Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russian Armed Forces

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Alcaldemb View Post

    What I find most interesting was the reliance on SSO troops to repel the invaders and shore up border defense.

    I guess as a rapid reaction force they make some sense for initially spoiling an invasion, and obviously SSO units are ideal for rooting out insurgents; but border defense does not seem like an ideal role for them.
    Good spot, yes it does sound strange.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by flamming_python View Post

      Good spot, yes it does sound strange.
      Any thoughts as to why?

      The only thing I can think of is that they initially frustrate the offensive, and then act as coordinators and forward scouts for the Belorussians.

      Comment


      • It is written there:
        " allied troops contained Veyshnorian rebels, ... . They also reinforced the border of the Union State using troops of the Special Operations Forces and other branches of the Armed Forces."

        I think it just means SSO were part of that force, not its main component.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by julesak View Post
          It is written there:
          " allied troops contained Veyshnorian rebels, ... . They also reinforced the border of the Union State using troops of the Special Operations Forces and other branches of the Armed Forces."

          I think it just means SSO were part of that force, not its main component.
          Possibly, it just seemed odd is all.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Alcaldemb View Post

            Any thoughts as to why?

            The only thing I can think of is that they initially frustrate the offensive, and then act as coordinators and forward scouts for the Belorussians.
            Well yeah SSF might be vital for delaying the enemy by detonating bridges or whatever, and acting as reconnaisance - but of course this is not WW2; its better to use missiles and satellites for that if you can.

            In the mid-late 80s I believe it was the Spetnaz who were equipped with the laser sights for guiding the Krasnopol guided shells for artillery further back.
            Guided artillery was in limited service and I think it was reserved for coordination with special forces.

            Perhaps it's a case of acting as such forward observers for guided artillery again - for that sort of thing SSF are indispensable. You can use UAVs, but UAVs will be quickly spotted and brought down.
            Last edited by flamming_python; 30-12-2017, 03:34 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Aradan View Post
              An interesting article (In English) I came across about the Zapad-2017 military exercises (and the shitstorm it caused among the usual suspects): https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3026859.html
              Pretty dumb how Russia has taken on NATO's own rhetoric and cynical scenario about combating some armed seperatist rebels that have just magically been conjured up by NATO to take a chunk out of Belarus.

              It doesn't happen that way.
              If a conflict with rebels breaks out on Belarus's territory (or any other country's) it won't be because of NATO, but because of its own internal problems or policies - same as you can see in the Ukraine or Georgia.
              But anyway.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by flamming_python View Post
                If a conflict with rebels breaks out on Belarus's territory (or any other country's) it won't be because of NATO, but because of its own internal problems or policies - same as you can see in the Ukraine or Georgia.
                Ehm, well I suppose foreign policy related issues should be considered as part of "internal problems" then?
                Any kind of rebellion is just an expression of instability within a country. (among many other possible expressions)
                But going from the state of "stable" to the state of "unstable" can sometimes require just a slight push from the outside, as in, "slight" foreign interference, as was in case of US interference in Ukraine. Had there been no foreign support, Yanuk wouldn't be forced to flee, Crimea wouldn't have to be "solved", people wouldn't have to die, Donbass wouldn't even happen.
                And I have no doubts, that if US wouldn't have set overthrowing Assad into its sights, quite likely the Syrian rebellion wouldn't have evolved into the state of putting the whole country on the verge of extinction.
                And if Russia wouldn't have interfered with its air campaign, maybe Syria would have indeed gone de facto extinct.
                If Saakashvili wouldn't have been emboldened by NATO's support, he would have never risked his Ossetia campaign.

                You can't write off any major political event as "entirely" the fault of one particular individual or one particular group of individuals. International politics are a complex system of very fluid processes, which greatly impact internal policies and problems, as they do external.
                No country can predict the future, no leadership of said country can predict the future. Nobody's a god, and shouldn't consider himself as such. Anything can happen, and a stable country can come on the verge of instability over night. Foreign powers can take advantage of that instability, and poof goes your confidence and self-assurance.

                Originally posted by flamming_python View Post
                Pretty dumb how Russia has taken on NATO's own rhetoric and cynical scenario about combating some armed seperatist rebels that have just magically been conjured up by NATO to take a chunk out of Belarus.
                The cynicism is not comparable here, because NATO is a foreign extension of USA's international dominance, whereas Russia's CSTO and Belarus alliance is focused on Russia's direct borders. One is offensive while cynically calling itself defensive, while the other is defensive while cynically being called "offensive".

                Now, if instead of NATO, we'd be dealing with a strictly EU security organization, whose policies exist for the sole purpose of defending and representing EU, then yes your comparison would be morally accurate.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by flamming_python View Post
                  In the mid-late 80s I believe it was the Spetnaz who were equipped with the laser sights for guiding the Krasnopol guided shells for artillery further back.
                  Guided artillery was in limited service and I think it was reserved for coordination with special forces.

                  Perhaps it's a case of acting as such forward observers for guided artillery again - for that sort of thing SSF are indispensable. You can use UAVs, but UAVs will be quickly spotted and brought down.
                  I guess now this is job of recon troops (there is recon batallion on brigade and division level and should be recon brigade on army level).
                  Not that SSO would be not able to do it, but I guess there are for more strategic/deeper behind enemy lines tasks - like in Syria.

                  Originally posted by flamming_python View Post
                  If a conflict with rebels breaks out on Belarus's territory (or any other country's) it won't be because of NATO, but because of its own internal problems or policies - same as you can see in the Ukraine or Georgia.
                  But anyway.
                  This is true, but I think "NATO sponsored rebels" is just another name for NATO forces (SF or other) operating in such case in Belarus (possible in some scenarios).

                  Comment


                  • Top kek intercept

                    Comment


                    • Man drives stolen vehicle into store front, steals bottle of wine. The offending vehicle? An MTLB.

                      https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russ...als-wine-60148

                      Only in Russia

                      Comment


                      • A controlled nudge.

                        Comment


                        • Russia’s nuclear underwater drone is real and in the Nuclear Posture Review

                          https://www.defensenews.com/space/20...osture-review/

                          WASHINGTON — A draft of the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review confirms the existence of an underwater nuclear drone made and operated by Russia, a capability the U.S. Defense Department had not previously publicly acknowledged.
                          Probably a second strike killer.

                          Comment


                          • https://echo.msk.ru/blog/day_video/2130594-echo/

                            «Ты сдохнешь и вся твоя семья сдохнет»

                            Семью капитана российской армии Алексея Золотарева угрожают сжечь за отказ участвовать в коррупционных схемах. Об этом он сам заявил в своем видеообращении к президенту Владимиру Путину, опубликованному на YouTube.

                            В ролике мужчина предъявил аудиозапись разговора якобы со своим начальником, майором Андреем Елизаровым. Последний грозит «убить и сжечь» Золотарева и его семью за обращение в прокуратуру.
                            Google translate.

                            "You and your whole family will die"

                            The family of the captain of the Russian army, Alexei Zolotarev, is threatened to be burned for refusing to take part in corrupt schemes. He himself stated this in his video message to President Vladimir Putin, published on YouTube.

                            In the video, the man presented an audio recording of the conversation allegedly with his boss, Major Andrei Yelizarov. The latter threatens to "kill and burn" Zolotarev and his family for contacting the prosecutor's office.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by AurimasLT View Post
                              Good call by the officer in taking it public; now there will be calls for investigations that the MoD will have to respond to.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by merkwurdig View Post
                                Russia’s nuclear underwater drone is real and in the Nuclear Posture Review


                                https://www.defensenews.com/space/20...osture-review/



                                Probably a second strike killer.
                                Wat the actual f.

                                What is the use of this thing other than sucking up funds?
                                I can see how it could be a negotiation leverage vis-a-vis the US though, for new arms treaties to limit the development of ABM systems ("look, we can just develop new vectors of approach and you'll have to spend much much more in order to counter against them").

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X