Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Share

    ATLASCUB

    Posts : 190
    Points : 192
    Join date : 2017-02-13

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  ATLASCUB on Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:54 am

    GarryB wrote:Hahahaha... Yeah the Davy Crockett... before you fired it you dug a trench because the max ballistic range of the missile was shorter than the minimum safe blast/radiation radius...

    Nuklэr mechanized infantry - NMI, is a special branch of the Russian army, under direct supervision of the president of Russia, formed in 2000 at the request of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, current acting president of Russia. The NMI engages in military nuclear combat on foot. As the troops who engage with the enemy in close-ranged combat, nuklэr units bear the largest brunt of warfare and typically suffer the greatest number of casualties during a military campaign.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5554
    Points : 5595
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  Militarov on Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:21 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Ehhhhhh, guys?  confused

    Russia to Develop Nuclear Round for T-14 Main Battle Tank

    Russia is purportedly mulling fitting its newest battle tank with a 152 millimeter gun capable of firing nuclear rounds.

    http://thediplomat.com/2017/04/russia-to-develop-nuclear-round-for-t-14-main-battle-tank/

    Could they be talking actually about 152mm nuclear shell for Coaliation rather than T-14? That would make some sense. Because "nuclear round" for T-14 would be... impractical to say at best.
    avatar
    VladimirSahin

    Posts : 414
    Points : 432
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 26
    Location : Florida

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  VladimirSahin on Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:23 am

    Militarov wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Ehhhhhh, guys?  confused

    Russia to Develop Nuclear Round for T-14 Main Battle Tank

    Russia is purportedly mulling fitting its newest battle tank with a 152 millimeter gun capable of firing nuclear rounds.

    http://thediplomat.com/2017/04/russia-to-develop-nuclear-round-for-t-14-main-battle-tank/

    Could they be talking actually about 152mm nuclear shell for Coaliation rather than T-14? That would make some sense. Because "nuclear round" for T-14 would be... impractical to say at best.

    Or this proves the Abrams is actually very well armored.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5554
    Points : 5595
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  Militarov on Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:30 am

    VladimirSahin wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Ehhhhhh, guys?  confused

    Russia to Develop Nuclear Round for T-14 Main Battle Tank

    Russia is purportedly mulling fitting its newest battle tank with a 152 millimeter gun capable of firing nuclear rounds.

    http://thediplomat.com/2017/04/russia-to-develop-nuclear-round-for-t-14-main-battle-tank/

    Could they be talking actually about 152mm nuclear shell for Coaliation rather than T-14? That would make some sense. Because "nuclear round" for T-14 would be... impractical to say at best.

    Or this proves the Abrams is actually very well armored.

    Answer for better armored target would be better kinetic penetrator rather than nuke Smile
    avatar
    VladimirSahin

    Posts : 414
    Points : 432
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 26
    Location : Florida

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  VladimirSahin on Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:34 am

    Militarov wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Ehhhhhh, guys?  confused

    Russia to Develop Nuclear Round for T-14 Main Battle Tank

    Russia is purportedly mulling fitting its newest battle tank with a 152 millimeter gun capable of firing nuclear rounds.

    http://thediplomat.com/2017/04/russia-to-develop-nuclear-round-for-t-14-main-battle-tank/

    Could they be talking actually about 152mm nuclear shell for Coaliation rather than T-14? That would make some sense. Because "nuclear round" for T-14 would be... impractical to say at best.

    Or this proves the Abrams is actually very well armored.

    Answer for better armored target would be better kinetic penetrator rather than nuke Smile

    Come on bro I was just joking...
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1417
    Points : 1418
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Russia to Develop Nuclear Round for T-14 Main Battle Tank

    Post  AlfaT8 on Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:30 am

    VladimirSahin wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Ehhhhhh, guys?  confused

    Russia to Develop Nuclear Round for T-14 Main Battle Tank

    Russia is purportedly mulling fitting its newest battle tank with a 152 millimeter gun capable of firing nuclear rounds.

    http://thediplomat.com/2017/04/russia-to-develop-nuclear-round-for-t-14-main-battle-tank/

    Could they be talking actually about 152mm nuclear shell for Coaliation rather than T-14? That would make some sense. Because "nuclear round" for T-14 would be... impractical to say at best.

    Or this proves the Abrams is actually very well armored.

    Answer for better armored target would be better kinetic penetrator rather than nuke Smile

    Come on bro I was just joking...

    So was he. Wink

    par far

    Posts : 1472
    Points : 1631
    Join date : 2014-06-26

    This is an article I came across and wanted to discuss with the posters here because it is 100% bullshit. Most of what west says about Russia and the Russian Military is

    Post  par far on Sat Jun 03, 2017 5:42 pm

    This is an article I came across and wanted to discuss with the posters here because it is 100% bullshit. Most of what west says about Russia and the Russian Military is bullshit but the reason I choose this article is because it had a lot replies and most the replies were uninformed replies. Please read the article and see what you think and correct the author where he is wrong, I have done my best to correct the author where ever I can but I want people with more knowledge to also comment on it. It is important that we discuss these articles and point out the lies in it.

    "Russia has made a lot of noise about the modern weapons it has used during combat in Syria and how effective these new weapons are. Fresh Su-34 attack jets scream through the skies, while the latest in small arms test their mettle. But the reality is most of what Russia has used is not as shiny and advanced as Moscow would like you to believe. The vast majority of aircraft carrying out airstrikes are among the oldest in the Russian military, and it only gets worse from there".




    Russia is using a mix of old and new Fighter Jets in Syria, new planes like SU 35s, SU 34 and SU 30sm are being used and tested and old planes like SU 25 and SU 24 are modernized and are being used as well. By using the old Fighter Jets, it is cost effective and the terrorists, do not have air defenses or their own air force(just not official.)



    "Russia’s been involved in the Syrian civil war since 2011, and its apparent primary goal is to prop up the brutal regime of Bashar al-Assad, which even before the war was known for the torture, imprisonment, and execution of any political opposition. Since the multi-front, multi-party war has started, the existing Syrian government has dropped barrel bombs on civilian population centers, razed its own cities, and deployed chemical weapons against its own citizens. Throughout, the Russian military has not only stood by the regime, but actively participated in many of its atrocities".



    These are lies and you can just see right through them, under Assad all religions lived peacefully, under the terrorists that are sponsored by NATO and the Gulf States, everything has gone to shit. The Syrian government is not doing the killing it is the terrorists, that are killing innocent civilians.


    In theory. But it looks like Russia can’t even get that right.

    The highly touted deployment of Russia’s only aircraft carrier to conduct operations from the coast of Syria was underwhelming and openly mocked. The Admiral Kuznetsov spent three months on deployment, lost two aircraft, belched smoke like an old-timey English factory, and failed to provide any real combat punch. In fact, the biggest concern opposing navies had was that the poorly maintained carrier might sink and they would have to respond with a rescue effort. After returning to port back in Russian the Kuznetsov is expected to undergo an extended refit period of over two years before returning to sea.



    The US does more killing than Russia. US tests new weapons all over the world. The Admiral Kuznestov was being tested, it is not going to be sold. the notion that the "poorly maintained carrier might sink" is false, if it was the case than it would have not went to Syria.


    Russia’s mission in Syria is motivated by both political and military necessity. Politically, Russia is trying to support its only true client state left in the Middle East and recapture a position of influence in the region while maintaining access to its only naval base in the Mediterranean at Tartus. Militarily it was the need to prove whether the newest weapons did in fact work on the battlefield proving their modernity and worthiness of purchase by future customers. However, the demand for Russian military weapons has stumbled after years of unsustainable growth even with the operational use of new systems. Since 2011 Russian military arms exports have remained steady at around $15 billion with nearly 70% of those sales going to India, China, Vietnam and Algeria. For 2017 exports are predicted to remain similar despite proclamations that the war effort in Syria is going to produce an extra $6-$7 billion in sales. $15 billion is indeed a lot of money spent on Russian military goods, but one report indicated that 45% of that sales figure was for aircraft engines and spare parts.


    Russia has lot's of "clients" in the Middle East, Russia is making "clients" out of those who are allies of US, see the oil pipeline deal with Kurdistan in Iraq(I hate the Kurds with all my heart and Russia must be careful when dealing with the Kurds.)

    It is way to early about say anything with the weapons sales, the latest Russian weapons being used right now in Syria will be improved, than sales will increase even more(it has already increased.)

    …Russia is struggling to churn out desirable products in an age of high-tech weaponry. Traditionally, Moscow has left the top end of the market to the U.S. and other Western producers, while focusing on…’cheap’ and ‘deadly’ weapons within the price range of buyers in the developing world. But as former clients like China and India get wealthier, Russia is being forced to go upscale. And in developing next-generation jets and missile-defense systems, Moscow is losing its competitive advantage. Given American companies’ superior reputations and track records, it makes less and less sense for aspiring powers to buy Russian. The real-world effect is clear: After a decade-long military expansion intended to solidify its rank as a global superpower, Russia is slashing its defense budget by as much as 25 percent this year. (Other estimates put the figure below 10 percent, but either way, it is a sea change.) Putin has reason to crow about his military’s performance so far in Syria, but it’s not going to do much for his bottom line.


    This is pure crap, systems like the S-400 kept US Fighters out of area that Russia wanted, using radars to blind out Tomhawk Missiles, using advanced Electronic warfare systems, prove this statement is crap. Moscow is not losing it's competitive edge, it is actually gaining it's competitive , after 2 decades of negating the military because of economic reasons, Russia is making huge gains in Military technology.

    One glaring weakness is the lack of an advanced targeting pod for the Russian aircraft. Or any targeting pod at all. Russian aircraft currently flying in Syria do not use targeting pods like those carried by the U.S. and Western militaries. American and Western aircraft have been flying with targeting pods for decades and these systems have provided an incredible advantage during combat operations. Only recently was the newest version of the MiG-29 ‘Fulcrum’ -the MiG-35S – sighted with the T220 targeting pod while Russian aircraft in Syria performed with a mix of organic optical systems that limited performance and prevented a full range of targets from being prosecuted. India has purchased the Su-30MKI fighter jet from Russia and managed to incorporate the Litening targeting pod with its Flankers, and has done so for nearly ten years now. Malaysia is another customer who purchased a version of the Flanker - the Su-30MKM – and has adopted the French Damocles for use. Russia’s inability to produce a targeting pod comparable to Western pods is an extremely limiting factor in their aircraft’s effectiveness and targeting flexibility.

    Russia has created new targeting pods and with the sanctions(the sanctions may hurt in the short but in the long term, sanctions are god's gift to Russia), Russia will create even better ones. The new Russian Targeting Pods will include GLONASS Satellite electro-optical/infrared imaging and laser designation capabilities. I have no doubt that Russian Targeting Pods will match and surpass US one's like LITENING or Lockheed Martin Sniper.

    Which is not to say Russia is without its share of modern weapons and highly advanced systems. By most accounts the performance of Russian cruise missiles, attack helicopters and electronic warfare systems used in Syria have demonstrated some very capable technology on the battlefield and the reputation of its S-300 and S-400 air defense systems is one of providing an impenetrable defense against aircraft and missiles. The S-300 and S-400 have not been used in combat, and while Russian propaganda continues to portray these systems as having no weaknesses, the Israelis are believed to found ways of defeating the S-300 during training with Cyprus, who purchased the system from Russia 20 years ago.

    If Israel has found a way, than why is Israel not targeting forces protected by the S-300 and the one that Israel trained on was 20 years old.


    Russia will gladly tell anyone who listens that its newest generation of fighter and attack aircraft have lead the way over Syria, using the latest technology to deliver precision weapons. The Su-34 Fullback, the Su-30SM Flanker-H and the Su-35S Flanker-E are new aircraft seeing combat for the first time in Syria. Despite the publicity surrounding them, it was the older Su-24 Fencer strike aircraft and the Su-25 Frogfoot that would do the bulk of the heavy lifting in Syria. And while there is no disputing the abilities of the Su-30SM and Su-35S in an air-to-air dogfight, without a modern targeting pod, their ability to lob anything but unguided “dumb” bombs is extremely limited.

    Terrorists did not have Air Defenses, so there was no need to use the advanced Fighter Jets, the SU 25 and SU 24 did a exceptionally job. The newer fighter Jets also played a factor(the author is ignoring this.

    As a result, precision weapons have only been a small fraction of the weapons employed by Russian aviation forces in Syria. On occasion Russia has provided images of Su-34s carrying guided weapons such as the KAB-1500L laser guided bomb, the Kh-25ML laser-guided missile which dates back to the Soviet era or the KAB-500S GLONASS satellite guided bomb. But those weapons are the exception rather than the norm, and almost exclusively carried by the Su-34. Instead, ‘dumb’ bombs are the absolute majority of bombs dropped, mainly the 250kg OFAB-250-270 and 500kg FAB-500M-62 as well as the RBK-500 cluster bombs. Strangely, the Russian aircraft have flown with very small weapon loads, carrying only a small portion of their available capacity.



    Whenever needed, where ever needed, Russia has used precision weapons. The "dumb bombs" did a great job killing US terrorists.



    To illustrate the difference between American and Russian attack aircraft operating in the same theater of operations, the U.S. air force published photos of an A-10C Thunderbolt II, or Warthog, during a mission over Syria. The A-10 and Su-25 attack planes entered service within five years of each other, and have very similar roles within each nation’s air force. But where the A-10 has soared technologically, the Su-25 has stalled. In the photo, the A-10, which has 11 weapon hardpoints, is carrying nothing but guided munitions and one targeting pod. Even the rocket pod is carrying the new Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS) II laser guided rockets.

    But the Su-25 has been a turkey in comparison over Syria. Carrying no more than four 250 kg bombs, the Su-25 attacked static targets using its own internal navigation and targeting system to deliver the free fall weapons. More often than not, the Su-25 targets along with those of the Su-24, were never identified visually. With no targeting pod and only flying waypoints to deliver weapons that are inherently inaccurate, it is no wonder Russia has provided very little video of weapons strikes, especially targets struck in urban areas.



    The modernized SU 25 has all the features that the US A-10C has, the author fails to mention this.



    Which means that Russia has killed a vast number of civilians in Syria, and unfortunately many of these deaths can be classified as intentional. According to a report published by airwars.org titled ‘A Reckless Disregard for Civilian Lives’ which only looked at the first three months of Russian air combat missions in Syria in late 2015 found Russia had been responsible for as many as 1,450 non-combatant deaths and while Russian and the American led coalition were carrying out a similar number of combat missions, civilian fatalities from Russian strikes were six times higher. Since the Russian mission in Syria began in September 2015 to February 2017, it is alleged by airwars.org that as many as 11,282 civilians have died from Russian bombs.

    Russia and Syria have both been accused of targeting civilians on a wide scale, including the reported use of the chemical agent sarin by Syria in April. Reports indicate that Russian not only knew of the planned attack but were complicit in the crime especially with their quick and poor attempt to deflect blame for the attack on a bomb setting off sarin from a rebel weapons facility.

    A report issued by the Atlantic Council in February titled “Breaking Aleppo,” described the Russian-led air assault on the city this way:

    The siege of Aleppo brought the horrors of the twentieth century’s wars to the twenty-first century. Hospitals were bombed, not once or twice, but repeatedly; cluster bombs and incendiaries fell on residential areas; chemical weapons were used. Siege, hunger, and indiscriminate strikes brought suffering to women, children, the disabled, and the very old.
    And it’s readily apparent that the indiscriminate bombing and killing of Syrian civilians was not only intentional but was part of a larger strategy, designed to push anti-Assad forces closer the Islamic extremists fighting in Syria making it harder for the West to support anyone who takes up arms against the Syrian government.

    This is not the first time Russia has directly targeted civilians to accomplish political and military goals. During the war in Chechnya, Russian often targeted its own citizens in the city of Grozny with air strikes and pounding from artillery. At the start of the conflict nearly 400,000 citizens lived in Grozny, most of them ethnic Russians. By the end, one estimate of dead Russians at nearly 90,000 most of which the Russian military caused with absolute indiscriminate and reckless attacks.



    This is bullshit, US kills more civilians than any country, it is a great lie that Russia killed civilians on purpose, the US backed terrorists used civilians as human shields.


    What the article mentions about Russian helicopters is mostly false. The KA 53 and MI-28N can go toe to toe with any US helicopter and Russian is also making more advanced helicopters.


    The Russian effort in Syria really has seen small successes and underwhelming performance when measured against the capabilities of current American and Western militaries. Even the accomplishments made in Syria are nothing that has not been achieved, years if not decades earlier by Western militaries. Ever since Operation Desert Storm intoxicated everyone around the world with videos of precision guided munitions hitting their targets, that has become the standard to which a modern military attempt to realize.

    Russia has a long way to go before its full military can be labeled as fully modern. Some elements are very modern, some parts of some weapons are modern and most of the military is nowhere close to being able to conduct a sustained modern war with a near-peer. Russia may say it’s impressed with its military performance in Syria and they should be considering how badly they performed during their last combat operations against the military juggernaut of Georgia in 2008. But that doesn’t mean anybody else has to be impressed with its janky old killing apparatus.

    At least not yet.



    Russia has done in Syria, what no western country can even dream of(using diplomatic and military pressure, Russia saved Syria). Russia trained a Syrian Army that was unorganized, were on the brink of defeat and Russia trained them into a well trained army.

    The author obsession with precision guided munitions and targeting pods is ludacris. Russia is modern as an Army in the World and will only get better with time as more research and development of weapons and Army is done. Russia learned a lot from Georgia, Ukraine and Syria that can incorporate into their military.


    "Russia’s Involvement In Syria Proves That It's Far Behind The Western World."

    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russia-s-involvement-in-syria-proves-that-its-far-behin-1794966734


    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3201
    Points : 3324
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  kvs on Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:53 pm

    Any site with the name "jalopnik" in it is guaranteed to be shit.

    This is the usual hate and superiority fantasy projection and wishful thinking that is typical of NATzO journalism and the crap,
    such as this, put out by wannabe journalists. Note how they use the word "touted" to describe the deployment of the Kuznetsov.
    This is 100% fabrication since no touting or fanfare was conducted. It was clearly described as a project for field practice and
    operational and technical knowhow improvement. To claim that the Russian system that produces precision bombing for a fraction
    of the cost compared to the US system as as fiction or failure is utter rubbish. We have been following the drone videos of Russian
    strikes since 2015 and we can see with our own eyes the effectiveness of this system.

    I am sick and tired of NATzO racists without PhD in physics and engineering yammer on and on about Russian technological
    inferiority. You fucks wouldn't know what technology is even it was dangled in front of your face. These retards must really
    believe that the price of western junk (e.g. the Zumwalt, the F-35, etc.) reflects its vast superiority over anything put out by
    Russia. This is the same brain damaged arrogance that afflicted Napoleon and Hitler. They had to eat shit, and so will NATzO.

    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5574
    Points : 5678
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Jun 03, 2017 7:10 pm



    Dude, here is a pro-tip: if it is called FoxtrotAlpha, The Drive, Jalopnik or Popular Mechanics or if it is written by Tyler Rogoway, Anatoly Zak or Dmitry Gorenburg then it is always 100% pure highly concentrated bullshit not worth reading let alone discussing.
    avatar
    Kimppis

    Posts : 326
    Points : 332
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  Kimppis on Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:06 pm

    I think I saw part of the article on Bloomberg or something, maybe by the same author. The part about "Russian weapon exports are stagnating = Russia must decrease its military spending" argumentation fallacy, which is bullshit. Russian military spending is declining is because it was at a very high level during the last few years, so in other words, it was more or less part of the plan. I guess it is true that the Syrian intervention has not increase weapon exports that much at all, even though you keep hearing about "growing foreign interest" in the Russian media. But really, so what? Is any of that surprising or terrible? No...?

    And there is less interest in China especially, and to lesser extent in India, because their own military industries are developing rapidly, not because Russian weapons are not somehow competitive. The fact China is buying S-400s and Su-35s and India, being merely the number 1 global weapons importer, still buys considerable amounts of Russian weapons should tell you everything you need to know. Of course it's easy for the US to sell to its Western vassals. They simply don't buy Russian equipment for geopolitical reasons, obviously.

    True, Kuznetsov operation wasn't a success. Blame the 90s and early 2000s for that. The fact they are still going to extensively upgrade an refit it though, shows you that things are going to change. And if it wasn't obvious already, carriers are not a priority for Russia, Russia is not a seapower.

    Su-24s have been doing well in Syria. But they are getting replaced quite soon. What exactly is the problem here, again? So can you wait like... 5 years? Overall, Su-34 procurement is actually going particularly well... I think the numbers have grown considerably since the beginning of the intervention (not in Syria, but in the Aerospace Forces as a whole). If they were really that crucial in a Syria-style conflict, why arent there more in that country? If anything, it seems that Su-34 might be an overkill in that conflict, Su-24 gets the job one just fine. On the other hand, Su-25s are not particularly old and they are going through extensive upgrades.

    Really, based on what are the Russian strikes inaccurate? There's a lot of footage. I also remember reading a while ago that a Russian targeting pod for Su-34 and other aircraft is almost ready. But are they really that crucial anyway, or is the author just a full of shit? Also, precision guided munitions are a priority right now, their production is growing considerably.

    So the article is very selective. In most cases it either exaggerates problems or even makes them up. The author also seems to think that "Western" militaries (whatever that even means, most of Western militaries are useless without the US, especially outside their borders) don't have any problems or weaknesses. In any case, we should wait atleast until 2020-25. Operating overseas, far away from its own borders will never be a priority for the Russian military anyway. The fact that they've been so effective in Syria, with such a limited number of troops and aircraft is absolutely impressive. How many militaries can do that, on their own? Rolling Eyes

    So is the glass half empty or half full?

    The last article I read on that site was about the new command center, or whatever, in Moscow. The comment section... was interesting. It was particularly messed up, and that is saying something... nothing else but uninformed Russophobe Murica fanboys. I'm certainly not going to give them any more clicks or read any of the comments.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1526
    Points : 1551
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  eehnie on Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:50 pm

    To help in what par par said, I bolded the wrong parts of the article he posted.


    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russia-s-involvement-in-syria-proves-that-its-far-behin-1794966734


    Russia’s Involvement In Syria Proves That It's Far Behind The Western World

    Gary Wetzel
    5/05/17 4:38pmFiled to: SYRIA
    76.5K
    136
    24

    A Russian Su-24 Fencer attack jet takes off in Syria. Photo credit: Russian Ministry of Defense

    Russia has made a lot of noise about the modern weapons it has used during combat in Syria and how effective these new weapons are. Fresh Su-34 attack jets scream through the skies, while the latest in small arms test their mettle. But the reality is most of what Russia has used is not as shiny and advanced as Moscow would like you to believe. The vast majority of aircraft carrying out airstrikes are among the oldest in the Russian military, and it only gets worse from there.

    Russia’s been involved in the Syrian civil war since 2011, and its apparent primary goal is to prop up the brutal regime of Bashar al-Assad, which even before the war was known for the torture, imprisonment, and execution of any political opposition. Since the multi-front, multi-party war has started, the existing Syrian government has dropped barrel bombs on civilian population centers, razed its own cities, and deployed chemical weapons against its own citizens. Throughout, the Russian military has not only stood by the regime, but actively participated in many of its atrocities.

    But as a secondary goal to all of the truly horrific killing, Russia is looking at the Syrian theater as a twisted proving ground for its military equipment. As one of the largest arms dealers in the world – second only to the massive defense industrial complex of the United States – it can stand to make enormous amounts of money off of weapons sales to potential clients.

    In theory. But it looks like Russia can’t even get that right.

    The highly touted deployment of Russia’s only aircraft carrier to conduct operations from the coast of Syria was underwhelming and openly mocked. The Admiral Kuznetsov spent three months on deployment, lost two aircraft, belched smoke like an old-timey English factory, and failed to provide any real combat punch. In fact, the biggest concern opposing navies had was that the poorly maintained carrier might sink and they would have to respond with a rescue effort. After returning to port back in Russian the Kuznetsov is expected to undergo an extended refit period of over two years before returning to sea.

    In late February Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced to the Russian parliament that Moscow had tested 162 contemporary and modern weapons in Syria and these weapons ‘showed a high level of effectiveness’. Specific weapons mentioned were the Su-34 Fullback strike fighter, the Su-30SM Flanker-H fighter, and the Mi-28 Havoc and Ka-52 Hokum attack helicopters. Sea-launched cruise missiles were also identified, and Defense Minister Shoigu had to be referring to the 3M-14 Kalibr-NK which had been launched against targets in Syria from Russian ships in the Caspian Sea, Mediterranean Sea and the 3M-14 Kalibr-PL which was also launched from the Mediterranean by a submarine.

    An Su-34 ‘Fullback’ attack jet. Photo credit: Russian Ministry of Defense

    Surprisingly, the defense minister did allude to a few weapons that did not work, specifically 10 that he deemed ‘deficient’ and production would either be stopped permanently or halted until corrections could be made. The weapons that performed poorly included communications gear, signal intelligence systems and surprisingly air-launched cruise missiles, two types of which were used over Syria, the older KH-555 and the newer, stealthy KH-101. Which missile did not meet expectations is not known though both are outgrowths of the same missile family, the KH-55 which NATO calls the AS-15 Kent.

    Russia’s mission in Syria is motivated by both political and military necessity. Politically, Russia is trying to support its only true client state left in the Middle East and recapture a position of influence in the region while maintaining access to its only naval base in the Mediterranean at Tartus. Militarily it was the need to prove whether the newest weapons did in fact work on the battlefield proving their modernity and worthiness of purchase by future customers. However, the demand for Russian military weapons has stumbled after years of unsustainable growth even with the operational use of new systems. Since 2011 Russian military arms exports have remained steady at around $15 billion with nearly 70% of those sales going to India, China, Vietnam and Algeria. For 2017 exports are predicted to remain similar despite proclamations that the war effort in Syria is going to produce an extra $6-$7 billion in sales. $15 billion is indeed a lot of money spent on Russian military goods, but one report indicated that 45% of that sales figure was for aircraft engines and spare parts.

    Of course, the desire to test new weapons in combat is not unique to the Russians, in fact most militaries do this given the opportunity. Why else would the U.S. have used the F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter to drop a few bombs during the 1989 invasion of Panama? It sure wasn’t needed to penetrate the integrated Panamanian air defense system because there were no air defenses to penetrate.

    But Tobin Harshaw in an article for Bloomberg described Russia’s problem this way:

    Russia is struggling to churn out desirable products in an age of high-tech weaponry. Traditionally, Moscow has left the top end of the market to the U.S. and other Western producers, while focusing on…’cheap’ and ‘deadly’ weapons within the price range of buyers in the developing world. But as former clients like China and India get wealthier, Russia is being forced to go upscale. And in developing next-generation jets and missile-defense systems, Moscow is losing its competitive advantage. // Given American companies’ superior reputations and track records, it makes less and less sense for aspiring powers to buy Russian. The real-world effect is clear: After a decade-long military expansion intended to solidify its rank as a global superpower, Russia is slashing its defense budget by as much as 25 percent this year. (Other estimates put the figure below 10 percent, but either way, it is a sea change.) // Putin has reason to crow about his military’s performance so far in Syria, but it’s not going to do much for his bottom line.

    One glaring weakness is the lack of an advanced targeting pod for the Russian aircraft. Or any targeting pod at all. Russian aircraft currently flying in Syria do not use targeting pods like those carried by the U.S. and Western militaries. American and Western aircraft have been flying with targeting pods for decades and these systems have provided an incredible advantage during combat operations. Only recently was the newest version of the MiG-29 ‘Fulcrum’ -the MiG-35S – sighted with the T220 targeting pod while Russian aircraft in Syria performed with a mix of organic optical systems that limited performance and prevented a full range of targets from being prosecuted. India has purchased the Su-30MKI fighter jet from Russia and managed to incorporate the Litening targeting pod with its Flankers, and has done so for nearly ten years now. Malaysia is another customer who purchased a version of the Flanker - the Su-30MKM – and has adopted the French Damocles for use. Russia’s inability to produce a targeting pod comparable to Western pods is an extremely limiting factor in their aircraft’s effectiveness and targeting flexibility.

    A Russian Su-30 fires rockets. Photo credit: Russian Ministry of Defense

    Which is not to say Russia is without its share of modern weapons and highly advanced systems. By most accounts the performance of Russian cruise missiles, attack helicopters and electronic warfare systems used in Syria have demonstrated some very capable technology on the battlefield and the reputation of its S-300 and S-400 air defense systems is one of providing an impenetrable defense against aircraft and missiles. The S-300 and S-400 have not been used in combat, and while Russian propaganda continues to portray these systems as having no weaknesses, the Israelis are believed to found ways of defeating the S-300 during training with Cyprus, who purchased the system from Russia 20 years ago.

    Russia has also combat tested four different types of cruise missiles in Syria. Sea-launched, air-launched, and ground-launched missiles have all been used in what was seemingly nothing more than the need to examine their combat performance and to demonstrate to the world that Russia indeed possesses long-range cruise missiles capable of striking targets from hundreds or thousands of miles away.

    The sea launched cruise missile has become a vital component of modern war. The U.S. Navy has been launching the Tomahawk missile from ships and submarines since 1991 and Russia jumped at the opportunity to fire Kalibr cruise missiles from almost anywhere and anyway they could. The first use of the Kalibr occurred in October 2015 when a frigate and three corvettes belonging to the Caspian Sea Flotilla launched 26 of the 3M-14 Kalibr-NK missiles which flew over Iran and Iraq before hitting Islamic State targets in Syria. Six weeks later the same group of vessels launched 18 more Kalibr-NK missiles. In another first, the Improved Kilo-class submarine Rostov-on-Don submarine fired four Kalibr-PL missiles from the Mediterranean, where two Russian corvettes from their Black Sea fleet also would later launch more Kalibr-NK missiles. More than 25 years after the American Tomahawks were first used in combat Russia was finally able to fire its own cruise missile in a combat scenario.

    A Russian Su-34 drops bombs over Syria. Photo credit: Itar-TASS

    Russia will gladly tell anyone who listens that its newest generation of fighter and attack aircraft have lead the way over Syria, using the latest technology to deliver precision weapons. The Su-34 Fullback, the Su-30SM Flanker-H and the Su-35S Flanker-E are new aircraft seeing combat for the first time in Syria. Despite the publicity surrounding them, it was the older Su-24 Fencer strike aircraft and the Su-25 Frogfoot that would do the bulk of the heavy lifting in Syria. And while there is no disputing the abilities of the Su-30SM and Su-35S in an air-to-air dogfight, without a modern targeting pod, their ability to lob anything but unguided “dumb” bombs is extremely limited.

    As a result, precision weapons have only been a small fraction of the weapons employed by Russian aviation forces in Syria.
    On occasion Russia has provided images of Su-34s carrying guided weapons such as the KAB-1500L laser guided bomb, the Kh-25ML laser-guided missile which dates back to the Soviet era or the KAB-500S GLONASS satellite guided bomb. But those weapons are the exception rather than the norm, and almost exclusively carried by the Su-34. Instead, ‘dumb’ bombs are the absolute majority of bombs dropped, mainly the 250kg OFAB-250-270 and 500kg FAB-500M-62 as well as the RBK-500 cluster bombs. Strangely, the Russian aircraft have flown with very small weapon loads, carrying only a small portion of their available capacity.

    To illustrate the difference between American and Russian attack aircraft operating in the same theater of operations, the U.S. air force published photos of an A-10C Thunderbolt II, or Warthog, during a mission over Syria. The A-10 and Su-25 attack planes entered service within five years of each other, and have very similar roles within each nation’s air force. But where the A-10 has soared technologically, the Su-25 has stalled. In the photo, the A-10, which has 11 weapon hardpoints, is carrying nothing but guided munitions and one targeting pod. Even the rocket pod is carrying the new Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS) II laser guided rockets.

    But the Su-25 has been a turkey in comparison over Syria. Carrying no more than four 250 kg bombs, the Su-25 attacked static targets using its own internal navigation and targeting system to deliver the free fall weapons. More often than not, the Su-25 targets along with those of the Su-24, were never identified visually. With no targeting pod and only flying waypoints to deliver weapons that are inherently inaccurate, it is no wonder Russia has provided very little video of weapons strikes, especially targets struck in urban areas.

    Which means that Russia has killed a vast number of civilians in Syria, and unfortunately many of these deaths can be classified as intentional. According to a report published by airwars.org titled ‘A Reckless Disregard for Civilian Lives’ which only looked at the first three months of Russian air combat missions in Syria in late 2015 found Russia had been responsible for as many as 1,450 non-combatant deaths and while Russian and the American led coalition were carrying out a similar number of combat missions, civilian fatalities from Russian strikes were six times higher. Since the Russian mission in Syria began in September 2015 to February 2017, it is alleged by airwars.org that as many as 11,282 civilians have died from Russian bombs.

    Russia and Syria have both been accused of targeting civilians on a wide scale, including the reported use of the chemical agent sarin by Syria in April. Reports indicate that Russian not only knew of the planned attack but were complicit in the crime especially with their quick and poor attempt to deflect blame for the attack on a bomb setting off sarin from a rebel weapons facility.

    A report issued by the Atlantic Council in February titled “Breaking Aleppo,” described the Russian-led air assault on the city this way:

    The siege of Aleppo brought the horrors of the twentieth century’s wars to the twenty-first century. Hospitals were bombed, not once or twice, but repeatedly; cluster bombs and incendiaries fell on residential areas; chemical weapons were used. Siege, hunger, and indiscriminate strikes brought suffering to women, children, the disabled, and the very old.
    And it’s readily apparent that the indiscriminate bombing and killing of Syrian civilians was not only intentional but was part of a larger strategy, designed to push anti-Assad forces closer the Islamic extremists fighting in Syria making it harder for the West to support anyone who takes up arms against the Syrian government.

    This is not the first time Russia has directly targeted civilians to accomplish political and military goals. During the war in Chechnya, Russian often targeted its own citizens in the city of Grozny with air strikes and pounding from artillery. At the start of the conflict nearly 400,000 citizens lived in Grozny, most of them ethnic Russians. By the end, one estimate of dead Russians at nearly 90,000 most of which the Russian military caused with absolute indiscriminate and reckless attacks.

    Russian attack helicopters have seen the majority of combat in Syria and have performed well despite five airframe losses. The first Russian helicopters in Syria were the iconic, daylight-only Mil Mi-24P Hind-F attack helicopter – a formative image of the Soviet Union’s war in Afghanistan much the way the UH-1 ‘Huey’ was for America in Vietnam – and the combat transport helicopter Mil Mi-8 Hip that can carry troops or deliver suppressing fire in a combat search and rescue (CSAR) mission.

    It did not take long for Russia to begin the deployment of its most advanced helicopters in Syria: the Mi Mil-35M Hind, the Mil Mi-28N Havoc and the Ka-52 Hokum-B. The Mi-35M arrived in late December 2015, and the Havoc and Hokum first saw combat in March and April of 2016 respectively.

    Mil Mi-28N Havoc.

    The Russian helicopters are primarily based at Hmeimim Air Base, which is located along the coast near the Syrian city of Latakia. However, the Russians have moved the helicopters to forward positions to better support combat operations, allowing for the combined effect of a faster response time to developing situations and longer on-station time over the battlefield. The forward bases identified thus far are Tias and Sharyat, which was the recipient of 59 U.S. Navy Tomahawk missiles last week. From these locations, Russian attack helicopters helped fight the battles for Palmyra and Al-Qaryatayn.

    The Mi-24P has seen a lot of action in Syria and has been the workhorse thus far, at least in raw numbers of aircraft deployed. The primary weapon of the Mi-24, as it is of all the Russian attack helicopters, is the 20-round B-8V20-A packs, each loaded with S-8 80mm rockets. For closer-in work, the Mi-24P utilizes a fixed twin GSh-30K 30mm cannon on the starboard side. And for harder targets, up to four 9M120 Ataka-V or 9M114 Shturm-V radio beam anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) were usually carried.

    The day-and-night-capable Mi-35, which is almost identical to the Mi-24 except for shorter wings and non-retracting landing gear, also carries the same rockets though the cannon is no longer fixed, instead being a turret mounted twin-barrel GSh-23L 23mm. The Mi-35 can also carry eight Ataka-V ATGMs. The key element of the Mi-35 is the GOES-342 electro-optical turret which houses a modern FLIR/TV system for targeting, achieving results similar to those of Western attack helicopters.

    The Mi-28 and Ka-52 are the most capable platforms in the Russian military for targeting and conducting self-generated precision attacks, whether ATGMs, cannon or rockets. Both also use the 80mm rockets as their main weapons, but unlike so many other Russian aircraft, they have modern targeting systems to find and destroy targets with greater accuracy than any Russian platform before them. Utilizing the OPS-28 Tor targeting turret with TV and FLIR capability (future airframes will carry the mast mounted NO25 radar similar to the American AH-64 Apache), the Mi-28 first saw combat outside Palmyra and have been seen operating in pairs.

    The Ka-52, with its counter-rotating coaxial rotor blades, is the only attack helicopter to have ejection seats, which fire after the rotor blades have been detached by explosive charges installed in the blade fastenings. For targeting the Ka-52 carries a nose mounted FH01 Myech-1U radar along with the GOES-451.2 TV/FLIR system combined with laser targeting and designation. These advanced systems of the Ka-52 were recently used to help Syrian forces liberate Palmyra, which the Syrian government had to abandon in December 2016 to ISIS. Working with Russian Air Force Su-25 Frogfoots, the KA-52s provided targeting for the ground attack aircraft, allowing for round the clock attacks on ISIS positions.

    An Su-25 ‘Frogfoot.’ Photo credit: Russian Ministry of Defense

    As expected, information regarding combat missions and the success or failures of these helicopters or attack aircraft is not especially forthcoming from the Russians, who are not as inclined to release daily airstrike summaries like those issued by CENTCOM. Subsequently, much information has to be gleaned from various “non-official” sources, mainly videos produced by a collection of groups inside Syria, who have managed to film scenes of Russian weapons attacking anti-Assad forces, as well as video of Russian helicopters being shot down, and burning debris.

    The Russian effort in Syria really has seen small successes and underwhelming performance when measured against the capabilities of current American and Western militaries. Even the accomplishments made in Syria are nothing that has not been achieved, years if not decades earlier by Western militaries. Ever since Operation Desert Storm intoxicated everyone around the world with videos of precision guided munitions hitting their targets, that has become the standard to which a modern military attempt to realize.

    Russia has a long way to go before its full military can be labeled as fully modern. Some elements are very modern, some parts of some weapons are modern and most of the military is nowhere close to being able to conduct a sustained modern war with a near-peer. Russia may say it’s impressed with its military performance in Syria and they should be considering how badly they performed during their last combat operations against the military juggernaut of Georgia in 2008. But that doesn’t mean anybody else has to be impressed with its janky old killing apparatus.


    At least not yet.

    Gary Wetzel is an experienced military and aviation writer who has authored two books examining the combat operations of the A-10 Warthog in Afghanistan. He also served over six years in the U.S Navy as sonar technician aboard USS Philadelphia and USS Dallas.

    In the article there are two types of ideas bolded (the worst part):

    1.- The use of old weapons by Russia in the war kills to the NATO. They tough it were useless, they tough they would not be usable, and less in a way that leads to win a war. Russia never wanted to hidde their use of older material. In fact, its use humiliates to the West, because they are winning the war with old material.

    This war has been always a war of low technological level. To see Russia and their allies winning a war with T-55, T-62 and older material is highly humiliating for the west. Their use of these weapons gives superiority to the Syrian Armed Forces over the Western armed militias.

    The West military analysts always tought that an attrition war would weaken the Russian reserves of the weapons that are competitive in a war vs them, always tought that the amounts of T-72, BMP-2, T-80s and air delivered guidded ammunition would decrease, but they failed. Russia and their allies are winning this war with reserves of old armament what was considered obsolete in a war like the war in Novorussia, without touch their capabilities for a war that requires higher level material.

    In the other side, the powers of the West have been destroying the material of the same time, and now have nothing to provide to their militias, that must fight in trucks, because newer armoured infantry vehicles are too expensive for them. In fact these militias only have modern man-portable anti-tank weapons, and nothing more, because the West fears to provide them with modern man-portable anti-air weapons.

    Russia has been using modern weapons in two ways, the first in a way of deterrence for the external powers trying to enter in the Syrian territory, the second in a testing way. Both successfully. Russia never wanted to do a war with modern material and never lied about it.

    2.- The second type of lies are bids to paint Russia and their allies as criminals, attrocius, without friends, and all the rest. Well, many lies.

    PS: The people must think why, in an article like this, where there is only a wish of making damage, the Russian helicopters that have been related to most of the Russian casualties are praised. This praising is done with the same wish of damaging that all the rest of the article.


    Last edited by eehnie on Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:35 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1487
    Points : 1487
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  miketheterrible on Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:03 am

    A lot of so called facts are wrong.  Russia devastated Georgia's military in three weeks.  And that is when they were less prepared.

    The use of dumb bombs proved though they get accuracy of guided munitions without using guided munitions.  This is entirely a good thing and not a bad thing.  Even the Americans are trying to find ways to make their dumb bombs able to be guided, through the use of guidance tools for dumb bombs.  This is a much better and cheaper way instead.  I guess they also forget that Su-34, Su-25SM3 and other upgrades to Su-24 have optical systems, and had them for quite some time.  SOLT-25 being a very modern one for Su-25SM3.  Then of course, the use of Russia's ground weapons like Kornet and Metis-M even against American or European equipment in both conflicts of Syria, Iraq and Yemen proved Russian guided munitions are deadly against even some of the best the US or NATO has to offer.  Then there is the use of Kalibr and Bashton system for ground attacks is another indication that Russia has quite the arsenal of guided munitions too and with high effectiveness.  We all have seen Su-35 and Su-30's carrying guided Kh missiles.

    A really poorly written article with a lot of sensation mixed in with fallacies.  But of course, at the end, it states who wrote it.  A military "expert" from the US navy.  Oh boy. As if anyone expected any better.

    But does any of that matter? Does whatever these things say even matter? No. Because in the end, the US and its NATO friends are afraid of Russia and that is obvious to anyone with half a brain. These type of articles from these type of sites are to try and sell the idea that "America, Fuck Yeah!" but all that does is add revenue to them and get a bunch of mindless idiots to swarm around it and give their own "professional" input. In a lot of cases, we are no better in some cases but with the opposite. But at least in some cases, we can spot bullshit and this article is a heaping pile of it. But who cares? Why even look at them and discuss them? As I pointed out to Par Far and others in the past, which they like to blatantly ignore is that if we are to discuss everytime there is a shitty article about Russia that has no case of reality or sense, then we would never be discussing anything else other than being on "the defense". It is neither informative to try to always break apart and prove that these articles are shit, or is it worth the effort. Let them write it. Hell, we all can write whatever we want. They can too. Just because they say it, doesn't mean it is worth the time or even the data that stores the info. But who cares? The more you link them and spread their links or even talk about them, it becomes advertisement for them. And doing so, they could operate at a profit from clicks. And in that case, Par Far is supporting such bullshit sites and articles by simply clicking them and then trying to get us to talk about it, and even spreading the link.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 832
    Points : 850
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:56 am

    miketheterrible wrote:A lot of so called facts are wrong.  Russia devastated Georgia's military in three weeks.  And that is when they were less prepared.

    The use of dumb bombs proved though they get accuracy of guided munitions without using guided munitions.  This is entirely a good thing and not a bad thing.  Even the Americans are trying to find ways to make their dumb bombs able to be guided, through the use of guidance tools for dumb bombs.  This is a much better and cheaper way instead.  I guess they also forget that Su-34, Su-25SM3 and other upgrades to Su-24 have optical systems, and had them for quite some time.  SOLT-25 being a very modern one for Su-25SM3.  Then of course, the use of Russia's ground weapons like Kornet and Metis-M even against American or European equipment in both conflicts of Syria, Iraq and Yemen proved Russian guided munitions are deadly against even some of the best the US or NATO has to offer.  Then there is the use of Kalibr and Bashton system for ground attacks is another indication that Russia has quite the arsenal of guided munitions too and with high effectiveness.  We all have seen Su-35 and Su-30's carrying guided Kh missiles.

    A really poorly written article with a lot of sensation mixed in with fallacies.  But of course, at the end, it states who wrote it.  A military "expert" from the US navy.  Oh boy. As if anyone expected any better.

    But does any of that matter?  Does whatever these things say even matter?  No.  Because in the end, the US and its NATO friends are afraid of Russia and that is obvious to anyone with half a brain.  These type of articles from these type of sites are to try and sell the idea that "America, Fuck Yeah!" but all that does is add revenue to them and get a bunch of mindless idiots to swarm around it and give their own "professional" input.  In a lot of cases, we are no better in some cases but with the opposite.  But at least in some cases, we can spot bullshit and this article is a heaping pile of it.  But who cares?  Why even look at them and discuss them?  As I pointed out to Par Far and others in the past, which they like to blatantly ignore is that if we are to discuss everytime there is a shitty article about Russia that has no case of reality or sense, then we would never be discussing anything else other than being on "the defense".  It is neither informative to try to always break apart and prove that these articles are shit, or is it worth the effort.  Let them write it.  Hell, we all can write whatever we want.  They can too.  Just because they say it, doesn't mean it is worth the time or even the data that stores the info.  But who cares?  The more you link them and spread their links or even talk about them, it becomes advertisement for them.  And doing so, they could operate at a profit from clicks.  And in that case, Par Far is supporting such bullshit sites and articles by simply clicking them and then trying to get us to talk about it, and even spreading the link.

    Let the Uh'Murikan fuckwits masturbate themselves to a frenzy while shirtless in front of a mirror... the underlying reality of the world doesn't change, regardless of their trash-talking gob-shite BS.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16688
    Points : 17296
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:58 pm

    "Russia’s been involved in the Syrian civil war since 2011, and its apparent primary goal is to prop up the brutal regime of Bashar al-Assad, which even before the war was known for the torture, imprisonment, and execution of any political opposition.

    I saw Putin interviewed at the recent conference at St Petersberg and the American (blonde) interviewer asked Putin why he supported the evil regime of Assad.

    Putin basically said that over 4 thousand Russians have gone to Syria to fight for the rebels and more than 20 thousand from eastern and western europe have done the same.

    Russia is not there to save Assad from being overthrown, it is there to prevent Syria being turned into Libya or Afghanistan, because after it has been crushed those 4 thousand terrorists are going to want to come home to Russia.

    It makes more sense to fight them in Syria with the goal of saving Syria no matter who is in charge now than to wait for it to come back to Russia.

    I would also add that there is no chance of stability and peace in Syria with any of the factions as they have no experience or support to run a country... it will just turn into Afghanistan and Libya where major cities might be held but they are not countries any more.

    That fits in with the western plan to pump gas and oil through syrian territory to europe from the middle east, but the cost for the Syrian people will be tragic... but then the US does not give a fuck about the people in the US who are going to get to live next to pipelines from Canada down through the US... why would it care about foreigners...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    par far

    Posts : 1472
    Points : 1631
    Join date : 2014-06-26

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  par far on Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:59 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:A lot of so called facts are wrong.  Russia devastated Georgia's military in three weeks.  And that is when they were less prepared.

    The use of dumb bombs proved though they get accuracy of guided munitions without using guided munitions.  This is entirely a good thing and not a bad thing.  Even the Americans are trying to find ways to make their dumb bombs able to be guided, through the use of guidance tools for dumb bombs.  This is a much better and cheaper way instead.  I guess they also forget that Su-34, Su-25SM3 and other upgrades to Su-24 have optical systems, and had them for quite some time.  SOLT-25 being a very modern one for Su-25SM3.  Then of course, the use of Russia's ground weapons like Kornet and Metis-M even against American or European equipment in both conflicts of Syria, Iraq and Yemen proved Russian guided munitions are deadly against even some of the best the US or NATO has to offer.  Then there is the use of Kalibr and Bashton system for ground attacks is another indication that Russia has quite the arsenal of guided munitions too and with high effectiveness.  We all have seen Su-35 and Su-30's carrying guided Kh missiles.

    A really poorly written article with a lot of sensation mixed in with fallacies.  But of course, at the end, it states who wrote it.  A military "expert" from the US navy.  Oh boy. As if anyone expected any better.

    But does any of that matter?  Does whatever these things say even matter?  No.  Because in the end, the US and its NATO friends are afraid of Russia and that is obvious to anyone with half a brain.  These type of articles from these type of sites are to try and sell the idea that "America, Fuck Yeah!" but all that does is add revenue to them and get a bunch of mindless idiots to swarm around it and give their own "professional" input.  In a lot of cases, we are no better in some cases but with the opposite.  But at least in some cases, we can spot bullshit and this article is a heaping pile of it.  But who cares?  Why even look at them and discuss them?  As I pointed out to Par Far and others in the past, which they like to blatantly ignore is that if we are to discuss everytime there is a shitty article about Russia that has no case of reality or sense, then we would never be discussing anything else other than being on "the defense".  It is neither informative to try to always break apart and prove that these articles are shit, or is it worth the effort.  Let them write it.  Hell, we all can write whatever we want.  They can too.  Just because they say it, doesn't mean it is worth the time or even the data that stores the info.  But who cares?  The more you link them and spread their links or even talk about them, it becomes advertisement for them.  And doing so, they could operate at a profit from clicks.  And in that case, Par Far is supporting such bullshit sites and articles by simply clicking them and then trying to get us to talk about it, and even spreading the link.


    You are right about spreading that stupid link to the bullshit article Mike and I apologize, that really got was about Gerogia war, the west had to beg Russia not to invade their capital, I should have known better than to post that garbage.
    avatar
    Kimppis

    Posts : 326
    Points : 332
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  Kimppis on Sun Jun 04, 2017 5:00 pm

    To be fair, I think the author's point regarding Georgia was that its military was a joke... so as a measuring stick it was kind of worthless (I don't necessarily agree).

    Russia won the conflict quickly and easily overall, but it also showed some major weaknesses. Many of those units fighting in Georgia were badly equipped, with no standardized uniforms to speak of etc., generals had to use reporters' mobile phones to communicate, surprisingly many aircraft were shot down... All of that is well known.

    But Russia learned a lot from the conflict and those days are long gone. And of course, on the other hand the Russian military was surprisingly effective, considering what they had to work with.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16688
    Points : 17296
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:40 am

    To be fair, I think the author's point regarding Georgia was that its military was a joke... so as a measuring stick it was kind of worthless (I don't necessarily agree).

    Except before the conflict there were claims that the Israeli and US trained Georgian forces would go all taleban on the Russians and fight for years. In fact with their new NATO training and experience from Iraq with US forces it was supposed to be a completely transformed force.

    In actual fact the Russians never used more soldiers than the georgian forces had so the two sides were fairly equal in terms of numbers.

    There were plenty of problems for the Russians but they clearly reacted much faster than any in the west anticipated. Much the same as the Russian actions in Syria also surprised the west... they had cruise missiles on paper but having and being able to use effectively were two different things.

    Russia proved a lot of people wrong in Georgia and Syria... and it also started a major overhaul and rethink of the military which had been largely neglected up until that point... which was a good thing.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Sprut-B

    Posts : 8
    Points : 16
    Join date : 2017-07-29
    Age : 24
    Location : India

    Silly western propaganda against Russian military equipments.

    Post  Sprut-B on Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:08 pm

    avatar
    Sprut-B

    Posts : 8
    Points : 16
    Join date : 2017-07-29
    Age : 24
    Location : India

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  Sprut-B on Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:14 pm

    I call it bullshit.

    "Russia is struggling to churn out desirable products in an age of high-tech weaponry. Traditionally, Moscow has left the top end of the market to the U.S. and other Western producers, while focusing on…’cheap’ and ‘deadly’ weapons within the price range of buyers in the developing world. But as former clients like China and India get wealthier, Russia is being forced to go upscale. And in developing next-generation jets and missile-defense systems, Moscow is losing its competitive advantage. Given American companies’ superior reputations and track records, it makes less and less sense for aspiring powers to buy Russian. The real-world effect is clear: After a decade-long military expansion intended to solidify its rank as a global superpower, Russia is slashing its defense budget by as much as 25 percent this year. (Other estimates put the figure below 10 percent, but either way, it is a sea change.) Putin has reason to crow about his military’s performance so far in Syria, but it’s not going to do much for his bottom line."


    Last edited by Sprut-B on Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:37 pm; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    Sprut-B

    Posts : 8
    Points : 16
    Join date : 2017-07-29
    Age : 24
    Location : India

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  Sprut-B on Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:16 pm

    Well S-300 is a old system but it's still very effective against bulk of the NATO airplanes ✈️.

    " The S-300 and S-400 have not been used in combat, and while Russian propaganda continues to portray these systems as having no weaknesses, the Israelis are believed to found ways of defeating the S-300 during training with Cyprus, who purchased the system from Russia 20 years ago."


    Last edited by Sprut-B on Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Sprut-B

    Posts : 8
    Points : 16
    Join date : 2017-07-29
    Age : 24
    Location : India

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  Sprut-B on Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:21 pm

    A-10 has advanced & the SU-25 has stalled? Based on what evidence? Some random cool looking pictures.

    "To illustrate the difference between American and Russian attack aircraft operating in the same theater of operations, the U.S. air force published photos of an A-10C Thunderbolt II, or Warthog, during a mission over Syria. The A-10 and Su-25 attack planes entered service within five years of each other, and have very similar roles within each nation’s air force. But where the A-10 has soared technologically, the Su-25 has stalled. In the photo, the A-10, which has 11 weapon hardpoints, is carrying nothing but guided munitions and one targeting pod. Even the rocket pod is carrying the new Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS) II laser guided rockets."


    Last edited by Sprut-B on Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Sprut-B

    Posts : 8
    Points : 16
    Join date : 2017-07-29
    Age : 24
    Location : India

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  Sprut-B on Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:26 pm

    Funny how the author has jumped from military analysis to a CNN propagandist.

    "Which means that Russia has killed a vast number of civilians in Syria, and unfortunately many of these deaths can be classified as intentional. According to a report published by airwars.org titled ‘A Reckless Disregard for Civilian Lives’ which only looked at the first three months of Russian air combat missions in Syria in late 2015 found Russia had been responsible for as many as 1,450 non-combatant deaths and while Russian and the American led coalition were carrying out a similar number of combat missions, civilian fatalities from Russian strikes were six times higher. Since the Russian mission in Syria began in September 2015 to February 2017, it is alleged by airwars.org that as many as 11,282 civilians have died from Russian bombs."
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2117
    Points : 2133
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:11 pm


    Everything about the Admiral Smoker BBQ saga is right bang on.
    The rest is sour grapes because Russia is actually winning the war in Syria, on the cheap.
    avatar
    Odin of Ossetia

    Posts : 196
    Points : 255
    Join date : 2015-07-03

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  Odin of Ossetia on Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:09 am

    ATLASCUB wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Hahahaha... Yeah the Davy Crockett... before you fired it you dug a trench because the max ballistic range of the missile was shorter than the minimum safe blast/radiation radius...

    Nuklэr mechanized infantry - NMI, is a special branch of the Russian army, under direct supervision of the president of Russia, formed in 2000 at the request of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, current acting president of Russia. The NMI engages in military nuclear combat on foot. As the troops who engage with the enemy in close-ranged combat, nuklэr units bear the largest brunt of warfare and typically suffer the greatest number of casualties during a military campaign.


    Korean People's Army might have such troops.

    They were recently shown during a military parade, but that was possibly a propaganda ploy?

    I do not rule out that they might have such troops for real.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5574
    Points : 5678
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:27 am

    Odin of Ossetia wrote:
    ATLASCUB wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Hahahaha... Yeah the Davy Crockett... before you fired it you dug a trench because the max ballistic range of the missile was shorter than the minimum safe blast/radiation radius...

    Nuklэr mechanized infantry - NMI, is a special branch of the Russian army, under direct supervision of the president of Russia, formed in 2000 at the request of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, current acting president of Russia. The NMI engages in military nuclear combat on foot. As the troops who engage with the enemy in close-ranged combat, nuklэr units bear the largest brunt of warfare and typically suffer the greatest number of casualties during a military campaign.


    Korean People's Army might have such troops.

    They were recently shown during a military parade, but that was possibly a propaganda ploy?

    I do not rule out that they might have such troops for real.

    Horrible human suffering notwithstanding, this is one of the reasons why I want to see Korea going hot (don't judge me...) Embarassed

    Sponsored content

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:19 pm