History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
state of russian military, post cold war
greatbrit
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Member Since: May 14, 2003
entire network: 2,127 Posts
KitMaker Network: 677 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 09:59 PM UTC
after hearing of the russian cruiser 'peter the great' having to be towed back to murmansk with reactor problems, i am interested in hearing your thoughts on the state of the modern russian military.

it seems to me that since the end of the cold war, the russian military has gone downhill rapidly. now crippled by lack of funding and maintenace, the army, navy and airforces of russia seem to be in a very sorry state.

this is the latest in a long list of accidents and problems suffered by the russians.

the kursk disaster, and now this seem to show a navy in disarray. they are using old, poorly maintained ships that could be out of action at any point.

for years russian armour and aircraft have lagged behind western designs in terms of technology and capability.

recent wars have demonstrated the ability of british and american weapons to destroy russian made armour before the are even seen. by this i am refering to the advanced fire control systems and optics used on abrams and chalengers etc.

the majority of the airforces planes and helicopters are grounded due to lack of maintenance and spares.

it seems that the russian armed forces would be completely unable to conduct sustained combat operations.

obviously the equipment would be more effective in well trained russian hands than say the iraqis, but it still seems they have serious problems

i hope this isnt viewed as a current events topic, as i am refering to the steady decline since the end of the cold war, not just whats happening now

cheers

joe
4-Eyes71
Visit this Community
Metro Manila, Philippines
Member Since: December 02, 2003
entire network: 424 Posts
KitMaker Network: 376 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 11:58 AM UTC
I think this was consistent of the political doctrine then. It's somewhat a carryover of the October and November Revolutions where numbers (and zeal) seem to matter more.

Russian weaponry seemed more utilitarian. AS long as it works, it shoots, it will do. They just need the manpower to run it.

Some, if not a lot of their weaponry is hype. They're not as mighty as they were advertised.

I think they were so intent in trying to outdo the west in military might, hence the massive buildup as a "deterrent" (yeah sure). against a possible invasion by the west.

But the trade off is quality. This is evidenced by the numerous accidents they had.
blaster76
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts
Posted: Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 06:32 AM UTC
Despite condition of some of their equipment, I don't feel they are a "toothless tiger". The need to project themselves as a world power has gone away, but I sure would not want a piece of them if I were conducting offensive operations on them while they are defending themselves. We in the military have always known that their equipment wasn't that great. Even in the 70's we were confident that despite their mass, we could punish them severely if they had decided to cross the IGB. In fact just from 77-80 while I was over there, we had a major change in tactics as we discovered just how inferior their equipment was.
sniper
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Member Since: May 07, 2002
entire network: 1,065 Posts
KitMaker Network: 497 Posts
Posted: Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 08:27 AM UTC
I worry more about their unconventional weapons, lots of nukes, chemical, and bio agents, that may get to the wrong people.

You still have many states with a very fractured military that is underpaid, undermaintained, and dealing with very scary conflicts such as Chechnya.

Steve
Ranger74
Visit this Community
Tennessee, United States
Member Since: April 04, 2002
entire network: 1,290 Posts
KitMaker Network: 480 Posts
Posted: Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 12:56 PM UTC
The old Soviet military was not as great as their leadership led the rest of the world to believe. They had, and still have no NCO corps, the basis of the quality of both the US and UK armies. Nothing could get done if there was not an officer to supervise and/or actually do the work themselves.

They would win on the same things they used in WW2, numbers and brute force. They discovered in Afghanistan that that is not good enough. The new Russian Army is not any better, maybe worse, because they are so much smaller. They have entire units of all services that can't get out of port, the hanger or the post. They can't even afford to recyle their old, obsolete equipment. Checnya has shown some major problems still exist.

Sniper is absolutely correct, all of those old nucs and chemical weapons need a close watch.
sniper
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Member Since: May 07, 2002
entire network: 1,065 Posts
KitMaker Network: 497 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 01:56 PM UTC
I think this is a really good questiona nd hope more peopel will jump in and shed some light on this!

Also, I'd like to try and find out more about the Chechnya situation.

Steve
4-Eyes71
Visit this Community
Metro Manila, Philippines
Member Since: December 02, 2003
entire network: 424 Posts
KitMaker Network: 376 Posts
Posted: Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 11:39 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The old Soviet military was not as great as their leadership led the rest of the world to believe. They had, and still have no NCO corps, the basis of the quality of both the US and UK armies. Nothing could get done if there was not an officer to supervise and/or actually do the work themselves.

They would win on the same things they used in WW2, numbers and brute force. They discovered in Afghanistan that that is not good enough. The new Russian Army is not any better, maybe worse, because they are so much smaller. They have entire units of all services that can't get out of port, the hanger or the post. They can't even afford to recyle their old, obsolete equipment. Checnya has shown some major problems still exist.

Sniper is absolutely correct, all of those old nucs and chemical weapons need a close watch.



Decades ago, the Chinese used to call the the US and its allies (the now-defunct SEATO) a Paper Tiger. But it seems it was the old Soviet forces that fits the role. More bark than bite.

Even though it may be fiction, Tom Clancy's stories should help make us stand up and take notice of such threats of lost/stolen WMD's.

Where's Jack Ryan and John Clark when ou need 'em? #:-)
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Member Since: December 08, 2003
entire network: 2,864 Posts
KitMaker Network: 171 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 02:44 PM UTC
I have to agree here. The Russian military going back to just after World War II became addicted to image over substance.

There are stories of troops being used to paint grass and leaves green for inspections, equipment being neglected for years, and the fact that spares were never purchased, just other vehicles cannibalized.

Aircraft was never flown, tanks never driven, just stock piled. Troops were never properly trained for "war-fighting" only how to look impressive in parade. Training that did occur was very skimpy (three live shells fired by tank crews in a training year) Then there was the rampant alcoholism. Like how the Mig-25 was called the "Milk Cow" because of its use of alcohol as a anti-freeze, how enterprising mechainics were skilled at using their anti-freeze and brake fluid as the basis of making moonshine rather than their intended purpose.

Now there are soldiers who sell their equipment, clothing, even weapons for food as the government cannot afford to feed them.
4-Eyes71
Visit this Community
Metro Manila, Philippines
Member Since: December 02, 2003
entire network: 424 Posts
KitMaker Network: 376 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 08:14 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I have to agree here. The Russian military going back to just after World War II became addicted to image over substance.

There are stories of troops being used to paint grass and leaves green for inspections, equipment being neglected for years, and the fact that spares were never purchased, just other vehicles cannibalized.

Aircraft was never flown, tanks never driven, just stock piled. Troops were never properly trained for "war-fighting" only how to look impressive in parade. Training that did occur was very skimpy (three live shells fired by tank crews in a training year) Then there was the rampant alcoholism. Like how the Mig-25 was called the "Milk Cow" because of its use of alcohol as a anti-freeze, how enterprising mechainics were skilled at using their anti-freeze and brake fluid as the basis of making moonshine rather than their intended purpose.

Now there are soldiers who sell their equipment, clothing, even weapons for food as the government cannot afford to feed them.



When I was little, I would watch those news releases of Russians parading their hardware in May Day (even pictures). It was so intimidating (I was naive back then). It kinda gave you an impression they were a force to be reckoned with. But in later years, it turns out they are the real paper tiger.

As for the last one, it makes you wonder why several of them defected to the west. Even though the Soviet Union is no more, they still won't come back.

It seemed Lenin's vision backfired. The Soviets spent too much on their military that in the process it impoverished its own people.

I did not mention this before, there's also this "automatic loader" in their MBT's. I dunno what they were thinking. While it may look cool, they're not worth a damn in battle since loading is slower compared to manual hand-loading by a skilled loader. This negates the capability of their MBT's.
mikeli125
Visit this Community
England - North West, United Kingdom
Member Since: December 24, 2002
entire network: 2,595 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,079 Posts
Posted: Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 09:32 PM UTC

Quoted Text


There are stories of troops being used to paint grass and leaves green for inspections, equipment being neglected for years, and the fact that spares were never purchased, just other vehicles cannibalized.



This is not only happening in Russia but also in the British armed forces AH-64's being
mothballed due to not enough trained pilots, chinooks which cant be used as they cant
fly in cloudy weather and no one knows how to fix the problems of the avionics, AVF's
that were cannibalized so that others could be sent to the gulf, minimum levels of
uniform if you unit exceeds is monthly allocation of certain items you cant exchange
your ripped pants till the following month or theres none in your size,

As for painting grass and stuff thats an old army trick too! there is a saying
that the queen must think the world smells of freash paint been known for grass
patches were boxes have been on to be painted over,

4-eyes71,
its not just the missing warheads/wmd you have to think about
there are around 500 missing x-ray machines which have gone
missing from the former soveit union and around the world these
have been "lost" without trace now the radio active material from
them can be extracted and used to make dirty bombs.
A few years ago there was a bit of lasion between the Russian forces
and Britain as they wanted a smaller army and modelled on the way
our army recruits staff, I also thougght that the autoloaders in the tanks
had a habbit of pulling in crew as well





GunNut
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Member Since: May 18, 2004
entire network: 61 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 05:23 PM UTC

Quoted Text


as for the comments about russian tactics being the human wave covering and encircling the enemy, yes it is a standard tactic and yes it did fail in Afganistan but then again modern technology failed in Vietnam.... Laser Guided Bomb LGB's or PGB's were used there and they didn't do any good.



I would have to disagree on this one. US hardware (and British hardware for that matter) performed well in VietNam, after all, the military did not lose one single engagement larger than squad level and almost all old, new and emerging technologies performed well and as designed when employed in their intended manner. Keep in mind that even after Tet 68 the VC had all but been wiped off the face of the planet, and what was left was NVA and those reinforcing them. What kept the war in a crappy state was the politicians and micromanagement. Politicians deciding to use technology in ways it was never designed to be used made a lot of perfectly good weaponry look like a dog. The Sheridan light tank for example. Performed like crap in Nam because it wasn't designed to be a jungle buster and anti-personell vehicle. In Desert Storm 91 it performed wonderfully. The missile system it was designed around was a legitimate bomb (no pun intended) so maybe thats not a good example.

The Soviets stuff is indeed very utilitarian and that is a plus. Consider also the sheer volume of 'stuff' they had, so much is languishing, but there is still a substantial amount of hardware in operationally good condition. It is a sad state though to see so much of their hardware rusting in port (like the many subs listing ghostlike like cordwood) or fading under the sun on the runway.


Quoted Text


At the end of the day its not just the machinery of war but those who use it and know how to extract the most from it that win, not who has the most buttons to press or the largest number of troops!



I agree 100% on this. Any foe can be taken on with a determined and dedicated enemy. The tactics employed that are developed in the old fashioned Mark One Brain are the most potent weapons of war.