If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Fact is if it came to war and russia or nato was losing considerable soil, they'd use nukes.
The invasion of chechyna was also after the extremely succesful 1st Gulf War, so to suggest the allies learnt anything from the Russians is a bit weird. The Russians were ill-trained, poorly led and with shaky morale - none of that has changed.
The first gulf war didn't end in Guerilla warfare, did it?
And the invasion of Iraq didn't start with it either this time. Neither did Chechnya. Both are now wars against militant muslims. Fact.
And well, yeah, we didn't learn anything. Quite a few Abrams have took hits after driving into built up areas. So yeah, we didn't learn a thing. Tanks in cities = bad.
Russia is ill trained, poorly led, and has shaky morale. Wait, so does the US armed forces fit all those criteria. Ho hum. The fact is, Russia, after fighting a long battle against militant islamics, has changed alot of strategy, from what is being used today in Iraq. They've tried alot, and Putin has finally settled on taking out high ranking leaders, whilst attempting to police the towns, which are pretty much just rubble and ruins now.
This seems to be, sofar, working better than any other. Certainly, there is going to be no forceable end. But, sofar, it is the best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300#Specifications
HMM. Also this:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070227/61304735.html
So, thier mobile anti air can hit targets at nearly 100 miles. YES. Where is this 10-mile range you talked of?
I was a professional.
Who said it did?
We're talking about conventional war aren't we? Both GW1 and GW2 were massive conventional success. The Russian invasion of Chechyna was a conventional failure
But no brigade has been wiped out and all of them have had infantry support. You do put tanks in cities with infantry - you do not put them in on their own...
No it doesn't. You need to look at this in a bit more detail. there are minor collapses of moral in some units, some poor leadership and individuals who are poorly trained in the US. in Russia it is endemic.
And again you then talk about counter-insurgency, when any battle between the NATO and the russians will be conventional. there may be some stay behinds - but any battle would be decided by the clash of conventional forces. It's also interesting that you seem to think that the Russian tactic of 'creating a desert and calling it peace' is a success, where the US tactic (extreme violence in a limited area) is a failure.
Well I'd argue the British versions have been the most successful, the US/Israeli version the second most succesful and the French/Russian strategy has yet to suceed anywhere
Chechnya has been Guerilla from day one, so a comparison to a conventional war doesn't work. They knew defeat was imminent, and fucked off. A bit like GW2, but on a worse scale.
GW1 yes. GW2, well, I guess so. But it has result in huge Geurilla war, which, is getting worse. And cannot really be won, unless we just sortof crush the morale of everyone in Iraq.
Really, Tanks in cities at all, unless the city if flattened, is a bit of a fail. Regardless of Infantry, they are a huge target. Every window might contain an RPG.
It is improving in Russia alot, recently, believe it or not. Go look it up. Whilst the morale is still an issue due to pay, the training is getting alot better (it wost worst during the post-soviet collapse, been up since Putin). Leadership is getting better, tactics better.
The British tactic is arguably the best, help the people, get them onside. The US tactic has failed epically - since the US bailed from Afgan and left the Brits there, it's got alot better. We are bailing from Iraq, leaving the Americans, and it is getting worse. Hardly a good sign. Israel? You are joking, right? That's practically a mirror of Chechnya. One side "defending" itself? Check. One side that made of Guerillas? Check. Mass devestation by the defenders and slaughter by them? Yup. Supprisingly large losses on the defenders side? Yup. Well, lol. The Israeli's are NOT following any US tactic. They have slaughtered civilians, like Russia. They have destroyed towns, to crush morale. The insurgency goes on.
As for lack of success, well, how would YOU propose to win a Guerilla war? If you have an idea there, you could just get great fame and wealth, my friend, as you would have beaten a question many feel cannot be answered.
It started with a massive conventional assualt on grozny - which was a bloody failure. It was only as more men and equipment poured in that it went to guerilla
But the conventional phase was a success. And that's what we are looking at
They might also contain a rifleman who can rake your section. A nice tank would be useful then. Infantry supported by tanks, tanks supported by infantry
Morale remains crap and whilst it may be getting better it is from a low base and is still way behind the West
You need to look at it in a bit more detail - they are nowhere near Russian standards. Beruit has not been wrecked to nearly the extent of Grozny. The USSR is using all force short of nukes, Israel is only using a fraction of its force.
Same as you win any war. Most guerilla wars after all are failures for the guerilla's - I can only think of a couple where it succeeded (Ireland 1921 and Aden). Don't even mention Vietnam as a succesful guerilla war btw - it South vietnam, fell due to a massive invasion by the North. The list of successes on the other hand inlcude Malaya, Kenya, Borneo, Northern Ireland etc, etc
They are barley opperational now. They just sit in thier bases in small numbers and do shit all except provide "Air support". A risky business calling that in too.
Same in Iraq... ?
We are?
I would hope the troops had an APC. And a rocket squad.
Not as far as you might think these days. Honestly.
Who said anything about Beruit? Although it was pretty fucked up, especially the UN took a good beating from Israel. Palestine is getting the shit raped out of it too.
It isn't the same, and you know it. You can't face off against a guerilla enemy on the field. You get attacked randomly, hit and run. The enemy is all around you, he is the man who sold you a coffee at his shop that morning, the market seller whom you bought some food off. That guy riding his bicycle to work past you. Vietnam was a sucess? The South only fell because America left. THAT is what won the war. The attrition, the public losing faith, the dead men going home wasn't good. So only 500,000 Americans died. About 4 million Vietnamese? If not more? Guerilla war isn't numbers, it is holding out until the enemy gives in. The South Vietnamese armed forces were a joke, and we all know that.
http://gocomics.typepad.com/the_sandbox/ These blogs suggest differently. The US has about 28,000 troops in Afghanistan under ISAF and OEF command. I'd like to see evidence that so many troops are confined to bases in small numbers. That would be a hell of a lot of bases for a start.
Not what i'm hearing
You must have missed the surge and increase on boots on the ground
Given we're talking about a convnetional stand-off between NATO and Russia and who would win, yes we are
What's your point? APC with mounted infantry are as vulnerable as tanks (more so in fact). You need infantry to clear houses, but armour to support them. Something the US and British understood, but the Russians seem to have forgotten
They are a conscript army who historically have relied on mass. Which is fine if you are the USSR with twice the population of Russia and much of Eastern Europe to back you up, but the limitations of it will quickly become apparent if they attacked NATO now.
Not nearly as much as Chechyna. And you can see the difference between carpet bombing a city (aka Grozny) and targetted (albeit reckless strikes) on specific enemies.
Thanks for the lesson - it's amazing that Sandhurst failed to point this out to me. And instead bothered with the nitty-gritty real world examples of beating insurgents. Guerillas, insurgents, terrorists, freedom fighers, call them what you will - but they win rarely and for every success their are ten failures. Unfortunately this mean's I won't become rich because I'm not discovering anything which thousands of people haven't discovered before me
Who said it was? However it wasn't a victory for the Viet Cong. If there had been no North Vietnam the Vietnamese war would have been over by the late 60's. North Vietnam not only provided equiopment, men (the vast majority of VC were actually NVA), bolt-holes, but also the main killing of US and South Vietnamese. Even when the US left the VC wasn't strong enough to overthrow the South Vietnamese Government - it took an invasion to do that.
See how my thread was hijacked ...
This is from the field. The only US support I've heard, from the frontline, is Air Support these days. It's all Iraq for America now.
Yeah, the Iraqi army was fucking huge. It was a close one alright!
There was me thinking, that we had gone onto a discussion about Geurilla warfare and methods against it. Or are we trying to avoid a Mod coming in and pointing out how off-topic this has got?
I think an APC can do just as well as a Tank in an Urban area. Plus it's manouverability and size means it stands less chance of getting fucked up in narrow streets. Tanks are practically obsolete except in large open spaces these days. When APC's carry HE rockets and large bore cannons.
Recently the training has been bucked up and the equipment certainly has. The introduction of nice new rifles is certainly being appreciated by those who have them.
Israel rarely targets specific enemies. It's more "Oh, we were attacked, blow up some shit and pretend we were retaliating. We'll deny we knew it was an orphanage later".
Well, do explain why it is being such a pain in the arse to defeat them. Whilst the military may have tactics, the sad truth is it a pain to fight guerilla war, and it doesn't go away. Unless you do a Vietnam. Shri Lanka, Ireland, Tibet - all these countries have had Guerilla Warfare for quite some time, and the groups are still going today. No Victory as of yet.
Russia and China weren't involved then. Quite alot of Chinese were there, you know. This "Vast Majority" is a lie. About 2/3rds of the VC were civilians who supported the NVA and helped them. The rest was, indeed, NVA, and also some Chinese, with a few ARVN deserters thrown in for good measure. The NVA and Vietcong were pretty much 2 sides of the same face. Indeed, this would explain how sometimes the apparent "Vietcong" had military vehicles.
The fact is though, without the Vietcong, Vietnam would easily have been won by the USA. The Vietcong enabled a whole new line of warfare which a conventional army finds very difficult to counter. An ongoing war, against public support. Against the minds of the soldiers. How can you fight an enemny you cannot see, and do not know the location of? An enemy who by day sells you noodles?
again - not what I'm hearing and I'm hearing it from pretty senior bods
I hav no idea what you mean
Well we hadn't
Tank carry heavier armament, they are more heavily armoured and you don't send them down tiny narrow streets. APCs have their uses - but they are not a replacement for tanks unless you are desperate. However, sending tanks unaided by infantry (as the Russians did) is suicide
Well that could be because there old rifles were gereatric pieces of crap - fine for spraying, less use if you wanted to hit anything over about fifty yards
You need to look more at their targetting
It's a fucking pain to fight a conventional war as well. But guerilla's aren't unbeatable. To point to ongoing wars (and Northern Ireland isn't) ignores the the many which have been won Malaya, Kenya etc,etc. And in none of these cases that you point out are the insurgents anyehwere close to victory. Can guerilla wars take a long time to resolve - yes, but then so can conventional
Er, yes. The VC needed the NVA - i think you may find that was my point (Ps who mentions Russia and China?)
No it couldn't have been won easily. It may have been winnable (it still was even with the VC), but if there had been no NVA the VC would have not won.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0
If you didn't guess already I'm doing exactly that
My theory on the end of the world is an invasion of ants.
Your full of bloody gloom you end of the world merchants! ...and picking ants of all things as you well know ...could be another infringement of my copyright!