LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteAlthough I wish the Russians would be more careful with their bombings, I do feel sympathy for the Russian soldiers, after-all they are just human beings.
Damn that is a HIGH suicide rate for a military.
The Russian Military
Not mighty, not red, and barely an army.
In 1942, the Soviet army saved the world from Nazism by holding Stalingrad while the Germans pounded it to rubble. Today, that army's delinquent stepchild, the Russian army, is fighting a city battle of its own. The Russians are pounding their own city, Grozny, to rubble and are murdering Russian civilians in the process. Their conquest of Grozny, which should conclude by the end of January, will complete a methodical campaign of brutality. Since October, more than 100,000 Russian troops have inched through Chechnya, leveling villages with low-precision artillery and dumb bombs. This "pacification" has killed many Chechen guerrillas and civilians and has turned most of the survivors into refugees. "In its indiscriminate use of firepower against civilian targets, it is as bad as anything since World War II," says Lani Kass, a professor of military strategy at the National War College.
No matter. The war against the Chechens, who are despised as Muslim terrorists in slavic Russia, is wildly popular, proof that Russian military power is returning. Chechnya is payback for Afghanistan, for the first humiliating Chechen war of 1994-96, and for NATO's bombing of Serbia. The army's triumph will ensure Vladimir Putin's election as president in March. It has already restored the military's prestige and budget.
But the notion that Chechnya's rape represents a return of Russian military glory is preposterous. Russia is turtling through Chechnya partly because it doesn't have enough competent troops to fight more quickly. Russia can rely on only about 20,000 skilled soldiers in an army of 700,000. Analysts believe that Russia could muster "one or two" decent army divisions out of a paper strength of 70 divisions.
Russia's military is a lumpen-army, the dregs of dregs. Conscription remains mandatory, but more than 80 percent of young Russians avoid it. The enlisted ranks fill with the stupid, the sick, and the criminal. These soldiers are little better than cannon fodder. Russia makes no serious effort to train them, because it doesn't have qualified noncommissioned officers, and its officers can't control the conscripts. Hazing is unbelievably brutal: More than 1,000 soldiers are murdered every year by their brothers-in-arms, and more than 500 kill themselves because of the horrific conditions.
Pay is laughably small and usually in arrears. Russia has shelved its longstanding plan to switch to a volunteer army because it can't pay enough to recruit soldiers. According to the CIA, Russia spends only one-sixth as much on the military as the Soviet Union did during the '80s. Clothing and rations are scarce: Navy servicemen have starved to death. Alcoholism is rampant, as soldiers drink everything they can get their hands on. (In the '80s, the Mig-25 was nicknamed the "Flying Restaurant" because crews would drain and drink its alcohol-based hydraulic fluid.) Hepatitis flourishes because troops don't know how to dig latrines. The army is "a kingdom of darkness," says U.S. Army War College professor Stephen Blank.
Russia can't afford to equip its so-called soldiers. Only a tiny fraction of Russian materiel is equal to modern Western equipment. Russia lacks up-to-date communications, computers, and precision munitions. Much hardware remains from the Soviet buildup, but most of it doesn't work. Soldiers cannibalize spare parts to keep a few vehicles working. Pilots lack the fuel and equipment to fly training missions. Russian arms plants still produce excellent weapons for export (anti-ship missiles, for example), but the Russian military can't afford to buy any of them.
Russian conventional forces have grown so flaccid that Russia has altered its nuclear policy. It used to abjure first-use of nukes. Now first-use is an essential part of military doctrine, because Russia knows it can't defend itself conventionally. (The only good news about the military is that it has regained secure control over its active nuclear weapons--though not over discarded nuclear material.) Even the Pentagon, which has long featherbedded its budget by inflating the Moscow threat, has largely stopped pretending that Russia can endanger U.S. military interests. The Russian army is no longer the great Russian bear but a "rather vicious ferret," says Mark Galeotti, a Russian military analyst at Britain's Keele University.
This military has decayed immeasurably since the glory days of the Mighty Red Army. The Russian army broke Napoleon. Soviet troops, in Winston Churchill's words, "tore the guts" out of the Nazis. U.S. officials certainly exaggerated the competence of the Soviet military during the Cold War, but it was still a great force: 6 million men under arms, a 3-to-1 tank advantage, a 2-to-1 aircraft advantage. The Red Army was the only institution that matched the Communist Party in prestige. The best and brightest joined the officer corps. There were 15 applicants for every slot at some military schools. The state pampered officers with special stores, chauffeured cars, and dachas.
The Czarist and Soviet armies were not artful, but they were often effective: weak on offense, strong on defense. They performed poorly in far-flung adventures (the Russo-Japanese War, for example) but savaged invaders when the Motherland was under attack. They mastered brute-force warfare, throwing huge numbers of troops, tanks, and shells at the enemy. The U.S.S.R. won World War II by losing 8 million soldiers.
The Afghanistan invasion vanquished the myth of Soviet military invincibility and aroused the popular mistrust of the army that persists today. The breakup of the U.S.S.R. shattered the army into 15 pieces, as Russia lost nukes, ships, bases, and many of its best officers to newly independent republics. In the post-Soviet chaos, youngsters found more ways to duck conscription, and the quality of the average soldier plummeted. Boris Yeltsin, who didn't trust the army, further damaged it by elevating the interior ministry--with its hundreds of thousands of soldiers--as a separate, independent foundation of military power. The first Chechen war dealt the final disgrace. The hardened rebels slaughtered Russia's ill-prepared men, ambushing them by the hundreds in Grozny. Russian mothers traveled to Chechnya, pulled their sons off the front lines, and brought them home.
Russia's generals and politicians essentially ginned up the new Chechen war as a confidence builder. Russia has reason to invade Chechnya: The rebellious province has been agitating to form a separate, antagonistic Muslim state. But Russia was itching for an excuse to attack. When Chechens raided the Russian territory of Dagestan, and bombs wrecked Moscow apartment buildings, the army seized the opportunity. (Many suspect that the bombings were staged to marshal support for war.) Because it is a win-at-all-costs war to restore military prestige, Russian generals have shown utter indifference to civilian casualties and a willingness to lie to retain popular support. (Russia, for example, consistently undercounts its war dead.) The West tolerates Russia's atrocities because it has no choice and because it is better for Russia to take out its aggression on its own citizens than to go adventuring abroad.
The Sherman's march through Chechnya is not just boosting Russian military pride. It is also increasing the military's political clout. The Russian military has long been politically quiescent because a tradition of professionalism pervades the officer corps. But the general staff insisted that Putin grant them total freedom to prosecute the war. Putin, who wants a victory to boost his own prospects, granted it, essentially castrating the civilian defense ministry and subordinating the interior ministry. Western analysts now fear that the generals are using Chechnya to reassert control over national security and foreign policy. Their militarism and nationalism bode ill for future relations between Russia and the West. The general staff, for instance, has essentially forbidden Russia from talking to NATO.
As for the victory in Chechnya, it's a mirage. For Russia's generals and politicians, victory simply means flying the Russian flag in downtown Grozny. But Chechens are fighting a guerrilla war. Russian soldiers will shell Grozny to its foundations and fly their flags, but they won't engage in street-to-street fighting: It's too bloody. So the rebels can melt away and join their comrades in Chechnya's southern mountains. Chechnya has been fighting Moscow for 217 years and hasn't surrendered yet. It won't stop now. When the Russian army continues south, it will find itself in another mountain war--a mini-Afghanistan, this time against a tougher and better-organized enemy. The Chechens will gradually bleed the Russian garrison--one car bomb, one mine, one mortar at a time--until the Russians withdraw in frustration. But for now, Putin and his generals will get their victory --a Potemkin triumph for a Potemkin army.
http://slate.msn.com/id/68304/
Although I wish the Russians would be more careful with their bombings, I do feel sympathy for the Russian soldiers, after-all they are just human beings.
Damn that is a HIGH suicide rate for a military.
"In 1942, the Soviet army saved the world from Nazism by holding Stalingrad while the Germans pounded it to rubble"
Er, say what?
well that isnt quite accurate, but its true that if the USSR had fallen, the Germans probly would have been able to push back the anglo-american invasion. I think about 80% of the German army was fighting on the eastern front.
There are so many wrong assumptions that I don't know where to begin. The Russian Army, like any conscript army, has its good points and bad ones (retention being a bad one).
However, the career military has performed and continue to perform on par with anything NATO has fielded.
I'll let LCols Thomas and Grau (USArmy) do the talking.
Conflict In Chechnya
Chimo
The Western allies still win WWII even if Russia falls.
Germany could not have invaded Britian, Sea Lion was a total farce.
There is NO WAY the Germans can hold back the entire wieght of the US after VJ day. NONE.
Besides, we would have just nuked them too. By August 1945 the US would have assembled 8 more nuclear weapons. By October 46 it's something like 50 more weapons. The Nazi's were still several years from the bomb in 1945.
Even without nukes the Nazi's would have still been unable to stop the 8th AF and RAF Bomber Command, and the entire B-29 fleet from the Pacific would have launched MASSIVE firebombing raids into Germany from China.
The entire US PACFLT is freed up after August 1945 to reinforce LANTFLT. That gives the Western Allies over 100 aircraft carriers and 50 plus battleships to support the 1945 version of Overlord.
The result is the same...the only thing that changes is the finish date.
Colonel, the Russians are not as bad as many make them out to be for sure, but they are hardly the juggernauts we were led to believe they were.
They have no credible NCO structure, morale is horrible, pay is in arrears for many soldiers, hazing is a real problem, suicide rates are near unbelievable(if that article can be believed), training is far less than acceptable, and overall education level of the enlisted ranks is low.
Further, their equipment has proven to be inferior to contemporary US designs in war after war with few exceptions. And it is poorly maintained.
Their docrtrine has indeed evolved, but the state of the men and machines has devolved terribly since 1990.
Even still, they are easily our biggest threat in the world today. They do have a lot of nukes to toss around.
M21,
A few things you've missed. Though the US was somewhat further ahead of the Nazis in atomic research, it was not until they've gotten German scientists on the Manhatten Project that they started making the critical breakthroughs.
While I don't know whether the US would have eventually made those discoveries, the certain fact would be that atomic weapons wouldn't be a factor if those scientists didn't gone over to the US side.
Needless to say that the big fight was between Hitler and Stalin (something that Eisenhower wanted to stay out of), the Soviets accounted for 80% of the Wehrmacht casualties and lost 7-15 million military casualties in the process. I know the US wouldn't be able to tolerate that kind of casualties.
Would the US have fought a war of attrition against Nazi Germany? Don't know but a manouver war is something the Wehrmacht beat the Americans hands down. Patton got his ass kicked twice (by Rommel and then by Kesselring). Who knows what Von Manstein or Paulis would have done.
Chimo
M21,
The Russian Army is not the Red Army. The 16 Guards is no longer a viable formation which leaves only the 1st Moscow as the only formation worth anything in the European theatre.
Yes, they've a shadow of their former self. Problem is that so are we though they've fallen alot further than we did.
However, Russian strength is not in the individual soldier, nor the officers nor NCMs - never was. It was in their central operational planning which they put us (NATO) to shame in the amount of planning they do over a single operation. Regiment would do the planning down to platoon. Platoon leaders don't issue orders, they just re-itterate what regiment tells them to do.
Having say this, I should correct myself from what I've said earlier about Russian flexibility. What I should have said is that they do lack flexibility but not initiative which at times are bold and decisive.
I've served with Russian soldiers in UNPROFOR and you're right, I'm not impressed. Getting drunk in a town full of hostile snipers is damned stupid. However, this same brigade made a dash to Pristinia during OAF in a bold and decisive move that took the initiative away from the British 4th Armoured Brigade and had it not been for Hungary and Bulgaria denying airspace permssion, we would have a full Russian brigade controlling Pristina instead of the Canadians 24 hours after the fact.
Chimo
"Though the US was somewhat further ahead of the Nazis in atomic research, it was not until they've gotten German scientists on the Manhatten Project that they started making the critical breakthroughs."
The US had already detonated a nuke by late 44(see correction in a later post of mine). Oppenhiemer and Einstien were the principals, and both were in the US before the war started.
"While I don't know whether the US would have eventually made those discoveries, the certain fact would be that atomic weapons wouldn't be a factor if those scientists didn't gone over to the US side."
They were on the US side before the war started. I know of no German scientists captured/defected after the start of hostilities that was a major contributer to the Manhattan project. Do you? If so, i'd be interested in that info.
"Needless to say that the big fight was between Hitler and Stalin (something that Eisenhower wanted to stay out of), the Soviets accounted for 80% of the Wehrmacht casualties and lost 7-15 million military casualties in the process. I know the US wouldn't be able to tolerate that kind of casualties. "
The US wouldn't take those kinds of casualties. We did things vastly different than the Russians. Further, Allied air supremacy was complete, so there would have been no ability for massed german movements. The Allies absolutely owned the daylight hours. Once the USN is fully commited to the European theater, it gets MUCH, MUCH worse for the Nazis. The American's best fighters were arguably the Corsair and Hellcat, and the USN by 45 had thousands of them. The USN Bearcat had performance out of this world(easily eclipsed the Mustang D), and was coming online in 45. They could range inland as far as 1000 or more miles. The USN PACFLT would have been unstoppable in the ETO.
The P-51H was also just becoming available at this time, and P-51 production was just hitting full stride in 45.
"Would the US have fought a war of attrition against Nazi Germany? Don't know"
No, just a much, much more terrifying version of the round the clock bombing campaign until the PAC forces were repositioned for the massive invasion into Europe. The USMC is totally freed for the invasion, and so are 3 million members of the US Army. After VJ day the Allies could have hit Pas De Calais and Normandy together. The amount of air and naval cover available is easily 10x that which was commited to D-Day(no, that is not an exageration).
Besides, Even with Russia conquered, the Germans would have to commit at least a million soldiers to garrison it.
" but a manouver war is something the Wehrmacht beat the Americans hands down."
I would not agree with that assesment. Patton manuevered with brilliance in Sicily, and again in the move to relieve Bastogne. To this day that is one of the great realignments and movements to contact under fire that has ever been executed. Had his fuel supplies not been cut off and given to Monte, he stated flat out he could be in Berlin in 10 days. This was before the Battle of the Bulge.
In any case, it was Eisenhower that decided on the broad front. Patten wanted a narrow penetration and deep exploitation attack. Eisenhower and Monte didn't.
"Patton got his ass kicked twice (by Rommel and then by Kesselring). Who knows what Von Manstein or Paulis would have done."
Once at Kasserine, yeah...but what was the second?
Germany was doomed the moment the US entered the war, Russia or no Russia. The deck was just too stacked against them.
I stated i believe Russia is our biggest threat Sir. So i do agree. I just don't believe they could handle us. Maybe it's homerism, but i don't think so.
The record of conscript armies vs professional armies is pretty dim, especially in conventional conflicts. Throw in the American economic and technological advantadges- both massive- and it's pretty hard to argue the Russians could win with a strait face.
As i said, it'd be no Iraq, we'd do some bleeding, but it would be far worse for the Russians. We own the sky, that means a lot nowadays.
BTW, it's great to have you here. You make me think things out...i like that.
And ironman informs me that the US first nuclear detonation was July 16, 1945, so i stand corrected.
Still, the Nazi's were two years away or more at the time of VE day(this is well documented). The British Commando raids into Norway(The heavy water plants) really set the Nazi program back several years.
M21,
Concerning WWII, the same goes both ways, the US would have to occupy Japan and the Pacific, the USN would certainly be able to release a few squadrons but no way can they commit themselves entirely to the ETO. I don't think you will see that much more forces to the ETO since Eisenhower always get what he wants over MacArthur and Nimitz.
I'm not saying that Patton wasn't capable, just that he's not on par with the best of the Wehrmacht manouver generals. Kesselring stopped Patton in Italy starting with the Gustav Line. The measure of any army (by extension its Generals), is not when things go right but when things go wrong. Patton was not used to things going wrong and it showed.
Now, that you've clarified yourself about the need for the Wehrmacht to occupy the USSR (which btw I don't think they've could have done it - there were still 40 divisions in Siberia that had yet to be committed), would the Western Allies succeed in taking out the Wehrmacht? Well, I don't think that they would have marched into Berlin. Eisenhower wanted to avoid that bloodbath at all costs.
Most importantly is the timing. When could the Wehrmacht rush forces West? Before or after Normandy? If before, then, it would have been a much tougher fight (airpower was not precision strikes back then, so they wouldn't have taken out a battalion, never mind a division. What they did do was to cut the LOC but German LOC would be shrinking).
If after Normandy, the war was already over though not the kind of devastation visited by the Red Army. It might have been a negotiated surrender with the Nazis staying in power and Germany staying whole but most certainly all conquered territory would have been returned and reparations made.
As for today, the Russian Army wouldn't be able to handle the BW, never mind the US. Hell, We'll run circles around them, no question. They've lost the bulk and the leadership (the Cold War Generals are retired if not already done so, the current crop do not have the practical rehersal experience.
However, before the Regean build up, we were not as confident. We saw the Soviets did a brilliant operation in mountain Afghanistan, steamrolling that country in less than 3 weeks with over 1000 tanks and artillery pieces in the middle of winter. The engineering feats alone (building roads and clearing roads and making sure that they could support tanks a road giving way on a mountain is different than running into a pot hole in Iraq) were mind staggering.
What it came down to was and always has been REFORGER. The Red Army kept T-34s around because according to their doctrine, when they need those ancient T-34s, nothing better would have survived the battlefield. If REFORGER happens in time, then the M48s and the Chieftans (Abrams and Challengers weren't made then) would have made mince meat of them.
Chimo
"Concerning WWII, the same goes both ways, the US would have to occupy Japan and the Pacific, the USN would certainly be able to release a few squadrons but no way can they commit themselves entirely to the ETO. I don't think you will see that much more forces to the ETO since Eisenhower always get what he wants over MacArthur and Nimitz. "
Actually, one of the alternate plans was the blockade and forget em plan.
In this scenario after the battle of Leyte Gulf(Japan's entire fleet was on the bottom of the Pacific after that battle), the US merely blockades japan. Acute food shortages and the already totally devastated infrastructure would account for an estimated japanese death toll in excess of 10-15 MILLION! That's just from famine and disease.
If Russia gets kicked out of the War, this is probably exactly the plan that is enacted to free the bulk of the PACFLT and the USMC for operations in the ETO.
"I'm not saying that Patton wasn't capable, just that he's not on par with the best of the Wehrmacht manouver generals. Kesselring stopped Patton in Italy starting with the Gustav Line. The measure of any army (by extension its Generals), is not when things go right but when things go wrong. Patton was not used to things going wrong and it showed. "
I hadn't realized that Patton ever fought in Italy proper. I thought that was Mark Clark's nightmare. Italy in any case was a total nightmare for manuever, the whole country is one big contiguous natural obstacle.
"Now, that you've clarified yourself about the need for the Wehrmacht to occupy the USSR (which btw I don't think they've could have done it - there were still 40 divisions in Siberia that had yet to be committed),"
Oh, i agree. But this is all 'what if' the Russkies got slammed.
On those 40 divisions, where were they located, what was their quality level, and when did they get to siberia. I suppose they were there for a buffer in case of a possible invasion by Japan?
We have a really neat what-if going on at another board about a possible Western Allies Vs Russia 1945 thread, and the presence of those 40 divisions was totally overlooked!(That'd be fun to discuss here too).
"would the Western Allies succeed in taking out the Wehrmacht? Well, I don't think that they would have marched into Berlin. Eisenhower wanted to avoid that bloodbath at all costs. "
I think it would have just been a MASSIVELY intensified bombing campaign(The blockade of Japan frees 1000+ B-29's for redeployment to the ETO, or even for attacks into the ETO from Africa.) We saw what the B-29's did to Tokyo with incendiary's. It would have just been more of the same in Germany, France, etc. That would have continued until all the PACFLT forces that could be diverted were redeployed to the ETO. I expect that by the time that happened(figure very late 45), the Nazi war machine would be in smouldering ruins, with no fuel, no spares, and no production capability.( Even without the US using nukes.) There would have been no wonder weapons to save the Nazi's, cause there wouldn't be a city standing anywhere in the Fatherland to build them.
Figure the bombing campaign to last to Spring of 46(Even though historicly the bombing campaign was over by mid 45). The Allies would have just kept recycling target lists, or perhaps even shifted to massed heavy bomber raids on deployed Nazi formations until the weather was good enough to initiate landings.
Even if the Nazi field armies are intact, they cannot manuever, and they cannot retreat. They'd probably be forced to surrender en masse once the landings occured, or die in place.
As the PACFLT(or the bulk of it at least) is commited to the ETO, the US has over 100 carriers to begin offensive operations in the Med, Baltic, and North seas as well as the Atlantic. Hellcats and Devastators flying from those locations could all hit Germany itself and Italy in round the clock hunter killer missions. That's on top of the USAAF 8th AF and the RAF FC.
If this does occur in Spring of 46, then the Allies have hundreds of P-80's and Meteors to throw into the fray as well.
"Most importantly is the timing. When could the Wehrmacht rush forces West? Before or after Normandy?"
Let's say before. It's a lot more interesting that way.
"If before, then, it would have been a much tougher fight (airpower was not precision strikes back then, so they wouldn't have taken out a battalion, never mind a division. What they did do was to cut the LOC but German LOC would be shrinking)."
The USAAC P-47's and RAF Typhoons were both very good antitank aircraft. So were the B-25 Solid and the A-26. All of them raised hell with Nazi ground forces in the Allies push through Europe.
Would they wipe out the Wermacht?
Certainly not.
But they'd bite deep into their artillery and logistics trains. As you stated, their LOCs would've been under nearly continuous round the clock attack.
Also, once the landings start, the Allies have roughly 3x the airpower and 5x the naval power to commit to the landings to go with 3xthe ground forces. That's why i surmise it would be an invasion into Calais and Normandy at the same time.(This assumes the blockade and starvation option of Japan).
Rommel stated in his private journal that it was impossible to mass forces to oppose Overlord because of the US and UK heavy gun boats. Those used at Normandy were small in number, and were older obsolete battleships and CA's. If the PACFLT is commited, dozens more battleships of modern design with the heaviest guns are available. The amount of Allied NGFS fire available would be incomprehensible.
Hell, the USMC could have opened up it's own front and launched an amphibious invasion directly into Germany via the North Sea. They'd be all of 50 miles from Hamburg in such an event.(That would be a NASTY surprise coming on the heels of the other landings!)
Could the Nazi's, even without the 2d front have stopped a three pronged amphibious invasion, where one of the fronts was in the heart of Germany itself and all three Allied landing zones had massive air and naval cover?
Very, very, very unlikely.
"As for today, the Russian Army wouldn't be able to handle the BW, never mind the US. Hell, We'll run circles around them, no question. They've lost the bulk and the leadership (the Cold War Generals are retired if not already done so, the current crop do not have the practical rehersal experience. "
I'd agree with that entirely.
"owever, before the Regean build up, we were not as confident. We saw the Soviets did a brilliant operation in mountain Afghanistan, steamrolling that country in less than 3 weeks with over 1000 tanks and artillery pieces in the middle of winter. The engineering feats alone (building roads and clearing roads and making sure that they could support tanks a road giving way on a mountain is different than running into a pot hole in Iraq) were mind staggering. "
Yup. Turned out to be a lot of smoke an mirrors though. But we did give them a lot of respect as a foe.
"What it came down to was and always has been REFORGER. The Red Army kept T-34s around because according to their doctrine, when they need those ancient T-34s, nothing better would have survived the battlefield. If REFORGER happens in time, then the M48s and the Chieftans (Abrams and Challengers weren't made then) would have made mince meat of them."
I agree. The Red Army was formidable, but was never the juggernaut that NATO budget planners made them out to be. IF they were going to beat us, it would be because the USN and RN lost the battle of the Atlantic. That's also not very likely. The USN had a 600 ship fleet back then.
Especially after the introduction of the Abrams, Leo II and Challenger it would've gone very badly for the Russians in a Central European war.
Of course, hindsight is 20/20. at the time Russians looked really scary.
As far as casualties, i will state that the US war in the Pacific was a no-holds barred island by island, cave by cave no quarter blood bath. The US took very heavy casualties in the Pacific campaign, and it never deterred us in the slightest. The planned invasion of the Japanese home islands was expected to produce 1,000,000 US casualties.
While Eisenhower might've been adverse to casualties, the US as a whole was not. We were prepared to do whatever it took to win on to total victory. After the battle of Midway, total victory was inevitable.(That was THE key battle of WWII- if the IJN beats the USN at Midway, there is nothing to stop the Japs from landings on the US West Coast!)
interesting, Stalingrad was the beginning of the end thanks to the Red Army
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: