Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Military Reform

    Share
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  Mike E on Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:02 pm

    GarryB wrote:Armata is not a tank... it is a heavy tracked vehicle platform upon which all the vehicles in a heavy brigade will be based upon.

    There will be Armata based MBT, Armata based IFV, Armata based command vehicle.... etc etc.

    Every vehicle in a heavy brigade will be armata based and will have similar mobility and protection.

    There wont be armata MBTs in every unit... only heavy units, which will not be optimised for sweeping across Europe to the English channel. It will be optimised for very difficult fighting in built up areas against enemies well equipped with anti armour support.

    The logistic chain for the heavy brigade will only carry parts and spares for armata vehicles.

    Medium tracked brigades will be kurganets based with kurganets based MBTs and IFVs and command vehicles etc.

    The station design within all the vehicles will be unified and standardised so a soldier trained on an Armata MBT will have the same controls and sensors and weapons as the soldier in the Boomerang MBT. The electronics, sensors and weapons will be standardised where possible though within reason.

    I rather suspect the heavy and medium tracked and the medium wheeled MBTs could have a 125mm gun, but the Typhoon might have a high velocity 57mm gun as used on the heavier vehicles IFVs.

    Equally I suspect the artillery support vehicle for the lighter units will be 120mm rifled gun/mortar, while the heavy brigade would use the 152mm Coalition...
    I simply can't wait...

    It will be nice to finally see an organized vehicle selection in the Russian inventory.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:12 am

    We have already discussed most of this to death on several threads... very simply, the Russian tank producer was busy putting the finishing touches on the T-95 when the Russian military sprang the idea of unified families of vehicles on them.

    The unified families are Armata (heavy tracked), Kurganets (Medium tracked), Boomerang (Medium Wheeled), Typhoon (light wheeled). For a brief period Typhoon was called Kangaroo, but was still a light wheeled vehicle family.

    Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon/Kangaroo are vehicle bases and a brigade would consist of one vehicle family type to increase mobility (all vehicles have the same engine and basic mobility) same levels of protection, and same logistics support chain.

    When the lead units of a Boomerang brigade get to a river they just find a suitable entry point and swim across. When Armata units come to a river they find a good crossing point and snorkle across.

    Yes,but isn`t most of the project focused on the tank itself?Even in the case of T-55s and T-72s,when only the tanks were developed,soon APC versions followed,with some artillery using some T-72 parts as well.What I`m trying to say is that even though this project is called a `platform`,in cases when only tanks were developed on the start,other vehicles like APCs soon followed.

    No.

    Experience showed in Chechnia that if the APCs and IFVs can't operate with tanks and tanks can't operate without APCS and IFVs then when a real MBT is needed then everyone should have that level of protection.

    The reality is that most of the time in most operations a MBT is massive overkill and a lighter cheaper vehicle would be better suited to the job.

    An example is that the Armata will have two basic models... one with the engine at the rear for MBTs etc, and one with the engine at the front for APC and IFV type vehicles...

    Regarding my first question,I just wanted to say that making a vehicle,like for example Coalition SPG,and then making it on three platforms (Armata,Boomerang and Kurganets) will surely cost more and make some delays.For example,you made a SPG on a truck.Everything is balanced and fine,but you want to get it on a tank hull so that it can follow tanks.Well,you will surely need to do a lot of work to get the hull and the gun itself to work properly.

    Coalition was developed with the Russian Navy and will be a standard naval weapon... likely fitted to destroyers and larger vessels. Having a cheaper lighter version that is truck based makes a lot of sense, though with its range it might be attached to medium and light brigades rather than operate as an organic part of them.

    I think that the idea of 3 brigades made for each task is pretty good,but it requires a lot of vehicles developed and a lot of money spent,and we know where the money supposed for the troops ended (in someone`s pocket it seems).

    I disagree, I think unifying the electronics and sensors and armament of the brigades makes enormous sense and will lead to a much more mobile more responsive force... don't think of Typhoon 10 ton class wheeled vehicles replacing MBTs in a unit... the previous structure would have had obsolete old T-55s for that role with nothing like the APS systems and modern communications and optics fitted to the Typhoon gun fire support vehicle.... and instead of having for 6 months to supply the unit and get its manning up to an operational level it will be ready to go in less than one hours notice.


    _________________
    “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

    GuyFromSerbia

    Posts : 49
    Points : 50
    Join date : 2014-09-16

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  GuyFromSerbia on Thu Sep 18, 2014 1:42 pm

    No.Experience showed in Chechnia that if the APCs and IFVs can't operate with tanks and tanks can't operate without APCS and IFVs then when a real MBT is needed then everyone should have that level of protection.The reality is that most of the time in most operations a MBT is massive overkill and a lighter cheaper vehicle would be better suited to the job.An example is that the Armata will have two basic models... one with the engine at the rear for MBTs etc, and one with the engine at the front for APC and IFV type vehicles...

    I don`t think you understand me.What I`m trying to say is that the Russians could have just developed the T-95 and then make APCs and other vehicles based on it.But yes,this way it will be a lot easier,as the whole idea starts with one platform,on which more vehicles can be made (If they made the T-95,they would have to rearrange the inner space and some parts for the APC version).

    I disagree, I think unifying the electronics and sensors and armament of the brigades makes enormous sense and will lead to a much more mobile more responsive force... don't think of Typhoon 10 ton class wheeled vehicles replacing MBTs in a unit... the previous structure would have had obsolete old T-55s for that role with nothing like the APS systems and modern communications and optics fitted to the Typhoon gun fire support vehicle.... and instead of having for 6 months to supply the unit and get its manning up to an operational level it will be ready to go in less than one hours notice.

    As far as I know T-55s and T-64s left the army long ago,T-62s have recently been scrapped,and T-80s will soon follow.Russian BMPs heavy guns exactly made to support light troops against heavy armor.What I`m trying to say is that brigade system is basicly like 3 armies.Other countries just have one simple system.

    USA:2 types of forces:M1+Bradley
    Stryker
    Russia:3 types:Armata Tank+Armata APC+Heavy tracked vehicles
    Kurganets-25+Boomerang+Medium tracked vehicles or wheeled vehicles
    Boomerang+Typhoon+Light wheeled vehicles

    Surely,these kind of forces will improve the fighting capabilites.However,the cost will probably be higher compared other countries,which rely on one ground brigade scheme with a lot of support.I just fear Russia won`t be able to handle the amount of money spent on this scheme.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 20, 2014 6:32 am

    I don`t think you understand me.What I`m trying to say is that the Russians could have just developed the T-95 and then make APCs and other vehicles based on it.But yes,this way it will be a lot easier,as the whole idea starts with one platform,on which more vehicles can be made (If they made the T-95,they would have to rearrange the inner space and some parts for the APC version).

    They didn't want upgrades or modifications.

    They want a family of vehicles to perform all the necessary roles within a Brigade.

    Some in the west seem to think Armata will be a tank (MBT), while Kurganets will be a BMP (IFV), and of course the Boomerang will be a BTR (APC) and the Typhoon will be a BRDM (wheeled armoured scout car).

    Each vehicle type will be a complete family of vehicles, though their weights might create limitations and changes in weaponry... for instance I don't think the Tyhpoon MBT/gun platform will be heavy enough to carry a 125mm smoothbore so I think it might have a 57mm gun and long range Kornet missiles as fitted to the IFV of the other vehicle families. (note the IFV needs a gun to penetrate the enemies equivalent vehicles so a 57mm gun and Kornet should be sufficient).

    Other countries just have one simple system.

    USA:2 types of forces:M1+Bradley
    Stryker

    M1 +Bradley is hardly a simple system... it has a range of vehicle types from Humvees through to M1s and probably 50 different vehicle types in between... they even have ancient M113s in service carrying TOW launchers.

    there will be four different Russian forces... heavy tracked (Armata), Medium tracked (Kurganets), Medium Wheeled (Boomerang), and light wheeled (Typhoon).

    ALL will be highly mobile and very well armed and armoured, and all will have excellent support and recon assets.

    The choice of brigade for a given problem will be based on the mobility of each unit and the terrain and the type and disposition of the enemy.

    .However,the cost will probably be higher compared other countries,which rely on one ground brigade scheme with a lot of support.I just fear Russia won`t be able to handle the amount of money spent on this scheme.

    Actually the fact that only heavy brigades will actually have big heavy MBTs suggests to me they might be saving a lot of money.

    These Russian formations wont have less vehicles than western brigades, they will only have one type that is the basis for the whole unit.

    This means that a medium wheeled unit will be much cheaper to operate than any unit with tracklayers in it... in terms of fuel consumption and in terms of maintainence.

    the light wheeled unit will be even cheaper.

    With current vehicle choices the BMP was popular for its firepower and better armour than the BTRs, but with Kurganets and Boomerang having similar levels of protection and fire power I think the vehicle of choice is going to change to the BTR for its speed and lower cost and its better mobility in urban areas.


    _________________
    “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

    GuyFromSerbia

    Posts : 49
    Points : 50
    Join date : 2014-09-16

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  GuyFromSerbia on Sat Sep 20, 2014 1:07 pm

    Oh,thanks for explaining that to me!
    M1 +Bradley is hardly a simple system... it has a range of vehicle types from Humvees through to M1s and probably 50 different vehicle types in between... they even have ancient M113s in service carrying TOW launchers.

    Oh,I didn`t know.Sorry.From all this time I thought that M113s were in reserve and doing minor roles.Sending them to combat is a death trap for the people inside,unless they are protected by other vehicles.

    Actually the fact that only heavy brigades will actually have big heavy MBTs suggests to me they might be saving a lot of money.

    I hope that what you are sayins it true and that Russians did calculate the costs and found out that they will save money.

    By the way,can you answer my questions please,we kinda got off topic here.I asked some other questions too,I hope you have the answers Smile lol!

    1.I am one of the editors of the List of equipment of the Russian ground forces (wikipedia page).I need some help.Warfare.be website is down,and me and my friend from Australia took it as one of the only good sources for the number of the vehicles.If you can,please suggest a new website,mainly regarding the number of the vehicles in Russian ground troops.Also,please check if we listed all the equipment used,I`m sure there are some more rare trucks and small arms.
    2.Regarding the future vehicles of the Russian army,I`m not sure about the codename TYPHOON.As I see,it is a name used both by the Kamaz and Ural factories.Also,what happened to Triumf?
    3.As I see,the new MoD didn`t like the reforms made by Serdykov,so he changed some formations.For example,some brigades were again made into divisions,and some divisons were not seperated into brigades.Won`t this hurt the new plan of the three brigade versions?
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  higurashihougi on Sat Sep 20, 2014 3:14 pm

    GuyFromSerbia wrote:
    Oh,I didn`t know.Sorry.From all this time I thought that M113s were in reserve and doing minor roles.Sending them to combat is a death trap for the people inside,unless they are protected by other vehicles.

    Off topic a bit but the M113 is still used by the Vietnam's People Army and the PAVN still considers them as a quite effective AFV. In the Vietnam War, the PAVN considered M113 as a very easy target due to the weak armour, but it is ironic that the PAVN itself used it very successfully against the Khmer Rouge.

    Vietnam has asked Israel to upgrade the M113 with quite thick applique armor at the side and the front, but the project was abandoned due to cost-effectiveness concerns. (well if there is no choice we have to use sandbags...)

    GuyFromSerbia wrote:1.I am one of the editors of the List of equipment of the Russian ground forces (wikipedia page).I need some help.Warfare.be website is down,and me and my friend from Australia took it as one of the only good sources for the number of the vehicles.If you can,please suggest a new website,mainly regarding the number of the vehicles in Russian ground troops.Also,please check if we listed all the equipment used,I`m sure there are some more rare trucks and small arms.

    Can you find anything in the Russian Wikipedia ? From my experiences, surfing the ru.wiki with a bit Google Translate can help us to find several valuable sources, mostly will be in Russian. The Google translate is not accurate but it can help you to gasp the basic idea of the paragraph.

    GuyFromSerbia

    Posts : 49
    Points : 50
    Join date : 2014-09-16

    MoD reforms

    Post  GuyFromSerbia on Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:03 pm

    Good Idea.I`m sure that there is a lot more information on the Russian wiki.Thank you!

    GuyFromSerbia

    Posts : 49
    Points : 50
    Join date : 2014-09-16

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  GuyFromSerbia on Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:31 pm

    Why the new minister of defence cancelling all the reform plans?Instead of Russian Army being 100% mercenaries,now it`s half conscripts half mercs.And also,it`s half brigades half divisions.I have no idea what good can that system bring.Russian MoD should determine if Russia should have a big army for defence or a small army for attacks.I think that the old system,with the Ground Forces being the defence and VDV doing the special tasks was good on paper,but simply a lot of divisions were months away from being ready for combat.Maybe downsize the GFs,but keep the big formations,so that you would have a 100% ready force,but a big one?It all depends on what Russia wants.A war in Polannd and Scandinavia?Or a small conflict in Middle East?
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3148
    Points : 3271
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Russian Ground Forces ORBAT and Organization

    Post  kvs on Mon Sep 22, 2014 2:15 am

    GuyFromSerbia wrote:
    Why the new minister of defence cancelling all the reform plans?Instead of Russian Army being 100% mercenaries,now it`s half conscripts half mercs.And also,it`s half brigades half divisions.I have no idea what good can that system bring.Russian MoD should determine if Russia should have a big army for defence or a small army for attacks.I think that the old system,with the Ground Forces being the defence and VDV doing the special tasks was good on paper,but simply a lot of divisions were months away from being ready for combat.Maybe downsize the GFs,but keep the big formations,so that you would have a 100% ready force,but a big one?It all depends on what Russia wants.A war in Polannd and Scandinavia?Or a small conflict in Middle East?

    I think having conscripts is good for a country like Russia.   It has been surrounded by invading enemies for over 1000 years.    The population needs to have a basic level of military training.    People really are a bunch of whiners these days.    Even one year is a camping trip for most 20 year old males.   You would think they were all 70 years of age from all the resentment.   Military training of conscripts is also good for keeping the physical fitness level of the youth up.   But they prefer to get fat in front of their PC monitor while they play games and waste time in forums Smile
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2029
    Points : 2033
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  Regular on Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:42 am

    kvs wrote:
    I think having conscripts is good for a country like Russia.   It has been surrounded by invading enemies for over 1000 years.  
    Surrounded by attacking enemies... while Russia expanded like a fricking balloon and became biggest country on the face of Earth. Laughing
    Conscription is good. Having professional and conscript army is way to go.
    There is a reason why VDV is becoming fully professional force. Stop talking about mercenaries and all that crap people. Hell if You give an Oath You are serviceman, not mercenary. It's same work as firemen, medics and other gov workers do. You can't build house or sustain family with patriotism, You need money.
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  higurashihougi on Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:14 am

    Regular wrote:
    Surrounded by attacking enemies... while Russia expanded like a fricking balloon and became biggest country on the face of Earth.

    That overexpanded and overstretched territory of Russia is very vulnerable against land attack and put huge burden in logistics.

    GuyFromSerbia

    Posts : 49
    Points : 50
    Join date : 2014-09-16

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  GuyFromSerbia on Mon Sep 22, 2014 12:59 pm

    That overexpanded and overstretched territory of Russia is very vulnerable against land attack and put huge burden in logistics.

    No,because there is practically noone who would attack Russia from the East.There is simply nothing there.China?No way,China has good relations with Russia.

    There is a reason why VDV is becoming fully professional force. Stop talking about mercenaries and all that crap people. Hell if You give an Oath You are serviceman, not mercenary. It's same work as firemen, medics and other gov workers do. You can't build house or sustain family with patriotism, You need money.

    Sorry,I couldn`t really remember any other word used then ``mercenary``.I`ll call them professionals from now on.I don`t quite agree with the half conscript half pro force.I think that Russia should have 100% proffesional force,men being proud of serving the Motherland and earning money for it.Simply,nobody can attack Russia,if they ever reach Moscow nukes would go off.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5357
    Points : 5588
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:31 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:
    Regular wrote:
    Surrounded by attacking enemies... while Russia expanded like a fricking balloon and became biggest country on the face of Earth.

    That overexpanded and overstretched territory of Russia is very vulnerable against land attack and put huge burden in logistics.

    There is really nothing in the east that can be attacked by land and surely not by air. What they gonna hunt their? Saigas?
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2029
    Points : 2033
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  Regular on Mon Sep 22, 2014 3:35 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:
    Regular wrote:
    Surrounded by attacking enemies... while Russia expanded like a fricking balloon and became biggest country on the face of Earth.

    That overexpanded and overstretched territory of Russia is very vulnerable against land attack and put huge burden in logistics.
    Yes, but it also gives You more room for defence. And attacking enemy suffers from bigger logistical and attrition problems as well. Especially the deeper they go. And I would say east of Russia is fairly safe. But what I meant to say that Russia is not fluffy bunny. It has it share of  conquests. And they are quite impressive. Invasions against Russia were grand in size and they ended the same way.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3148
    Points : 3271
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  kvs on Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:27 am

    Most of Russia is just like Canada: land that cannot be farmed. Historically this was useless land. The French traded Canada away for a couple of sugar islands in the Caribbean when they had the chance to get it back from the British.

    Using the size of Russia to make an argument about its badness is simply ignorant.

    Don't forget that small countries like Portugal, Spain and Britain had large empires. But they lost them through indigenous rebellions. Russia got to keep its empire because it was composed of permafrost and swamp with very long winters and was sparsely settled by indigenous peoples.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:41 am

    Very true. Various regions in Russia cannot even have greenhouses due to any damage to soil can cause infrastructure problems if the permafrost melts.

    There are though, useless areas where they can build massive greenhouse complexes where a normal farm may not suffice due to sporadic weather effects. Also industrialize those areas while farming is in other areas.
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3246
    Points : 3352
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:21 pm

    Regular wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    I think having conscripts is good for a country like Russia.   It has been surrounded by invading enemies for over 1000 years.  
    Surrounded by attacking enemies... while Russia expanded like a fricking balloon and became biggest country on the face of Earth. Laughing
    Conscription is good. Having professional and conscript army is way to go.
    There is a reason why VDV is becoming fully professional force. Stop talking about mercenaries and all that crap people. Hell if You give an Oath You are serviceman, not mercenary. It's same work as firemen, medics and other gov workers do. You can't build  house or sustain family with patriotism, You need money.

    It's all those attacking countries we conquered back, that's how we became so big Cool
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10528
    Points : 11005
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  George1 on Wed Sep 24, 2014 10:25 pm

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    reform plans

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:53 pm



    And why is the new minister of defence cancelling all the reform plans?Instead of Russian Army being 100% mercenaries,now it`s half conscripts half mercs.And also,it`s half brigades half divisions.I have no idea what good can that system bring.Russian MoD should determine if Russia should have a big army for defence or a small army for attacks.I think that the old system,with the Ground Forces being the defence and VDV doing the special tasks was good on paper,but simply a lot of divisions were months away from being ready for combat.Maybe downsize the GFs,but keep the big formations,so that you would have a 100% ready force,but a big one?It all depends on what Russia wants.A war in Polannd and Scandinavia?Or a small conflict in Middle East?

    The future goal is a well equipped highly mobile very powerful military that is ready within hours for anything.

    Adjusting plans half way through a plan is called MANAGEMENT.

    Sorry for losing my rag but there are some whiny girl little fanboys that pop up every time there is a delay or a change in a plan to complain because the big plan has been changed and it has ruined their picnic.

    Don't be one of those whiny girls.

    Anyone with half a brain knows things dont just happen... you have to plan for them... and little things like making a frigate with all new weapons and technology and propulsion, or changing from conscription to an all professional force... you know thinks no one has done recently, need a plan. Now no one has done it recently so there is nobody to ask about a sensible time table or goals to test if things are going well or going bad.

    that means after certain intervals a good manager will look at progress and problems and issues and make changes to the plan to more realistic figures/timespans.

    For instance in 2010 when a time table for a new frigate was considered I rather doubt they expected the Ukraine would suddenly stop selling naval gas turbine engines... especially when no one else will buy them. this means any plans for a future Russian frigate also need to take into consideration any new propulsion system needed and when it can be mass produced... no point in having 10 Frigates with no engines in them.

    Anyway what I am saying is changing a plan, changing timetables, applying extra money here or there where needed is not a failure of the plan... the plan is not set in stone it is a guideline to make sure everything that needs to be done gets done at the right time.

    Not changing a deadline because a different date has already been released is the height of stupidity.

    rant over.


    _________________
    “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

    GuyFromSerbia

    Posts : 49
    Points : 50
    Join date : 2014-09-16

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  GuyFromSerbia on Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:28 pm

    I`m not whining about anything,I`m saying that Serdyukov did good reforms,trying to make the GF proffesional,a quick and a mobile force.What Shoygu is doing is backdoing them.A lot of divisions have been kept,instead of making them brigades.There are still recruits being conscripted.My opinion is that the new minister is not up to the job (just my opinion).
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5357
    Points : 5588
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:47 pm

    I think it would be a grave mistake to not use conscripts and stock up a countries reserve force of capable and trained personal, especially since this is russia and not some country that is not under constant thread of getting aggressions from abroad or 5th columnists within. Conscripts are a vital part for russia and should be always kept.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  TR1 on Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:31 pm

    GuyFromSerbia wrote:I`m not whining about anything,I`m saying that Serdyukov did good reforms,trying to make the GF proffesional,a quick and a mobile force.What Shoygu is doing is backdoing them.A lot of divisions have been kept,instead of making them brigades.There are still recruits being conscripted.My opinion is that the new minister is not up to the job (just my opinion).

    Serdykov was a thief.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3222
    Points : 3308
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  medo on Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:36 pm

    GuyFromSerbia wrote:I`m not whining about anything, I'm saying that Serdyukov did good reforms,trying to make the GF proffesional,a quick and a mobile force.What Shoygu is doing is backdoing them.A lot of divisions have been kept,instead of making them brigades.There are still recruits being conscripted.My opinion is that the new minister is not up to the job (just my opinion).

    Shoigu is doing, what is best for Russia in our times. Russia must have combined army with professional units for quick reaction operations and conscript army to defend the country in big war like WW3, which will become reality quite quickly if western madness will not stop and come to clear sense. There are brigades and there are divisions. They need them both. Shoigu is doing excellent work to repair big strategical mistakes of Serdyukov, which will cost Russia and Russian army a lot in big war. One strategical mistake of Serdyukov was placing whole RuAF in few big airbases, what increase chance, that RuAF is fully destroyed in the first strike. Shoigu repair this mistake to place RuAF in many smaller air bases, that they could easier survive the first strike, so they are repairing many airfields. Serdyukov also replace many army logistic and repair capabilities with civil contractors, what make army very vulnerable and Shoigu is repairing this mistake. How big were Serdyukov's mistakes we see now in time of sanctions.

    GuyFromSerbia

    Posts : 49
    Points : 50
    Join date : 2014-09-16

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  GuyFromSerbia on Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:07 pm

    Well,I don`t think that Russia in fact needs a large army.NATO is far from organized on such a scale to attack Russia.I think that Russia could easily use the smaller,professional formations to its advantage,as it could use tactics which are different from the usual ones,and would cause heavy losses to the unprepeared NATO soldiers (flanking,dropping airborne behind lines,hit and run,etc.).Once winter comes,I`m sure NATO would have a hard time supplying the forces with choppers,so...Russia doesn`t really need a large army for defence,it just needs an organized one.Divisions don`t mean that much.The new way of commading in the Russian army is:Military District-Operational Command-Brigade.That means Brigades,even though smaller,could hold large fronts thanks to a operational command,which would support the smaller brigades with all the necessary things quicker then the old system (Army Front-Army-Division-Brigade)

    Serdykov was a thief.

    Yes,but I believe his reforms improved the Russian Army.He DID make mistakes,but he reformed the army which had the same system since WW2 (more funds for the army,less for the air force and navy).I just don`t think that mixing stuff is good,it usually doesn`t work.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3222
    Points : 3308
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  medo on Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:26 pm

    Russia is not an island in the middle of the ocean. Russia is a large country bordering on many hostile regions. Having small professional army is a death sentence for Russia, because it doesn't have reserve and not big enough to cover so large territory. Professional quick reaction units are good for quick covering of gaps and to be quickly send to places where and when needed, but to defend a country you need conscript army with large reserve to mobilize.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Military Reform

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:48 am