like the ZU-23-2 towed 23mm anti aircraft guns sighted around a base for protection and they would often use the SPG-9 recoilless rifle to engage targets beyond small arms fire range.
    And of course land mines around the place seem to be effective too.
    Many bases were on hilltops and supplied by helo so there was no (Safe) foot access.
    avatar
    Kysusha

    Posts : 204
    Points : 218
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Kysusha on Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:57 pm

    The major problem with both the US and Soviet response to insurgents was to adopt static bases and then patrol from them. I reckon fewer bases were the answer and much more mobile patrolling – on foot should have been undertaken. Utilise the air superiority and have an aerial strike capacity always up and an air mobile reaction force on stand-by.

    Move out into the insurgent’s domain, move with him, interdict him, make contact with him and then use superiority of firepower and mobility to defeat him.

    Setting up a fire base and trying to secure it only presented a target and obstacle to manoeuvre. I read America fired something like 250,000 rounds for every hit – that is not KIA – simply a causality. I’m all for getting out there, more stealth, lees shooting and an aimed shot every time.
    avatar
    Kysusha

    Posts : 204
    Points : 218
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Kysusha on Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:02 pm

    Vladimir79:

    Have you read the book "One Soldier's War In Chechnya" by Arkady Babchenko? If you have, I'd be interested in your opinion of it.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:50 pm

    Regarding rate of fire per casualty they did do a lot of suppressing fire that certainly suppressed... the most heavily bombed countries in the world are not in Europe, despite WWI and WWII, they are in Asia.
    The most effective tactic the Soviets applied was small teams of special forces heli lifted to ambush positions to hit the supply columns that supported the insurgency.
    By about 1985 the rebels were broken and on the verge of giving up when the US introduced through Pakistan the Stinger missile.
    The man portable shoulder launched missile with training of how to use it made them revert to less accurate artillery strikes to achieve the same result. The problem was that mistakes led to more recruits for the enemy.
    The irony of hindsight is that if the US had simply ignored the Soviets installing a pro Soviet regime in their own backyard (much the way the Soviets ignored the US doing the same in its backyard) then 1990 and the fall of communism would have led to Afghanistan perhaps being more stable where women would have rights instead of being hidden and ignored.
    The US/NATO force in Afghanistan have the huge advantage that their enemy is not supported by a superpower. Their only problem is that their enemy is supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
    Of course if Israel or the US are dumb enough to attack Iran then of course Iran will likely retaliate by flooding its borders with ATGMs and MANPADS which will make land and air movement very difficult and costly in Afghanistan and probably Iraq too.

    Move out into the insurgent’s domain, move with him, interdict him, make contact with him and then use superiority of firepower and mobility to defeat him.

    The US tactic of using the northern alliance bunnys to attack Taleban positions was a good one. The Taleban could either group up and face them... in which case they could be smashed with airpower, or they could disperse and the NA could mop them up in little groups.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2191
    Points : 3083
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:06 am

    Kysusha wrote:Vladimir79:

    Have you read the book "One Soldier's War In Chechnya" by Arkady Babchenko? If you have, I'd be interested in your opinion of it.

    Pretty boring book, lacks insight and no storyline into anything more than his daily drudgery. Arkady is actually a military fiction writer, he has 5 books out about Chechnya in that genre then he has his supposed biographical account. They all read the same, sensationalised experiences blowing up the bad into the worst. If his first experience was so bad, WTH would he re-up to go back into the same situation? Makes you wonder what his real motivations are... like selling books.
    avatar
    Kysusha

    Posts : 204
    Points : 218
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Kysusha on Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:20 am

    Vlad,

    Very interesting – mirrors my thoughts. I stopped reading half way through as it seemed to lack credibility; like the guys was some sort of masochist.

    It read a bit like a Russian version of Andy McNabs books on the SAS; written for an audience.

    Спасибо бльшое для информации
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2191
    Points : 3083
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:05 am

    I was an Army conscript, then contract VDV fighting in Dagestan and the 2nd Chechen Campaign. I had bad times and good times... most of it was like camping with my buddies. Life in the Russian Army is not easy, physical demands are high and pampering is none existent. There is no whining. You show weakness people will prey on you. Life in an American chain gang would probably be easier than being a first rank conscript. But this isn't America, it is Russia where suffering builds the national character. It gets easier as you become the grandfather and continue the tradition. I am not saying it was right, but that is the way it was. For your first few months, you either adapt, desert or you will end up hanging yourself. It is a test of personal fortitude to forge you into a ruthless killing machine.
    avatar
    Kysusha

    Posts : 204
    Points : 218
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Kysusha on Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:06 am

    The old Chinese Gernral said "As you train, so shall you fight". Never a truer word spoken.

    Problem with most "Western" [NZ included] Armys these days is they have become soft. Realism is removed from training because of the possibility of injury and subsequent claim. All modern comforts have to be provided instread of the soldier having to carry for himself or improvise. Seems that they all want a lift to the action rather than foot slogging.

    This attitude and the determination of the enemy is what is going to cost America the war in Afghanistan.
    avatar
    Kysusha

    Posts : 204
    Points : 218
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Kysusha on Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:24 am

    GaryB wrote:

    "I am sure the VC and NVA would have changed tactics and fought fair if you promised not to use all your overwhelming military superiority on them."....

    Well, who won the war? Overwhelming military superiority does not always win the day; this is the problem with War Gamming; it doesn't meause moral fibre. War Gamming and predictiablity ratios do not factor the "fog of war"; the ability of a commander - right down to a Section Commander, to take control of a situation and turn a battle by personal intervention. This is where the training and the committment of the solder comes into play. At the very lowest level, he needs to know the overall battle plan and the mission- be focused on it and totally committed.

    Let's watch Afghanistan and see how a Superpower gets it's arse kicked again. Has to happen. Technology is not the over-riding factor.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:49 am

    I don't think we would suffer as badly as the soviets did, the difference between the Taliban today and yesterday was that yesterday, we were giving them advanced weapons and training such as Stinger missiles and Accurate mortars. The Russians, Chinese, or Indians aren't giving the Taliban of today any of that, however. If the KGB were to funnel Iglas and Krasnopol guided mortars, we, the people, would be out of Afghanistan now.
    avatar
    Kysusha

    Posts : 204
    Points : 218
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Kysusha on Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:16 am

    Mate, IED's have almost stopped any movement outside "bases". I don't think the Russians are supplying - like the CIA did, but with HATO support for heroin trafficing into Russia, perhaps they should!

    I imagine that a reasonable amount of gear is still funnelling in via Pakistan and places like Iran etc. What's China up to theses days too?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:29 pm

    For your first few months, you either adapt, desert or you will end up hanging yourself. It is a test of personal fortitude to forge you into a ruthless killing machine.

    I have read (from western experts) that the Soviet military Hierarchy like to treat conscripts like steel... is heat it up and then dip it in water. They would take green troops and throw them into the front line as early as possible so they realise all their fears straight away. The Spetsnaz analogy is to get them to make parachute jumps first and then teach them the correct way, because once they have survived a jump there is no fear anymore of the unknown. The alternative is to train the the right way to jump which creates fear when they learn what might go wrong and what to do if it does that it makes it harder to jump.
    The western experts explain this as being a reaction to the cause of the Soviet revolution when it was rear area higher quality troops that were kept back to guard the cities. On paper they were their best troops yet sitting doing nothing hearing about what was happening on the front lines led to them revolting to get out of having to fight the war with Germany.

    What do you think of this western opinion Vlad?

    This attitude and the determination of the enemy is what is going to cost America the war in Afghanistan.

    The real solution would be to declare OBL ineffectual enough as to be practically dealt with, though we still want him, declare the new goal democracy in Afghanistan and leave. Pay Russia to arm the Afghans to the teeth and tell Pakistan that if they interfere in Afghanistan in any way the consequences will be felt and let the Afghans sort it out. Without Pakistani and Saudi help the Taleban are nothing... you can't just take a rifle and head to the hills and defeat a superpower without major support. With the outsiders gone there will be nothing for the locals to support the Taleban for.

    Overwhelming military superiority does not always win the day; this is the problem with War Gamming; it doesn't meause moral fibre.

    A very good point. Most of the wargames I have played usually have lower ratings for the Soviet forces for skills and abilities than western forces and in most strategic games I have played the German forces more often than not defeat the Soviet forces because of this. What the games don't allow for is the fact that the Eastern front was not the same campaign as the western front into Europe. The Germans were there to exterminate the Soviets... they wanted the land for Germans and only needed a few slaves to work it for them so most of the Soviet population had to go.
    The power of the Juice in the west means every mention of WWII is the mention of the holocaust and that was all about the Germans killing exactly 6 million Juice. The reason 20 odd million Soviets died is explained in the west as Stalins fault. The real reason is because the Germans wanted them dead, just like they wanted homosexuals, mentally and physically handicapped people, Gypsies, communists, and Soviets dead.

    At the very lowest level, he needs to know the overall battle plan and the mission- be focused on it and totally committed.

    Which can be helped by the enemies treatment of prisoners too. Last bullet for yourself and all that... or last mine and take a few of them with you...

    Let's watch Afghanistan and see how a Superpower gets it's arse kicked again. Has to happen. Technology is not the over-riding factor.

    Technology can be a factor. As I mentioned until the Muj got the tools to deal with heliborne forces those forces were very very effective. Those stingers weren't even released to some NATO allies at the time and they made the snap decision to release them to Afghanistan and Angola out of the blue?

    Of course if the Americans had any brains they would step in and say to the Russians that they will cooperate with Russia in developing UCAVs from a joint US/Russian base in One of the 'stans to the north of Afghanistan that will deal with the Taleban AND poppy fields and drop Pakistan from the friends list because they are the ones who created the Taleban and thought they were a good idea.
    It would of course require America to realise that the Russia of today isn't the Russia they think it is... Russia has had plenty of opportunities to take over foreign states since 1991. From some of the 'stans offering to join with Russia to the invasion of Georgia (lets face it there was nothing stopping them going all the way and stringing Suck Arse Mili Vanili from a telephone pole like the Mussolini he is), and the insurection in one of the 'stans recently that asked for Russian military intervention where they could have been the imperial power again.
    The simple fact is that Russia is sick of carrying other failed states and just wants to look after itself and as long as the US stops with these stupid coloured revolutions which have nothing to do with democracy and deals with the Russia that Russia has become then both countries will have a better future.

    I don't think we would suffer as badly as the soviets did, the difference between the Taliban today and yesterday was that yesterday, we were giving them advanced weapons and training such as Stinger missiles and Accurate mortars.

    The Soviets probably lost about 18,000 during the ten year war. They had a 3 million man armed force at the time and were probably losing more than that over the same period in training accidents. They could still be in Afghanistan if they wanted... they didn't want to.
    The Muj never used western mortars, their favourite was the Soviet 120mm. It is funny but if you look at the photos from the first few years of the war you see a huge number of old and young men with 303 Lee Enfield rifles. Pretty soon that changes to a huge number of AKMs. The vast majority of material used by the Muj in Afghanistan was not Soviet, but was from stocks captured from Arab forces by Israel, and new stuff from China. All supplied through Pakistan and paid for by the US and by Saudi Arabia.
    I remember seeing a video showing Muj forces up on a mountain attacking an outpost down on a valley floor near a road. There is a T-54 that is slowing their attack and the CNN reporter claims they try to take it out with artillery and then the shot goes to a Muj using a Milan ATGM, which he fires and it impacts the ground about 20m to the side and 40m behind the tank!
    They tested all sorts of stuff for the west.

    The Russians, Chinese, or Indians aren't giving the Taliban of today any of that, however. If the KGB were to funnel Iglas and Krasnopol guided mortars, we, the people, would be out of Afghanistan now.

    Their only revenue sources in Afghanistan will be from drugs and from their allies... the Pakistanis and the Saudis.
    Any attack on Iran by Israel or the US will lead to Iranian support.
    Basically the US has done Iran a huge favour because the Taleban were not particularly friends and nor was Saddam... they are both Sunni, like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. If the US does not attack Iran then Iran will be happy just to wait because there is a shia majority in Iraq and anything in Afghanistan will be more friendly to Iran than the Taleban.

    Austin

    Posts : 6442
    Points : 6843
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:30 pm

    Did the supply of Stingers to Mujahideen by US really changed the game and hit the Soviets badly ?

    Wonder why cant they supply some SA-16 to the Taliban ?

    Apparently RPG are doing great damage to NATO/US choppers and it does not have any countermeasures some smart fuse and warhead does the trick
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:34 pm

    Mate, bombs. santa
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:24 am

    Did the supply of Stingers to Mujahideen by US really changed the game and hit the Soviets badly ?

    It meant a single Afghan could take out a whole helo of special forces in one shot.

    The result was a change in tactics from heliborne ambushes to artillery, which was less accurate but devastating. It was bad from the hearts and minds perspective because it created resentment from the local population and to defeat a guerilla force you need the locals against them.

    Wonder why cant they supply some SA-16 to the Taliban ?

    Because the Taleban are Russias enemy too. Give them SA-16s and you are more likely to find them used against Russian aircraft in Dagestan than western aircraft in Afghanistan. The Russians supported and kept alive the Northern Alliance for the years when American forgot where Afghanistan was.
    It is not about revenge, it is about Russias interests and it is in Russias interests that Afghanistan becomes a stable normal state without the Taleban in control.
    In a sense the US is trying to achieve what the Soviets were trying to do in the 1980s.
    The only problem is that the US turning a blind eye to drugs is a problem for Russia and all countries nearby.

    The RPGs the Afghans have are ancient, but certainly good enough to bring down a hovering helo.
    With all their armour and the hot and high conditions perhaps now the west understands why the Soviets didn't hover much.
    The west didn't understand why the Soviets flew their helos like planes and attacked in dives on the target, while the west practised hovering behind trees and popping up to fire and then ducking down.
    In real combat where there are few trees and a hovering target is much easier to hit from a different angle than a moving flying target.
    Besides with heavy calibre MGs and light cannon a tree is no barrier. It is concealment but it is not cover.

    Most of the support the Taleban gets will be from their muslim brotherhood... ie Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:06 pm