What have we learnt from the Russian weaponary in the brief Russia / Georgia war

When Russia went into Georgia, they had to win the war. I know this was David vs Goliath but what have we learnt from their weaponry and tactics?

1. It seemed that no smart bombs were used (otherwise they would not have missed a petrol tanker by a copuple of feet)

2. It seemed that no aerial surveillance was used.

3. Reports that I can sifted say that Georgia shot down 4 aircraft in total - 2 in the first day (and the Georgian army were prepared to carry on fighting after the ceasefire)

4. Russia used its most "battle hardened" soldiers i.e. those from Chechnya

I have read on this site many of the weapons that Russia has - yet this is the first time in a long while that we have seen any of the weapons on display / in use (compared to Americans or UK who have been displaying their tactics and hardware on a regular basis in Iraq, Afghanistan). So please help me piece together what we can learn from the technology and tactcis used in this (I accept very brief) war

That Russia CAN do surgical strikes.
That Russia can win wars without destroying entire countries.
That Russia does not need 150.000 soldiers to win a war.
That it took Russia one week to win the war as opposed to ten years.
That Russians are smarter than Nato.
That Russians don't enjoy killing their own troops.
That Russians can aim their weapons on military targets instead of civilian targets.
That Nato is a waste of space.
That we would be better off having Russian military keep the "peace" than Nato countries.
That Russian soldiers are trained to carry out wars within the framework of international law.
That Nato allies are dim, vulgar and brain dead.
That Nato are war criminals and they know no other way to fight wars than to commit mass murder.
That Nato should be disarmed as they are maniacs with big weapons.
That Russia does not need merceneries to fight wars to hide their crimes.
That spending more than the whole world put together on defense has got the US nowhere as the whole military US complex is brain dead and does not know how to win wars, they only know how to make money from wars.

reply to post by bubbles75


This is one of the best posts i ever read ...

. It seemed that no smart bombs were used (otherwise they would not have missed a petrol tanker by a copuple of feet)

the miss of the BP oil pipeline in Georgia was deliberate, to send a warning to the west, that it can cut off its oil supply

3. Reports that I can sifted say that Georgia shot down 4 aircraft in total - 2 in the first day (and the Georgian army were prepared to carry on fighting after the ceasefire)

3 of them were outdated (1 su-25,2 su-24)
Tu-22mr recon was shot because it was flying at low altitude

Georgian army fled like a bunch of sissies , despite being Western equipped and trained ...

4. Russia used its most "battle hardened" soldiers i.e. those from Chechnya

Yes, and in particular when the VDV entered into the conflict , the georgian army started retreating

so what you all are saying, is that the US thinks they are the stuff and can't be messed with, and the Russians think they are the stuff and can't be messed with. I don't know who is right, but I would venture a guess that a best case scenario would be to both play nicely in each respective sandbox and avoid runnung off at the mouth so as not to start a tiff. I for one, am very happy to not have bombs going off withing earshot and would very much like for it to stay that way. How about the russian ATSers? Send the button pushers to the pub and let them discuss world events there. It works for millions of humans daily.

This public service announcement brought to you by a guy who likes living.

The Russians are definitely capable. Why would they pull out their big military secrets, when they can take over a country in less than a week?

What the brief skirmish told us is Russia has a very weak air force and even a tiny country can inflict significant losses on it. Imagine the same situation only using state of the art American equipment I predict the entire Russian Air force would be extinct in a few short hours.

What we also know is that Russia will attack soft targets like civilians and I suspect they took a lot more casualty's in the brief fire fighting than they will admit.

I believe Nato could beat Russia in a week or so with no significant casualty's superior technology and superior tactics win out.

reply to post by Shamanator


4 Aircraft out of the many thousands in the Russian air force is not a significant loss. I doubt the commanders were panicking over that.

As for superior tactics/equipment vs sheer numbers and brute force, I doubt NATO would win within a week. Thinking back to the Cold War, the west had the technological advantage, yet the life expectancy of a front line soldier was awfully short if the war went hot. They even planned to lose large amounts of land, stalling the Russian advance until reinforcements could arrive. Tactical nuclear weapons were also planned for use to smash the Soviet columns, and the sheer numbers that they could muster wiped out any tech advantage. Today, I doubt NATO would have the stomach for that kind of fight, as some of the members are only there in name, and not in force. Would the public back home be happy with a war of attrition? Thats what you would get if NATO vs Russia ever came to be (providing nukes weren't used)

But back on topic, what I learned from the conflict was small children (Georgia) shouldn't poke big dogs (Russia) with sticks, and then request help as the dog rips their face off. If the Russia wanted to, there would be nothing left of Georgia right now, and there wouldn't be a thing NATO could do to oppose that.

This little war didn't prove Russia that capable. Georgia is a tiny country and withdrew its forces because of the destruction Russia was inflicting all over it's country.
The intersting question is, would Russia have been capable of defeating a more able enemy such as Saddam's Iraq. I don't think they would have been able to do that.

Originally posted by rogue1The intersting question is, would Russia have been capable of defeating a more able enemy such as Saddam's Iraq. I don't think they would have been able to do that.

Yes, I think they could do so. Probably on its own, unlike the US led coalition. Like the numerically and technically superior US war machine, the Russian forces are more than a match for any half decent foe.

For a start, Russia could just site back and fight the war in much the same way as the US led coalition did:

1. Launch and win the air war and thus gain air superiority and air supremacy over the enemy;
2. Launch a sustainable air to ground campaign with long range strategic
air assets and long range missiles
3. Send in the Osnaz ansd Spetsnaz over the border to carry out assassinations and saboutage respectively;
4. Launch a ground offensive.
5. Find, fix, secure and kill Sadam Hussein - something the US led coalitiuon were reluctant to do.

The Russian war machine is just as capable as the US war machine although I must admit, Russian technology does lag behind the US - but only in certain areas.

One must remember that Arab armies in general, are no match for well equipped and well led troops, and Sadam Hussein's much vaunted Republican Guard proved that point.

The RG were little more than fancily dressed schoolyard bullies a fact bourne out by their apparent lack of moral fibre when, as is so often the case when somebody hits back, they were given a bloody nose during the first few hours of the ground war.

First.. let me put this puppy to bed this way. Russia had it's war with Islamics like Iraq. It was called Afghanistan, remember. After a many year struggle they lost, were humiliated, and left with their tails between their legs. We (the USA) invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq and won both wars. The only reason Iraq took so long is because unlike the Russians we didn't just roll in and gun down all the civillians and leave taking spoil home with us like the barbarians they are.

As for weaponry, they have no new weaponry except some new missles. It took five days to take two ity bity pieces of Georgia, and only after the Georgians retreated because the Russians were destoying non military infrastructure. They are weak. We are building up our military presence in Georgian ports and what are they doing...? Uhh... nothing because they won't take us on.

As for new weaponry, yes, we have it all. It would take time to say it here so I'll make the below posts from outside sources and you be the judge. And these are just the declassified stuff. I'll leave it to the imagination what the classified stuff might be. Needless to say, when we fight Russia, it will be but a short war.


From outside sources:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by fritz

The Russian war machine is just as capable as the US war machine although I must admit, Russian technology does lag behind the US - but only in certain areas.

I would like to know what those certain areas actually are! Artist's impressions are one area the US lags behind!

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Russian actions, the fact remains that their military is rather larger than Georgia and pure force of numbers will have won the day. We also need to account for the effect Russian sponsored separatist fighters will have had in the whole affair.

The actions of Russia probably illustrate the reason why some nations in Russia's "sphere" want to join an alliance which would work to defend them from agression - i.e. NATO and an economic block such as the EU.

At the end of the day Russia has a rather alot of nukes and a goodly amount of oil and gas. Apart from those items Russia is not really very much - a recent commentator on BBC Radio 4 described Russia as a "Saudi Arabia with snow"!

Like all good autocracies, Russia needs a big enemy to keep the rulers in power - that enemy is the West. The West does not need Russia.

Regards

Originally posted by Shamanator
What the brief skirmish told us is Russia has a very weak air force and even a tiny country can inflict significant losses on it.

Only 4 planes where lost, and even those werent state off the art.

Imagine the same situation only using state of the art American equipment I predict the entire Russian Air force would be extinct in a few short hours.

And the USAF will be f*ckzord by the massive amounts off AA and SAM batteries. And that is IFF the RuAf fails wich it wont.

What we also know is that Russia will attack soft targets like civilians and I suspect they took a lot more casualty's in the brief fire fighting than they will admit.

Attacking civil targets like powerplants and/or the general infrastructure is a wise move and the bombs that fell on house/appartments where propably a mistake.

And i dont think that the Russians would lie about the number off killed Russian soldiers.

I believe Nato could beat Russia in a week or so with no significant casualty's superior technology and superior tactics win out.

Just keep believing that. It may be that mindset in wich you will see NATO being destroyed.

Originally posted by rogue1
This little war didn't prove Russia that capable.

Russia IS capable because it destroyed the entire airforce. Almost the entire navy and destroyed the Georgian army and confescated a quarter off all millitary hardware from Georgia.

The Russians themselfes only have lost 4 planes. No ships at all. and lost a few service men and captured 2 provinces wich will be absorbed into Russia.

Georgia is a tiny country and withdrew its forces because of the destruction Russia was inflicting all over it's country.

Maybe the Georgian army was on the brink off total devastation perhaps and thats why it fled away? What a shame. An army that doesnt even fight their aggressor ditching perfectly working equipment away.

The intersting question is, would Russia have been capable of defeating a more able enemy such as Saddam's Iraq. I don't think they would have been able to do that.

For Russia, it would be like a walk in the park.

Many things have changed since Chechyna II you know.

reply to post by Fromabove

We (the USA) invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq and won both wars. The only reason Iraq took so long is because unlike the Russians we didn't just roll in and gun down all the civillians and leave taking spoil home with us like the barbarians they are.

if you haven`t noticed Iraq hasn`t actually finished and is far from over... more have died snce bush proclaimed teh end of hostilites than during...


oh and `roll in and gun down all the civilians` - i would remind you of the widespread and illegal use of WP in Fullajah in deirect contravention of CCWC and a massive war crime.

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood

Russia IS capable because it destroyed the entire airforce. Almost the entire navy and destroyed the Georgian army and confescated a quarter off all millitary hardware from Georgia.

Dude, the Georgian AF consisted of something like 9 aircraft!!

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
For Russia, it would be like a walk in the park.

It was for the US, too. It's the insurgency that always bogs things down. Of course, the old Soviets were a bit more aggressive when it comes to putting down stuff like that.

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
Only 4 planes where lost, and even those werent state off the art.

Still, they shot them down.

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
And the USAF will be f*ckzord by the massive amounts off AA and SAM batteries. And that is IFF the RuAf fails wich it wont.

Not saying the US wouldn't take losses, but we do have ways of working around AAA and SAMs

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
Attacking civil targets like powerplants and/or the general infrastructure is a wise move and the bombs that fell on house/appartments where propably a mistake.

I agree, but how come when the US accidently bombs civilians, everyone freaks and geeks?

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
And i dont think that the Russians would lie about the number off killed Russian soldiers.

Yes, they would.

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
Just keep believing that. It may be that mindset in wich you will see NATO being destroyed.

NATO would probably win, but things would be really ugly on both sides. I wouldn't want to see it.

in teh 1990>1991 gulf war the USA lost 68 aircraft to ground fire

Originally posted by Fromabove
First.. let me put this puppy to bed this way. Russia had it's war with Islamics like Iraq. It was called Afghanistan, remember. After a many year struggle they lost, were humiliated, and left with their tails between their legs.

*Cough* Vietnam *Cough*. No seriously now: 52.000 dead US people in Vietnam in ~7.5 to ~10 years.

15.000 dead Russians in Afghanistan in ~10 years.

And remember: both parties enemy's where supported by their arch enemy.

We (the USA) invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq and won both wars.

Iff i remember correctly, Afghanistan is warming up badly and the US just passed the 500 Deathtoll mark. That War is FAR from over and will take DECADES off more fighting untill the Taliban are defeated. Unless Pakistan is invaded, wich wont happen (nukes anyone?)

The only reason Iraq took so long is because unlike the Russians we didn't just roll in and gun down all the civillians and leave taking spoil home with us like the barbarians they are.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA The US Army bribed the Sunni Rebels into peace and pays every rebel 200$ to just stop fighting the US forces.

And the main Shiite rebel force: The Magdhi army off Al Sadr just has stopped fighting since the Shiites are now rulers off the Country and Al Sadr wants to morph his millitant organasation into a Hezzbollah like organesation.

And thats after more then 4000 dead US soldiers and more then 50.000 casulty's.

And Iraq is becomming more and more closer to Iran with its relation ship.
And hey presto: A second Iran in the making!!

Tommorow a second part off my Reply towards you.

Originally posted by bubbles75
That Russia CAN do surgical strikes.
That Russia can win wars without destroying entire countries.
That Russia does not need 150.000 soldiers to win a war.
That it took Russia one week to win the war as opposed to ten years.
That Russians are smarter than Nato.

Well, if they don't destroy entire countries, how come the US is supplying aid to the Georgians?

Took a week? I guess it's easy when you're overrunning a small country. And they aren't dealing with an insurgency. Yet.

How is Russia "smarter" than NATO? Well, they were smarter, staging hundreds of tanks on the border "just in case". Funny how no one talks about that.

Originally posted by bubbles75
That Russians don't enjoy killing their own troops.

Neither does NATO.

Originally posted by bubbles75
That Russians can aim their weapons on military targets instead of civilian targets.

I saw a lot of civilian buildings with holes in them.

Also, google "yellow rain".

And in Chechnya, the Russians told a column of refugees that a road was clear and they were allowed to leave the area on it. Too bad they didn't tell them they just CBU'd the road.

Originally posted by bubbles75
That Nato is a waste of space.
That we would be better off having Russian military keep the "peace" than Nato countries.
That Russian soldiers are trained to carry out wars within the framework of international law.
That Nato allies are dim, vulgar and brain dead.
That Nato are war criminals and they know no other way to fight wars than to commit mass murder.
That Nato should be disarmed as they are maniacs with big weapons.
That Russia does not need merceneries to fight wars to hide their crimes.
That spending more than the whole world put together on defense has got the US nowhere as the whole military US complex is brain dead and does not know how to win wars, they only know how to make money from wars.

How would we be better off with Russian peacekeepers?

NATO should be disarmed as maniacs with big weapons? You know the Russians have "big weapons", too, right?

Well, the rest of your post is nothing more than Anti-NATO/US rambling. Not even worth the time to comment about it.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by jerico65]

Originally posted by Harlequin
in teh 1990>1991 gulf war the USA lost 68 aircraft to ground fire

Huh? Where did you read that? Maybe if you count helicopters, but not fixed wing only. Sounds a bit inflated.