Russia vs US Military and Economy and this forum isn't fair...

TheGeorgian wrote:
All i see is excuses and more excuses for Georgia doing badly. Instead of recognizing Russian army capabilities ,they resort to tons
of excuses ,when in reality Georgia air defenses ,

logistics ,training and tactics

where all provided by NATO.

You guys simply talk some random fairy tales while I have already explained that those things absolutly didn't matter or exist. Most of AA was of Soviet origin btw and not provided by NATO but Ukraine. Logistics was not provided by NATO, what kind of BS is that supposed to be ? are you talking about those US aircraft transporting soaps and humanitarian aid ? even if so, that was not during the war. Just in case you say "those humanitarian aid were in reality hundreds of Abrams tanks".

Let me tell you ,that one of the things that totally blinded Georgian air defenses were Russian electronic Countermeasures....
According to Russian pilots they were very impressed with the performance of SU-34 in Georgia and worked as it was intended.

it's good to see that Russians stop claiming that only old Su-24/25 was involved. There was quite some heavy air presense despite partialy succesful AA defense. Pretty much all of Georgia's strategicaly valuable radar stations, comm centers and other military infrastructure was hit or destroyed by the Russian airforce. Half of the aircraft lost were due to friendly fire. So Georgian AA domination is a myth, as painfuly hard as the Russian side tries to claim the opposite. Soviet Buk shot down an old Tu-22 and that was because the pilot reportedly made the decision to fly significantly below usual operational height. Also those Buk systems were manned by Ukrainians. So not even that was something Georgian. it's like trying to desperately search for any kind of evidences of total Russian military superiority in the world in a small conflict that had the opposing side pretty much defeat itself by it's own incompetence and lacking warfare capabilities. The weakest military in the entire region.

Sure, today I can easily say that the Russian army has improved itself over those 5 years, that most shortcomings were eliminated and everyone on the planet should think twice before engaging in a war with you. But taking 888 as an example for Russian military superiority in that period is like the same with US bragging how they defeated Talib military in the first week in 2001.

Also Iskander missiles according with Russia helped in a big way to Rout Georgians forces..

Half of those missiles didn't even reach their target destination. There even some pictures.

Without all respect dude ,I do not understand how you were expecting to win

Nobody except Saakashvili did on this planet. This war shouldn't have happened in first place.

Georgia losing to Russia easily should be no surprise

Of course it was not, that's what I am trying to explain here, but some people stick to their pathethic propaganda BS like if they didn't knew any better. Maybe they don't. That's why they should also listen to the ones who know better about their own state than they themselves do about others.

magnumcromagnon wrote:"The Russian military has never proven itself against a worthy opponent" lmao is he serious?!?! It's like he never heard of the Russian military victories over Hitler and the fascist axis of WW2, Napoleon, the Central Axis of WW1, the Ottoman Empire, or that the Russian military successfully held off the British, French and Ottoman Empire simultaneously in the Crimean War, and handed defeats towards the U.S. military in proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam. If the Russian military hasn't proven itself in war, than no other countries military deserves to be considered "proven".

Really ? you guys playing the dumb ones on purpose ? It was more than just obvious that I was referring to the more recent engagements in history, not WW1-2, Russian Empire or Kievan Rus .... why don't you go back to stone age ?

You want it repeated what I said ?? this is what I said:

So far the Russian army hasn't really proven itself

and this is what you claim I have said:

The Russian military has never proven itself against a worthy opponent

Still wanna play the dumb one ? this is so pathetic and tells so many things ....

Besides that I have studied Napoleonic Wars, so I don't need someone teaching me anything about it. Thank you.

Ok, stop with that proxy war nonsense. Who is the delusioned one here ? US had North Korea overrun in no time when the North was invading the South but the Chinese beat them back when they suddenly attacked out of nowhere, and if that was a total loss all of Korea would have been overrun by Chinese, but it ended in a stalemate because not even with such great numbers the Chinese were able to get further than the DMZ because of US air superiority. Get your damn facts straight.

I am not disqualifying Russian military achievments of the past. In fact there were quite some remarkable victories. Yet I will obviously not approve any wars like 1921 between Russians and Georgians. So get back to topic please ?

You try to rephrase and twist everything I say like there were only idiots here. I neither claim total NATO superiority but you guys can't swallow there is also no total Russian superiority. Bite me.
I didn't claim US has fought against worthy opponents the last years or decades but I just pointed out that Russia didn't and proxy wars don't prove a shit to me. Everyone can arm and support a side. Even Germany would be able to win a proxy war if it was only about arming, supplying and supporting. I am solely referring to the real deal. So stop talking nonsense and make yourself look silly as if you didn't understand what I am saying. I really want to talk to grown people damnit.

TheGeorgian wrote:Spyder was rarely or not used at all, most likely because of lack of experienced crew.

Spyder was used in war. Here is a video of part of Python missile from Spyder in South Ossetia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?fmt=18&v=k_OjzEzLzsg&hl=en-GB&gl=AU

TheGeorgian wrote:Those radar and satellites were used by NATO in first place, not Georgia.

Of course, because they are NATO radars and satellites. But Georgia have for this war real time access to radar and satellite picture and to GPS.

TheGeorgian wrote:None of what you mentioned above had any significance in fighting against Russian forces, except of GROM missiles which damaged some Su-25s.

It seems you don't understand, what significance communications, C3I, ELINT, radar and satellite pictures, etc for military operations have.

TheGeorgian wrote:Georgian T-72Sim presense in SO was rendered totaly useless because of lacking tactics and missing collaboration between tanks, infantry and surveilance.

as I've already mentioned above, that neither made a big difference, nor did the Georgian tank presence play any decicive role in that conflict. It's only role was sadly reduced to taking the most unnecesarry and humiliating losses

All Georgia T-72SIM tanks were operational. Do you know, that GPS, Israeli FCS with thermal imager, Israeli communication complex and C3I build in T-72SIM were far more expensive than whole T-72 tank? They were build inside to improve fire capabilities, specially for bad weather and night time comparing with non modernized tanks Russian army have, They build western communications and C3I inside exactly for coordination and collaboration between tanks, infantry, surveillance and command, that they all have clear situation picture in front of them and for target delivery. This is a basis of NATO doctrine. Georgian army was trained with US and Israeli instructors specially for using communications and C3I. Georgian T-72 SIM presence was noe useless, it was a core element of military operation.

TheGeorgian wrote:Yes Israelis provided training, but those were either limited or unfinished. I've once read a report from one of those israeli specialists you mentioned and he said he knew GAF was aboout to be send into war just hours before it started and they were anything but ready to fight. Also US instructors said the exact same thing. It's just a fact. They were not prepared and trained for a full scale combined military operation, because that's not what they were training them in. Most of the manouvres I saw left me always wondering how they think they gonna beat anyone with such utopia like scenarios. A blind man without having ever heard of war would have seen that. They had no chance.

They were all trained to use their Harris communication gear and C3I they got. UAV and ELINT operators also know well how to operate their equipment. All other is the same in all armies and Georgian officers for sure know the basics of military operations. Nothing new. With C3I Georgian command could far easily command and control their units, deliver them targets and give them wider real time situation picture, which could they see from their positions.

TheGeorgian wrote:Russians managed to break down communications very early and most of the commands from Georgian side were made via open traffic cell phones, which the Russian side was able to intercept without much effort.

Do you understand, what you tell in this sentence? With these words you break backbone of NATO military doctrine and the core of NATO military capabilities. If this is true, NATO have no chance in war against Russia. Georgia was equipped with modern NATO communications, mostly US Harris gear, the same as my country use. Georgia use NATO type C3I with access to NATO radar picture and Satellite picture. They were all modern, digital and protected. If Russian army with their old equipment managed to break your NATO communications and C3I network from the beginning, than NATO is in big trouble. Their doctrine and strategy base on them. Their command structure and units formation base on them. NATO military operation base on them. Georgian army was the same as NATO base on them in their command structure, units formation and military operation was planned based on them. Breaking of communications and C3I means NATO doctrine and strategy is broken and the battle is lost.

This is the difference between NATO and Russian military. Old Russian communications were often jammed and broken in their military operations, but they still were able to effectively finish their operations although with more difficulties.

medo wrote:
This is the difference between NATO and Russian military. Old Russian communications were often jammed and broken in their military operations, but they still were able to effectively finish their operations although with more difficulties.

Interesting point medo, can you clarify what you mean, and tell us what the difference was/is between Russia and NATO comm. methods, not to mention the pros and cons between them?   

Half of Iskanders did not reach their target?


What nonsense is this? They deployed their canister payload, the rest of the missle crashes wherever.
There is a lot of nonsense about 888 war here, when I have time I will respond in depth.

AlfaT8 wrote:

medo wrote:
This is the difference between NATO and Russian military. Old Russian communications were often jammed and broken in their military operations, but they still were able to effectively finish their operations although with more difficulties.

Interesting point medo, can you clarify what you mean, and tell us what the difference was/is between Russia and NATO comm. methods, not to mention the pros and cons between them?   

For NATO, their doctrine is based on secure communications and C4ISR for real time exchange of informations, situation pictures, commands, etc. For sure many old school officers also use map and paper for back up, but what about young ones? They always have radios with them, GPS and laptops for C4I.

Russian army doctrine was always concepted for fighting a war against superior enemy. They know well, that their communications are not 100% secure and always make a back up plan and communication structure. They for sure still use papers and maps, specially for time of radio silence, so every officer know his task although communications broke and use kurirs for changes. Crimea operation was good example, because NATO didn't intercept anything significant that could alert on it. They also use C4ISR and digital communications as NATO, but have reserve back up for any case.

Spyder was used in war. Here is a video of part of Python missile from Spyder in South Ossetia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?fmt=18&v=k_OjzEzLzsg&hl=en-GB&gl=AU

It's a fact that this system was fresh and there were no experienced crews to mann them. What exactly does single missile prove ? that it got fired ? okay sure. But else ? afaik most Russian aircraft got hit by manpads and the ones that got downed by Buks, just 3 of them. Another 3 were shot down by friendly fire.

Of course, because they are NATO radars and satellites. But Georgia have for this war real time access to radar and satellite picture and to GPS.

assumptions

I

t seems you don't understand, what significance communications, C3I, ELINT, radar and satellite pictures, etc for military operations have.

again, you assume that we had all access to that which is highly doubtful considering the state of the GAF in 2008, almost absurd.

All Georgia T-72SIM tanks were operational.

and ? you people seem to believe that most Georgian tanks were Sim-1s. Most are T-72B and a good portion of them was still not operational since their delivery, even after upgrade. Best example is the 18-25 tanks with broken engine in the Senaki army base that the Russians captured. GAF couldn't safe them because they were not able to move them or transport them out in time, also because of lack of engineering vehicles. There are only a couple for the entire army.

Do you know, that GPS, Israeli FCS with thermal imager, Israeli communication complex and C3I build in T-72SIM were far more expensive than whole T-72 tank? They were build inside to improve fire capabilities, specially for bad weather and night time comparing with non modernized tanks Russian army have, They build western communications and C3I inside exactly for coordination and collaboration between tanks, infantry, surveillance and command, that they all have clear situation picture in front of them and for target delivery. This is a basis of NATO doctrine. Georgian army was trained with US and Israeli instructors specially for using communications and C3I. Georgian T-72 SIM presence was noe useless, it was a core element of military operation.

and yet again you mix up "what is possible" and "NATO and their doctrine" with "what was and what did actualy happen" .... which have absolutly no connection. You don't understand. Those capabilities exist, NATO etc and it's true about SIM-1 too. It's superior to some older non-upgraded Russian T-72 variants. But there virtualy was no basic military doctrine. Where did you see NATO military doctrine when watching the combat footage ? there was no NATO military doctrine in 2008. NATO troops don't happily walk into a besieged city having no combat awareness and a badly trained, inexperienced military. Again you ignore what I say. The fact that GAF was not trained, nor prepared for large scale military operations and I already explained it in the previous posts. There was no collaboration between tank units and infantry. Soldiers admit it themselves. Most of the time, tanks operated on their own and that's why some of them were easy targets for gasoline tank ambushes, 12 rounds of RPG in one case and the infamous two burned tanks. When one of them got hit on the street, instead of sending infantry support, another tank came to aid and it got hit as well ..... that means there was no coordination at all despite your assumptions that those harris communication systems were "consequently used". No, they were not. That is probably what you can assume about today's state of GAF. Yes sure. In that case, that's realistic. Seeing what happened in 2008 and reading all the reports, it's simply absurd and overblown PR.

They were all trained to use their Harris communication gear and C3I they got. UAV and ELINT operators also know well how to operate their equipment. All other is the same in all armies and Georgian officers for sure know the basics of military operations. Nothing new. With C3I Georgian command could far easily command and control their units, deliver them targets and give them wider real time situation picture, which could they see from their positions.

and that is the problem with you people. You assume only .... based on wild guesses and assumptions, claims of some military analysts who only know the GAF possesses some of those items, systems and capabilities. Yet you ignore their non-effectiveness because of lacking usage, know-how and experience. Most of the command structure was not existent because the operations were mainly coordinated by party members. Having such capabilities doesn't make an army instantly qualified. You seem not to understand what is necessary for a qualified standing military force. Sure basic command structure squad to platoon based existed, but then again. What quality can it be when there is no basic awareness for combat situatoins to begin with .... ?

Do you understand, what you tell in this sentence? With these words you break backbone of NATO military doctrine and the core of NATO military capabilities.

No. Because NATO is not GAF in 2008. GAF received basic infantry training with ill quality and that's it. Sure keep assuming and believing some wild nonsense. If what you believe was only remotely true, Russia would have easily taken out NATO in just a matter of days a long time ago. Be glad your commanders know better and don't lead your country into a massacre.

This is the difference between NATO and Russian military. Old Russian communications were often jammed and broken in their military operations, but they still were able to effectively finish their operations although with more difficulties.

This is a joke right ? .... you are so blindly prejudiced by your own propaganda that you believe other militaries will simply die in incompentency in the same circumstances .....

medo wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

medo wrote:
This is the difference between NATO and Russian military. Old Russian communications were often jammed and broken in their military operations, but they still were able to effectively finish their operations although with more difficulties.

Interesting point medo, can you clarify what you mean, and tell us what the difference was/is between Russia and NATO comm. methods, not to mention the pros and cons between them?   

For NATO, their doctrine is based on secure communications and C4ISR for real time exchange of informations, situation pictures, commands, etc. For sure many old school officers also use map and paper for back up, but what about young ones? They always have radios with them, GPS and laptops for C4I.

i really do not know why some people here are praising NATO C&C towards the stars. in Afghanistan we lost like 80% of our sattelite uplinks during bad sun-spot activity just to point out one blunder in depending on high-tech real time information for tactical decision making. the only way the U.S maintains Drone Control in Pakistan and Afghanistan is because of powerfull ground transmitters located at important airbases currently in Afghanistan itself during such disruptions in the Millitary Sattelite Network. GPS's are far from holy information either, we all know the story's of some car's TomTom sending some driver off the road and into the river. thats not because the TomTom is at fault but because the GPS systems are way beyond reliable and can get serious interferrence from stellar-activity. JDAM's miss their targets all the time ranging from a few meters way out to like 400 meters depending on solar conditions. and this is all without proffesional ground-side jamming mind you.. and BMS is a joke as well. (Battlefield Management System). this may sound like some armchair-generals wet-dream to get real-time intell on the battlefield. but in fact the system is more a liability than its worth. capture one of the laptops/vehicle's in combat and you get direct acces to all of the enemy's troop locations and what they know about you.

NATO is absolutely naive and arrogant to have implemented this technology. its like it never crossed their mind it could end up in the hands of the enemy and have their own systems they depend on so much being used against them. with old-fashioned radio traffic the commander's on the field know eachother and how they act and sound on the radio, not to mention the information they memorised about the mission at hand. NATO's BMS puts that all in the hands of automated computers in vehicles on laptops that never "question" the legality of battlefield information received or send to "questionable" receivers. the computers just send and receive battlefield info towards eachother without any human input whatsoever.

Current contingency protocols to prevent this are not good enough either, it takes one hour to do a full radio/computer encryption purge and Reset of a full BMS System (Computers and Radio's). and it propably takes the enemy 10 minutes on a working captured BMS computer to feed all the co-ordinates and information trough low-tech means like a map, FM radio or even screenshotting the BMS map with a cellphone to their own C&C.



ever since communication gear got implemented in warfare one fundamental rule applies, the more you send/receive. the bigger the risk of compromise. NATO likes to boast they get the best the money can buy. sure,....if you call bombing the shit out of some third world country it surely gets the job done right.

its the problem of NATO officers nowadays, too much expensive toys and too little intuition and not getting taught "the basics" of it first. the current NATO officers are amateurs, the ones that knew what they where doing are long gone out of service.

Hannibal Barca wrote:Russia CAN beat USA everywhere in land. If they can somehow land in Mexico can conquer US as well.
And stop using the term NATO is a joke. It's US only, their puppets OBVIOUSLY chicken out, they are not here to fight for US only because their leaders being paid heavily
and some idiots (like you?) cheering with empty stomach, sad.

No guys.... THIS IS STUPIDITY!!

Flyingdutchman wrote:

Hannibal Barca wrote:Russia CAN beat USA everywhere in land. If they can somehow land in Mexico can conquer US as well.
And stop using the term NATO is a joke. It's US only, their puppets OBVIOUSLY chicken out, they are not here to fight for US only because their leaders being paid heavily
and some idiots (like you?) cheering with empty stomach, sad.

No guys.... THIS IS STUPIDITY!!

In one point he is absolutley right, NATO is nothing, it is only the US, take US out of NATO and it just a bunch of countries and most of them are even incapable to defend their own country.

TheGeorgian wrote:

TR1 wrote:at least I am

I am referring only to the ones who demand and believe in that.

Ukraine's military sucks.

Yes I do agree. But what I believe is that you assume a classic style war between two nations. That won't be the case in this crisis. The Russian airforce won't be simply able to bomb raid Ukraine back to stone age in case of war. If Russia considers that, NATO might as well consider to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine. What are they gonna do then ? shoot short range ballistic missiles into Ukrainian cities ?

What will happen in any case is that Ukraine will be flooded with funds and weapons and other tons of support to fight a Russian force deployed there. It won't be only what is left of the Ukrainian military fighting but up to a million+ people who can get easily armed and constantly supplied from all directions. Not that Ukraine isn't allready full with weapons. How much of troops would the Russians need to deploy in order to win such a war ? it would drain all the resources and weaken the Russian military without NATO even getting a scratch. All the job would be done by Ukrainians and mercenaries and volunteers. The loss on NATO side will be a few aircraft and a few hundred million USD. On Russian side the losses will be a lot of troops, vehicles, aircraft and billions of USD. Apart of that, Ukraine will loose it's entire infrastructure. Everyone will be asking himself if it really was worth it. Was it ? NO.

A lot of you guys are just too blind to see that THAT is exactly what NATO wants. Entangling the Russian army into another blood draining guerilla war. Don't believe it and keep up the illusions about unbeatable Russian army. Keep them hates coming.

Kremlin will only sharpen it's rhetorics towards EU, show it won't bow to US/EU demands and what Rasmussen keeps barking but it won't even think about risking such a costly war, not with so much at stake. Putin's too smart at that and I can imagine how many hardliners do actualy urge him to take action.

Maybe you should rethink in a deeper way than the typical naive american mentality you using here in the assumption that a midget that see itself as a giant OUSA, you see your land has no name in case you missed it, will keep destroying nations and not pay the price. In this case you speaking about why are you with the impression that ousa will not be hit directly?

And it will cost you much more than a pint of blood and a some meat this time and it will be global reaction. Let us see how now your $ worthless paper that none want any more how it will internationally support your war machine. You are about to have your ass-wipe boy sooner than you think. new year will be a very bad year for ousa, that it will make 1925 - 1933 look like a walk in a rose garden.

Tik Tak.