Russians begin to wonder why thier military sucks.

OFFascist

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
985
0
0
From The Moscow Times

link

Pretty much an article about how Russians thought this war would go and how it really went.

Also talks about how they will begin to wonder why we were so effective in taking over Iraq while they had so much trouble in Chechnya.
 

Rastus

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
4,704
3
0
Maybe a conventional arms race will start. The result being all developed nations will get smart weapons. The face of war has changed, and with it, the world.
 

Bite

Member
Apr 14, 2001
130
0
0
Thanks -- hope NK also carefully 'analyzes' what Franks & Gang did....
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: Rastus
Maybe a conventional arms race will start. The result being all developed nations will get smart weapons. The face of war has changed, and with it, the world.

I doubt it, part of Russia's problem with upgrading to smart weapon technology is cost. And after losing the billions of dollars in oil contracts, I bet their budget is pretty tight right now.
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
Originally posted by: OFFascist
From The Moscow Times

link

Pretty much an article about how Russians thought this war would go and how it really went.

Also talks about how they will begin to wonder why we were so effective in taking over Iraq while they had so much trouble in Chechnya.



>>>The Russian media is generally avoiding the hard questions and serving up anti-American propaganda instead. It is alleged that the U.S. government is "concealing casualties" (like its Russian counterpart), and that hundreds if not thousands of U.S. soldiers have already been killed. Maybe this deceit will become the main semi-official excuse for disregarding the allied victory.<<<



So the russians trained Bagdad Bob?
rolleye.gif
 

HappyPuppy

Lifer
Apr 5, 2001
16,997
2
71
I'm glad to know that if we ever have to go to war with Russia, barring nuclear weapons, it will only take us 3 weeks to defeat them and occupy their country. It was theiry war strategy, after all, that the Iraqis used.:evil:
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
I'm glad to know that if we ever have to go to war with Russia, barring nuclear weapons, it will only take us 3 weeks to defeat them and occupy their country. It was theiry war strategy, after all, that the Iraqis used.:evil:

Three big problems with that "3 weeks". The Ruskies have:
-More space to trade for time
-Russian Winters (defeated more than one adversary)
-Nukes (realistically, they'd use them if we got close to threatening Moscow)
 

Leon

Platinum Member
Nov 14, 1999
2,215
4
81
Are you people insane? Nukes or no nukes, nobody wants to fight Russians or Chinese for that matter. It would be disastrous, economically and in terms of human cost.
 

HappyPuppy

Lifer
Apr 5, 2001
16,997
2
71
Originally posted by: Leon
Are you people insane? Nukes or no nukes, nobody wants to fight Russians or Chinese for that matter. It would be disastrous, economically and in terms of human cost.


Oh, come on. We're on a roll. We might just as well conquer the whole world. In the grand scheme of things does it really matter if a few hundred million people are vaporized? It just means that the survivors get more.

:D
 

thedarkwolf

Diamond Member
Oct 13, 1999
9,015
114
106
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
I'm glad to know that if we ever have to go to war with Russia, barring nuclear weapons, it will only take us 3 weeks to defeat them and occupy their country. It was theiry war strategy, after all, that the Iraqis used.:evil:

Three big problems with that "3 weeks". The Ruskies have:
-More space to trade for time
-Russian Winters (defeated more than one adversary)
-Nukes (realistically, they'd use them if we got close to threatening Moscow)

-Most Russians would actually fight back
-Russia has an Air Force and Navy
 

freakflag

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2001
3,951
1
71
Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
I'm glad to know that if we ever have to go to war with Russia, barring nuclear weapons, it will only take us 3 weeks to defeat them and occupy their country. It was theiry war strategy, after all, that the Iraqis used.:evil:

Three big problems with that "3 weeks". The Ruskies have:
-More space to trade for time
-Russian Winters (defeated more than one adversary)
-Nukes (realistically, they'd use them if we got close to threatening Moscow)

-Most Russians would actually fight back
-Russia has an Air Force and Navy


I wonder if we could drum up any support in Chechnya....
 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
76
Originally posted by: thedarkwolf

-Most Russians would actually fight back
-Russia has an Air Force and Navy

I think most Russians would eagerly surrender in exchange for one way tickets to the USA and a warm apartment.

 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
I'm glad to know that if we ever have to go to war with Russia, barring nuclear weapons, it will only take us 3 weeks to defeat them and occupy their country. It was theiry war strategy, after all, that the Iraqis used.:evil:

I know you're just kidding, but conquering Russia is a fantasy. Both the french and germans were superpowers when they invaded russia and neither could get the job done.

On a related note, isn't russia moving towards a professional army? I know eastern european countries are...
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
You have to realize that there are now a lot of military commanders and strategists out there who are now under pressure to figure out how the hell to defend their countries against a military force that could overthrow Baghdad in just under 3 weeks, and you can imagine more that a few of them (Syria, et al) pooping their pants. Expect more and more countries in the future to start pursuing nuclear weapons programs in the search for the great equalizer..
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
The only reason we beat the Iraqi Military so quickly is because they have ZERO air defenses.
 

Originally posted by: dahunan
The only reason we beat the Iraqi Military so quickly is because they have ZERO air defenses.

thats the US strongpoint. As soon as we get the air, the war turns to our favor...at least on the current battlefield. We always aim to knock out air defenses first.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
You have to realize that there are now a lot of military commanders and strategists out there who are now under pressure to figure out how the hell to defend their countries against a military force that could overthrow Baghdad in just under 3 weeks, and you can imagine more that a few of them (Syria, et al) pooping their pants. Expect more and more countries in the future to start pursuing nuclear weapons programs in the search for the great equalizer..

That's a good read. I don't think the Russians are afraid of US invading them. They have made it fairly obvious to anyone that they have no problem using nukes in response to a conventional invasion of Russia. But they should learn some lessons from this.
1. They should keep their nuclear forces well equipped and maintained, because they aren't in position to win a conventional war either against overwhelming numbers (Chinese) or overwhelming training and equipment (West). Nukes are the guarantor of Russian safety against any agressor. They should be MIRVed, and equipped with decoys, and be sufficient to overwhelm any future missile defence.
2. They should reinvent their conventional forces. Untrained conscripts with AK-47's, and no food isn't going to cut it anymore. A smaller professional Army is a must. Old time generals should be thrown out and replaced with new ones.
 

SinfulWeeper

Diamond Member
Sep 2, 2000
4,567
11
81
SuperTool, the AK-47 is clearly superior to out junkie M-16. But otherwise I agree with you on everything else.
 

HappyGamer2

Banned
Jun 12, 2000
1,441
0
0
the ak-47 is ok in some repects, it's dependable, tuff, but has limited range(7.62x39 version), less than the .223
and many, but not all are not all that accurate, but a good jungle gun it's a tad heavy too
 

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0
Yes, a very good article.
Many Russian generals truly believe that a bombing campaign that leaves some buildings still standing is ineffective. Precision-guided munitions are widely considered to be costly pranks -- not real weapons. In Chechnya, we tried to use some of these gadgets, but they did not work, as most Russian officers and men have not been trained in how to use the limited number of modern weapons our military inherited from the Soviet armed forces.
If they would lay off the Vodka, maybe they could develop weapons with greater accuracy. ;)