dark light

echonine

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 661 through 675 (of 723 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: The Military Situation in Georgia, S.O. and Abkhazia #2491729
    echonine
    Participant

    I did indeed notice the ground kit being quite second line, even by Russian standards.

    The BMP-1’s I have seen in multiple videos of Russian troops advancing are 70’s vintage, when significant quantities newer BMP-2’s and BMP-3’s are in Russian Army service. T-72’s instead of T-80’s or T-90’s also speaks to the fact that the operations currently underway might not have been planned. The Russians might be using their best aircraft and crews but the ground troops do not look like the varsity team, not by a long shot. In my opinion if the Russians were planning for this eventuality they definitely would have brought in more modern front line kit than what has been apparent to date.

    Well the simple fact is Russia is huge, and you surely know this, and the sheer amount of various units in the Russian army means they are rather spread out. The T-72B uses a Kontakt 5 ERA which is quite advanced, and the BM model is rumored to have one that is twice as effective.

    in reply to: The Military Situation in Georgia, S.O. and Abkhazia #2491763
    echonine
    Participant

    It was a rhetorical question. I already knew they were being flown in by the US. I am wondering why Russia allowed their enemy to be reinforced. They could have easily turned the transports back and told them “make ’em take a train”.

    1000 more men aren’t really going to save Georgia now.

    in reply to: The Military Situation in Georgia, S.O. and Abkhazia #2491768
    echonine
    Participant

    I am wondering how much difference the 2000 experienced troops returning from Iraq will make. (And how they got there if the Russians are controlling the air as some claim.) Wish we still had the land forces section. 🙁

    Considering the US transported the 1000 (currently) soldiers to Georgia on US planes, why would Russia blow US planes out of the sky over Tbilisi?

    They have air superiority over the North (closer to S.O) where their troops are.

    in reply to: The Military Situation in Georgia, S.O. and Abkhazia #2491770
    echonine
    Participant

    Ok, keep politics out of this thread as much as possible please. If you really have to share your political views with everyone, there’s a perfectly good thread about this in the General Discussion section of the forum:

    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=83347

    Anyway, here’s a thought to get things started:

    Everybody seems convinced Russia was ready for this and I can kinda see where they are coming from but:

    It seems to me that the kit the Russian army has at its disposal is, generally, less advanced than its Georgian counterparts (see, for e.g., the MBTs employed by the two sides). Also, the Russians can’t have been sure, going into this, that their troops would be better trained or more motivated than the Georgian troops. On top of all that, the numbers, at least initially, did not inspire confidence of a Russian victory.

    So, my question is this, when the balloon went up, what made the Russians sure enough that this would be enough of a cake-walk to make it worthwhile going in without a Desert Storm style build-up?

    Were they going to rely on air-power? That would be a sketchy thing to base the campaign on, especially considering the backward use of air-power applied thus far (i.e. essentially WWII style tactics, no PGMs etc.).

    What do you guys think?

    What makes you believe their kit was less advanced?

    The Su-25KM vs the basic Su-25 makes sense as no Su-25SMs are in the 4th Air Army, but it doesn’t go much farther than that.

    I am no tank expert, but the Russian T-72 models could well be the “BM” models. . .

    Edit: Seems like the Georgian “T-72sim1” mod added some GPS nav system along with a FALCON coom/control system, and new thermal sights.

    Now the reason they didn’t do a “Desert Storm” build up is likely to catch the Georgians by at least some surprise. Declaring war then taking a few days might have meant the Georgians would have been completely entrenched in Tzhkinvali, which would mean even more civilian death and the Russians would have to storm the town with more force.

    in reply to: General Discussion #324819
    echonine
    Participant

    Very opportune for the Abkhazians this whole Ossetia thing taken at face value. Might be interesting to find out which warships the Russians have deployed to lay off Poti and precisely when they sortied!.

    This has long been known.

    Moskva, Smetlivy, 3 large landing vessels and support ships.

    As you may have heard, they have sunk a Georgian missile boat when it got too close and ignored warning shots.

    in reply to: The Politics of the Russia vs. Georgia Conflict #1903202
    echonine
    Participant

    Very opportune for the Abkhazians this whole Ossetia thing taken at face value. Might be interesting to find out which warships the Russians have deployed to lay off Poti and precisely when they sortied!.

    This has long been known.

    Moskva, Smetlivy, 3 large landing vessels and support ships.

    As you may have heard, they have sunk a Georgian missile boat when it got too close and ignored warning shots.

    in reply to: Georgia invades South Ossetia #2491802
    echonine
    Participant

    Russia advanced into Georgia beyond the disputed regions:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSLB237808

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7554507.stm

    This isn’t news, why would they just leave Georgian military facilities intact?

    Just as why would you have expected NATO to leave certain stuff standing in Kosovo?

    Same situation.

    in reply to: Georgia invades South Ossetia #2491897
    echonine
    Participant

    Evidence? Why don’t you show us where dropping a stick of unguided bombs is going to hit within 3m of it’s target? :rolleyes:

    Maybe you could explain how they’re managing to hit so many civilian targets then? :rolleyes:

    Can you explain how the US hits civilians with their super duper PGMs? I mean I really can’t help myself and ask.

    Why would you need to drop a PGM on a warehouse? I didn’t know warehouses were the size of a sedan or small truck.

    It’s perfectly logical to drop 2 unguided bombs and hit both sides of it to completely level it.

    in reply to: Georgia invades South Ossetia #2491944
    echonine
    Participant

    Well..they should start to thinking on small cheap cruiser missiles, that was the key of the success on all the western main campaigns, on the case of russian conlicts an missile half or 1/3 the size of the normal cruiser subsonic type would suit very good

    But then we should understand that the russian campaign was a fast local response, something quite different from other conflicts (in which in betwen the “diplomatic” babbling was a military movilization and study)

    And then , most probably , most of their targets were movable on a difficult geography, so you should need planes..

    What it seems is that su-25’s were heavely used , instead of a heavy artillery aplication

    The Su-24M aircraft are capable of using the Kh-59M, they just aren’t using it, although it’s impossible for us to know.

    Edit: Although thinking about it, the terrain in Georgia is pretty densely covered with trees, and the Georgians aren’t just parading around on the roads I don’t think. Most of the stuff, except bases of course, like artillery/SAMs/etc are probably camouflaged, so what good would a guided missile / bomb be, unless you know the exact location of the enemy?

    in reply to: Georgia invades South Ossetia #2491957
    echonine
    Participant

    I believe that medium altitudes strikes are being carried out. There are a few photos of Su-24 but you haven’t seen to many video of them. I believe this is due to them fly at higher altitudes and carrying out precision strikes and SEAD.

    As on rely on only artillery is very unlikely, as artillery can’t hit target deep in Georgia.

    Some can hit up to 38KM +

    The 58th Army isn’t the most up to date unit in the Russian Armed Forces, so I don’t believe they are using the 2S19 or Smerch MLRS.

    What I have seen are 2S3 artillery, not the latest upgrade, though still capable, and a unit seems to have the Uragan MLRS regiment, but I doubt the Russians will deploy it.

    in reply to: Georgia invades South Ossetia #2491979
    echonine
    Participant

    yes i see your point from Iraq and just about any other conflict that had CAS invovment but the numbers involved here, the terrain and the density of the combat zone are vastly different, its never an easy task but this number of losses already does not bode to well for the Russian airforce does it if we are to be honest with ourselves. Will they be forced to go up to medium alititude precision only strikes or instead choose to rely on artillary?

    The density I would argue is actually greater in Georgia, just look at the size of the country. It’s quite clear where the Russians are coming from, in Iraq, the USAF did have significantly more freedom to dictate attacks, at least from first glance. Do not forget, Russia did not saturate Georgia with cruise missiles – they went straight in.

    Also, consider that only 18 Russian soldiers have been confirmed KIA, with 15 on the first night that the Georgians decided to essentially sneak attack – bombard their barracks. No Russian tanks are reported destroyed yet. Hard to tell though, I’m no tank expert visually, but both sides are using the T-72 “B” upgraded variant, the Russians perhaps with the “BM” further upgraded version.

    in reply to: Georgia invades South Ossetia #2492028
    echonine
    Participant

    What are we a week or less in and 3 close air support and 1 inter theatre bomber lost? Not a good performance against a lightly armed nation is it? If this carries on this could be a real nightmare for the Russian air forces if they start averaging a loss every day or two!

    CAS aircraft are quite easy assets to lose. Have a look at which aircraft suffered the most losses in Iraq . . .

    in reply to: Georgia invades South Ossetia #2492058
    echonine
    Participant

    http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/11/planes/

    Nogovitsyn has confirmed the loss of 3 Su-25s and one Tu-22(M) over the entire conflict.

    in reply to: Georgia invades South Ossetia #2492108
    echonine
    Participant

    Huh? The ability to hit almost any target type with almost 100% accuracy and almost 100% chance of destruction is over rated?
    Also i really don’t see what ‘looking at US ops in Iraq or Afghan’ is doing to bolster your case of over rated precision guided munition, if anything these ops have shown just how incredably effective and usefull these munitions are with the ability to provide deadly accurate CAS to troops without hitting said troops. If anything the problem was the munitions warheads were to powerfull on PGMs to start with (overkill) but then as time went on we saw concrete filled munitions used and of course smaller and smaller precision munitions employed to futher decrease any collateral damage. If you talk to troops who have been in either conflict zone you mention that have been there when PGMs were employed in close proximity by allied aircraft you would understand just what a godsend these systems are. Yes mistakes can happen but it reduces the chances massively.

    You do realize that low level operations like what’s being done right now, it’s perfectly feasible to be using unguided weapons. The CEP difference is marginal.

    in reply to: Georgia invades South Ossetia #2492156
    echonine
    Participant

    I’m not sure they nuetralised anything yet to be honest, a backfire and frogfoot were lost, how much georgian Air defense gear is destroyed we just do not know, for all you or i know the georgian air defence systems might be ninty percent operational and are waiting in hiding/ relocating and getting ready to hit another few Russian jets. Perhaps tonight they will shootdown a few more Russian jets from positions previously unknown to the Russians, this conflict could drag on for months and and take many many more aircraft down with it.

    As to the cost reason thats a bit of a cheap excuse isnt it, excuse the pun, any and every measure should be put into minimizing collateral and civilian damage from strikes for obvious humanitarian reasons yet sticks of unguided bombs and volleys of dumb rockets are the complete wrong way of going about it plus you have the obvious fact that a stick of say four dumb bombs is nowhere near as effective as one single LGB on most targets as we saw from the apartment block bombing and pipeline attack and many others that bombs are falling short/missing therefore a great deal of potentially usefull ordinance is simply wasted.

    As someone mentioned, all this precision-guided munition non-sense is really over-rated in many cases – just looking at US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The Backfire that was lost was possibly an ELINT version, which is designed to gather air defense network information. Its quite likely the majority of Georgian AD has been destroyed, as they have been targetting military facilities for over 48 hours now.

Viewing 15 posts - 661 through 675 (of 723 total)