and i know you mean well Garryb but ive been doing western airborne work for years. no offense intended of course.
and the use of the heavy aircraft is why im so curious about because of the flight characteristics of such planes. yes, they can indeed fly over Manpad range but thats their cruise altitude most of the time. they need to decent to for a safe drop that i imagine for a combat drop with vehicles and troops is somewhere around 3000 meters maximum.
one possibility might be to simply smash holes in enemy lines on the frontlines by being able to drop quickly close to the front and bolster an attacking force or operate on its own and engage a damaged enemy force or otherwise favourable odds.
i agree with you the addition of armoured vehicles certainly aids combat potential and mobility, and the west has no similar counterpart for that. but again, to go for a 100 or 50 KM drive for that matter in enemy territory without accurate intelligence is asking for trouble. you just might as well blindfold and attempt to cross a minefield. of course they might do recon themselves while advancing, but careful recon requires time and air assault/airborne actions are mostly a race against time.
...yeah, the joy of nuclear power plants in war. if both sides are smart they dont go mess around with nuclear power plants. a meltdown or leak will not favour either the attacker or defender.
that said, of course Stingers/manpads do not exactly lie around by the thousands in armoury's so they are strategically deployed. its more or less a game of chess where you put manpads thinking they are going to be needed.
i honestly feel the BMD is a good field asset for the vdv without western counterpart in terms of firepower and mobility. but its certainly not a ticket to victory. it would need to be well protected by dismounted infantry and not get too close to enemy positions.
the VDV seems more for brute force as a main drop force with a spetznaz element screening the main drop,
not to mention most of the russian weaponry can fire NATO ammo but not the other way around.
West para's seem more focussed on infiltrating and making their way to their targets undetected,
a cruise missile in an european reactor? Razz. you saw the russians sending in wave after wave with Tsjernobyl to plug the gap right?.
i think Fukushima demonstrated again nuclear power is something we barely can control if some systems get damaged.
i personally would never either attack a nuclear facility or launch an nuclear ICBM for that matter.
you would not believe the discussion i had in Arizona's Titan missile museum.
in the west we usually got 1 FAC- soldier per platoon, im not sure how the VDV has it tough.
Actually, Airborne Division are fully capable for airborne deployment (e.g. with combat vehicles), and Air Assault Divisions has only one airborne battalion in a regiment (e.g. equipped with BMD vehicle family), other battalions are only air-lifted (e.g. armed with common ground combat vehicles such as BMPs), but all personel is still trained in airbourne deployment on foot if needed. Main tactics of air assaul division (regiment tactical group of a such division) is to seize control over an enemy airfield with airborne battalion(s) in order to deploy it's main forces or just deploy it's forces like a lighter version of regular ground division (something similar to a Stryker brigade).steve501 wrote: I have noticed that the current Russian Airborne Forces consist of 98th and 106th Airborne Division and 7th and 76th (Commando) Air Assault Divisions and 31st Indep Commando Air Assault Brigade. Can anyone tell me what the main differences are between the two especially in organisation and equipment especially again at Battalion level