I think you did a great job debunking that trash article, and putting the link if anyone wants to see.
Great post!
kvs wrote:Transition to a professional military force has been the policy for over 15 years. There is clear progress in this area and this article
sounds like the sort of fantasy drivel that is produced in Banderatard-land about the Kerch Strait bridge. That it will never will be built,
that it isn't really there and that it will fall apart before it can really be used...ad nauseam. Nobody in NATO has demonstrated any
proven case of failure in Russia in basically anything. All these articles are pure masturbatory delusional projection. Do these clowns
think it will become true if they write it?
He is talking about the Unarmy Patriotic Youth Organization. An organization sponsored by the Military for teenagers. Exists on different levels of involvement ranging from Boy Scouts /Girl Guide type to Military Cadet Corps.
Makarov420 wrote:Sorry ive been gone awhile. Is russian infantry troop strength really 350,000 infantry i feel that number is a bit flawed from what i read online. Vostock 2018 had 300,000 russian military personnel participate. with 25,000 in Crimea and between bases in armenia central asia vietnam and syria another 24,000 That means at vostock 2018 every single infantry was their and nothing was protecting anything else in the mainland except for the national guard which i find hard to believe. It seems to me the Russian ground forces must have stronger numbers pushing 400K or much more today in 2019. I know they were cut down to the bone back in 2010-2012 but some of these number just are not adding up . i know that you get extra numbers on the side for the air force and Navy ,but still Russia historically has always kept a significant troop count to their western flank . Please excuse me for my lack of knowledge. What exactly am i missing? are they trying to hide the real numbers for geopolitical reasons?
AlfaT8 wrote:Hello Gents, long time no posts.
Bin busy these last few months, and such.
But i recently ran into one of these MerikaStronk types and he asked some interesting questions, which i am having an incredibly hard time finding data on.
Soviet training and conscription and how inferior these conscripts were to the better trained Merikans and Euros, cant find much data here or the further career option these conscripts had after they are done serving their 2/3yr of conscription.
Also Soviet air-force strength circa 1970s to early 80s, according to him, the Mig-21 was the airforce's main aircraft up until the Fulcrum and the Flanker came to be.
Granted i know the Mig-23s and mig-25/31s were very much around during that time, but they were interceptors, not exactly fighters.
Apparently this guy was in the military at the time, and got this info from numerous classified briefings at the time.
Lack of spare parts, poor training.
The unreliability of the Warsaw pact nations to fight if things got hot.
Overall the Soviet Union was a negligible threat to the U.S and friends, and Germany alone could handle them today, if it weren't for the nukes.
I am am mostly looking for info about the conscripts and their career options right now.
Overall the Soviet Union was a negligible threat to the U.S and friends, and Germany alone could handle them today, if it weren't for the nukes.
I am am mostly looking for info about the conscripts and their career options right now.
1. the education system were much better (at least compared to that in murica)