Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Studying Russian history, one thing that sticks out to me is their ability to throw bodies at an opponent. Meaning they will send wave, after wave, after wave, until adversary breaks down. It's the primary reason they were able to defect Nazi Germany despite the German military being better. They don't care about number of people dead if the prize is big enough. This contrasts with the U.S. philosophy, which prides on keeping damage down because the public will surely turn on the war if the numbers get too high. Thus the U.S. picks its targets carefully, and never fully engages after the initial assault preferring to carve up zones. The Afghanistan war is a good example. U.S. forces were content with holding down the cities and leaving the remaining sections of the country to the Taliban. The Korean conflict, "we will keep the South." Tried to hold the South but North wasn't haven't it.
Also, it appears the West has always tried to portray the Russian army as not good. I suspect this is do to their adversary status. Most of this thought process is probably just wishful thinking. If their military wasn't good, then a coalition would have formed by now to drive Putin out of power like Sadam.
Studying Russian history, one thing that sticks out to me is their ability to throw bodies at an opponent. Meaning they will send wave, after wave, after wave, until adversary breaks down. It's the primary reason they were able to defect Nazi Germany despite the German military being better. They don't care about number of people dead if the prize is big enough. This contrasts with the U.S. philosophy, which prides on keeping damage down because the public will surely turn on the war if the numbers get too high. Thus the U.S. picks its targets carefully, and never fully engages after the initial assault preferring to carve up zones. The Afghanistan war is a good example. U.S. forces were content with holding down the cities and leaving the remaining sections of the country to the Taliban. The Korean conflict, "we will keep the South." Tried to hold the South but North wasn't haven't it.
Also, it appears the West has always tried to portray the Russian army as not good. I suspect this is do to their adversary status. Most of this thought process is probably just wishful thinking. If their military wasn't good, then a coalition would have formed by now to drive Putin out of power like Sadam.
In that case of sustaining loses and fighting on Russia was defending against Nazi's not attacking and asking why are we here. It seems to be that those standing like the Alamo, Wake Island or Bataan are cut off Ukrainians. Are Russians heading to recruiters offices like Americans did on 9-12 or December 8th?
I too remember those WWIII, techno thrillers and those "future histories" where NATO held on just long enough for the Soviets to collapse from within.
Also, it appears the West has always tried to portray the Russian army as not good. I suspect this is do to their adversary status. Most of this thought process is probably just wishful thinking. If their military wasn't good, then a coalition would have formed by now to drive Putin out of power like Sadam.
If the Russian military was good, they'd control Ukraine by now.
The Russian military is top heavy, and they don't trust junior commanders to make decisions. Why do you think so many Russian generals are getting killed? They are on the front lines because they have to be. If this were the U.S. military, these generals would be in a fortified "Green Zone" and junior commanders would be on the front lines. Only one U.S. general was killed in Afghanistan, and that was a "green on blue" attack by an Afghan soldier.
Then, you factor in decades of neglect, and much of their armor and other tracked and wheeled vehicles had not been properly maintained, which explains why many have simply been abandoned when they broke down. Do they have the trained mechanics and a steady supply of spare parts? Don't know.
But their army has to battle these deficiencies, as well as a likely lack of motivation in even being there exposed to enemy fire, and it has probably done as much to slow their progress as the Ukrainian army has.
If the Russian military was good, they'd control Ukraine by now.
The war isn't over. Let me ask you a question. The U.S. military is regarded as the best in the world, but was defeated in Afghanistan. So does that mean the U.S. military is weak. A argument could certainly be made. Once again, if the Russian Army was so bad, why hasn't any western power attacked the country directly. That should tell you something.
People really need to quit turning war into a sport. There are thousands of people dying in the conflicts. It's not ESPN.
The war isn't over. Let me ask you a question. The U.S. military is regarded as the best in the world, but was defeated in Afghanistan. So does that mean the U.S. military is weak. A argument could certainly be made. Once again, if the Russian Army was so bad, why hasn't any western power attacked the country directly. That should tell you something.
People really need to quit turning war into a sport. There are thousands of people dying in the conflicts. It's not ESPN.
I agree with the earlier comment. Russia should control Kiev by now. they don't, their military is not that strong. They just have a nuclear arms which makes them impossible to attack. But the sanctions are beginning to bite
Another thing not too complicated to comprehend, Russia will take decade(s) to recover. The march of western civilization marches on whether the world likes it or not. China, you paper tiger, your next.
I glad someone is finally honest, about seeking the preservation of Western society dominance over the world. Many people try hide behind a false morality or some ill-gotten belief in being the world's savior when it's really about power period. I commend you for your honesty.
Part of the issue with not having a good cadre of NCOs also is that JOs are not learning from them - also you really cannot operate some gear with only conscripts.
Once again, if the Russian Army was so bad, why hasn't any western power attacked the country directly.
The fact that you ask that question uncovers a way of thinking that makes it near-impossible to formulate an answer. But I'll try.
It is possible to have the stronger military, yet not attack. It's a decision rooted in the set of values you operate under - as a country and alliance. People who fight wars of choice are generally despised.
Studying Russian history, one thing that sticks out to me is their ability to throw bodies at an opponent. Meaning they will send wave, after wave, after wave, until adversary breaks down. It's the primary reason they were able to defect Nazi Germany despite the German military being better.
I'll quibble just a bit with that. The US entering the war turned it into a logistics battle, and the Germans just weren't good at that - even at first, when they had the industrial capacity - and in particular, they were really bad at doing it long-distance.
Human wave assaults certainly did take place, but they were the exception.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
