If soviet technology was behind in the 80's, what is it now against modern American weapons?

Partly I think but also (based on sources) Russia doesn't invest a lot of time and money in training those conscripts. They're only in for a year (I think) to begin with. So once you've put them through basic, and sent them to their units for 'advanced' training and familiarization most would only just be getting a handle on the specific skill sets expected of them before their time is up and they're gone. This actually doesn't leave much, if any time for field exercises which are expensive to run anyway.

Also it feeds back into all those other issues again. If you've the OIC of a mechanized unit say and you and others are regularly stealing a chunk of the annual maintenance and fuel budgets you actually have a strong incentive not to run field exercises. And since you can only get away with theft like that long term if your chain of command is also in on the giggle (& gets their % of course) no-one's is going to be pressuring you to do so very often in the first place! At least as far as local exercises go.

You can bet on the fact that in the case of the big exercises we see on TV, the ones designed to boost Russia's international prestige and promote arms sales etc world goes out months in advance to have the assets ready to go (or else). Even then this is usually achieved by (A) mixing units to bring them up to number and (B) publicly declaring that the exercise involved more troops and equipment than is actually the case. So an exercise with 20,000 troops become 50,0000 etc.

 

Training the troops is never a waste. What's wasteful is sending poorly trained soldiers into battle. The war in Ukraine proved that.

 

This one, for starters...

 

Russia doesn't have conscription. It's a special military operation not a war. They are all professional soldiers, and they are probably doing most of the logistics and flying the jets. This is why their casualty rate is so low. Russia went into Ukraine with a very small force which would include Spetsnaz as well as the Chechyans and the private Wagnar group.

Maybe you were looking at the forces of the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics since they are doing most of the fighting and have reclaimed most of their original lands in Ukraine. There's always a greater determination when one is fighting for their own lands and homes. They are the only ones I have seen other than the Chechens who like to advertise themselves.

 

Ukraine managed to take back 1.6% of the lands freed by Russia, but that has stopped now with the ongoing blackouts. It's given the Russians time for the Wagner group to return as well as Spetsnaz and the 178 thousand that are coming from Russia. The Chechens are also returning and want to free Odessa and Kharkov. The problem is that the territory under Russia now is so enormous that they need more men to protect it.

They had hoped that they would get more locals to protect their lands, but after they've been massacred by the Ukrainians just for calling the Russian passport office, it's a little scary for them.

 

That is getting ahead of our skis, but yes, once Kherson is consilidated they should and I believe WILL move on to take Crimea. Of immediate interest is the Kharkiv offensive. The taking of Kharkiv means the Russian soldiers in the region will be much more difficult to supply. If the Russian's attempt to hold the region this will require additional supplies making it even more likely the eventual encirclement will net larger numbers of Russian soldiers captured. With only one remaining route for resupply and/or retreat, Russia will have to make a decision soon. Looks like they may have already, and are attempting to retreat back to defensible lines. Ukraine will consolidate and through there remains more fighting, it looks like it is now only a matter of time before Russian forces are expelled completely, including Crimea. That is, provided Ukraine doesn't let up the pressure and Russia doesn't figure out how to get a clue.

 

Yes Jenny we've heard it all before. The key problem? Ukraine didn't get the 'memo'.

You don't think its a war, Putin doesn't think its a war, we get that. But all that means is that if it's 'not a war' it obviously wasn't (and doesn't) have to be planned for, prepared for or fought like one. And hate to be the one who breaks it to you but. ...

Ukraine thinks it is a war. And they are planning, preparing and fighting accordingly. And they'll go on fighting it like one until the day comes when they've killed or run off every single Russian soldier they can on Ukrainian soil or Russia decides is 'not a war' is to painful to continue and agrees to negotiate peace on terms that are favorable to Ukraine.

So by all means please let Russia go on fighting like a war isn't happening. Because it guarantees Ukraine will win.

 

You are correct. These are not our top of the line. Our stockpiles are vast. As new systems come on line the older stockpiles of munitions need to be depleted. It is actually costly to store and get rid of old stockpiles. Essentially what is being supplied to Ukraine were destined to be destroyed in 5 to 10 years. So it's actually saving us money in some ways. They are still quite lethal, effective, and useful should we find ourselves in need. But this just means as we supply Ukraine with our 2nd tier munitions, contracts are cut to produce more of the 1st tier systems.

Currently we have similar munitions which more than double the range should Ukraine have the need. But this would also require us to provide other updated systems. It is important to understand, one of the important aspects of our systems isn't attributable to specific capabilities. While the Russians in a few cases can match a particular systems attributes, this is a small part of what constitutes an effective weapons platform. For instance, without the drones, sophisticated radars, space systems, communications, etc. the HIMARS effectiveness would be substantially diminished. It does you no good to be able to fire an artillery round 100 - 275 miles if you can't determine within 500 yards where you want it to land. When Russia decides a certain capability is of enough importance they desire to match a certain capability (meaning copy it in most cases with slight alterations for producibility) they cannot afford to develop all the systems-of-systems required to support its capabilities.

In essence, the choices of weaponry and other support systems have been carefully tailored not only to Ukraine's needs, but also to our stockpile availability. So it wouldn't be just a case of supplying Ukraine with longer ranged MLRS munitions. In some cases, depending on the system it is more cost effective to cut contracts to produce more of the 2nd tier systems (should stockpiles prove insufficient) than it would be to upgrade several systems-of-systems (and perhaps training) in order to support the longer ranged platforms. Other considerations come into play as well, such as maintenance. HIMARS and MLRS are just one narrow category (artillery). The US has many other categories of systems-of-systems for infantry, armor, air defense, etc. which haven't been provided to the highest levels as this would require Ukrainian resources be diverted. While this might provide Ukraine additional capabilities, it would detract from areas they could use most effectively (such as artillery).

 

If you are assessing capability on the basis of the amount of ammunition Russia has or can produce then you are bound to overestimate capability.

 

What I'm saying is not to believe anything coming out of our government and its propaganda networks. Unless I'm mistaken, Washington gives courses to journalists on how to brainwash the public.

***B R A I N W A S H I N G ***​

When white is black and black is white,

how happy we'll all be.​

For we'll be told we're living well

and we will all agree​

and should one say that they're in pain

and doesn't see their gain. ​

we'll pity them for we'll all know

that they must be insane.

- Jeannette​

 

No rant ... it was useful info and thoughts.

 

You're telling a West Point grad how wars are fought?

 

While capabilities have increased, the principle is still quite similar. You locate your enemy and put energy on the enemy or his weaponry sufficient to destroy the enemy's ability to wage war against you. Sun Tzu is still very much valid. One exception might be Cyber warfare in this age of information.

 

Yep. Still seems to work the same way.

 

The axium "The objective of any military campaign is to do more damage in less time than the enemy" has never changed.

 

Industrial capacity? That's adorable. The industrial sector of the US economy could buy the entire russian economy and still have left over to pay some of the russian war debts.

How much of something you produce hinges on that something being good. russian military technology is decades behind what the American government has sent the Ukrainian military, and it's not even OUR best stuff.

 

And you think that what the Russians are using in Ukraine is their best stuff? We're years behind them with hypersonics or haven't you heard? In the first 3 days, Russia wiped out with precision strikes from the Black and Caspian Sea, 2,000 military installations and oil depots throughout Ukraine, as well as much of their troops - that is with the exception of the Nazi contingents who Kiev has embedded in the inner cities.

Look, I'm just a little tired of our government lying to the American people. We're heading into WWIII, or haven't you realized it yet?

How Do You Do?​

My name is Sam
as you well know,
and what I do and what I show
is not exactly what I am.

Yet there are some with eyes to see
of what will come and surely be
from all of my chicanery.

- Jeannette


​

 

if that is true don't you want your country to win?

 

You're promoting a logical fallacy - appeal to authority.

https://www.thoughtco.com/logical-fallacies-appeal-to-authority-250336

On an anonymous forum, an appeal to authority of an anonymous user is an especially silly and stupid thing to do.

 

You know something, I'm so fed up with the way my country has been heading these past years, that I don't know what I want - not that it matters anyway. From what I know there will be a world war, and much of the world's population will be wiped out. All I can do is pray for the world and for my loved ones.

 

Yes, it's changed quite a lot.

Ukraine is winning but also doing less damage than Putin's army is doing to children, hospitals, cities, etc. The object is to win the war, not only militarily but culturally.

Amount of destruction is only one possible measure of success. In many cases, high levels of destruction actually indicate a failure instead of success.

 

You could always build and equip a shelter.

Do you live close to any likely targets?

 

First, what exactly is your country? Are you American?

 

It was a caution. Your statement made no sense.

 

Are the Russians using their best stuff? Initially, it appears Russia believed they would invade Ukraine and the entire operation would be quite short-lived. I say appears, because they utilized a large amount of their precision weapons early on. All indications are their remaining stockpiles of precision weaponry have been almost completely depleted or destroyed in 6 months. Replacements for these precision weapons aren't so easy and cheap as the dumb munitions Russia can produce in bulk. Now they are resorting to what are often referred to as "dumb-rounds" which are basically just unguided artillery shells and bombs.

HIMARS and MLRS in all their variants are highly accurate and the launch platforms are highly mobile. This makes dumb munitions almost useless against them. The range from which HIMARS and MLRS can strike alone makes conventional artillery rounds useless against them. A HIMARS or MLRS contains pods of missiles (not rockets) which can travel hundreds of miles and hit their target spots almost dead on. Missiles are guided, rockets are aimed. The rounds fired may be varied. These rounds can pinpoint tanks with armor penetration and even combined with anti-personnel effects. Strike coordinates can be selected extremely quickly and even remotely almost automatically. The launch platform can move rapidly out of the area as soon as the rockets are fired making them very difficult to counter-strike. An entire pod can be replaced with a fully loaded pod in moments like a garbage truck loads a garbage can. By the time the Russians realize they've been fired on, the launch platforms have relocated large distances from the launch point, and it is too late to evacuate the strike point. Each round can take out EVERYTHING in an area the size of a football field (all armor and all humans). Harder targets like bridges can also be taken out. So, 2 strike pods from a single HIMARS or MLRS can decimate an area of 12 football fields. We normally use them in groups of 12 to 16 vehicles each with 2 pods, each pod with 6 rounds (do the math ~200 rounds). Should front-line Russian artillery batteries fire their dumb munitions on Ukrainian positions the HIMARs/MLRSs can trace the incoming rounds in flight, resolve the location of the enemy artillery and fire back on those positions often before they get off a 2nd or 3rd round. Iraqi soldiers manning artillery learned quickly the surest way to die was to fire on the enemy... so they just abandoned their pieces. BTW, these pods aren't as expensive as you might think, especially when you consider one round can take out several more expensive/vital targets. Stockpiles are large.

It is important to understand much of the sophisticated weaponry Russia "develops" is in reality developed in the US. When we design a new system, we utilize components which are exclusively American made. These components are also of a higher grade (meaning they are more resistant to heat, humidity, static, vibration, shock, better testing, etc.). Export restrictions are put in place for many of these key components and essentially not available in the quantity and quality Russia would prefer. We also stockpile large amounts of these components sufficient for future production runs. Russia and China steal/copy these designs and make alterations where possible to make them more producible and tailored if you will to their production realities. Getting some components is difficult so their ability to produce large numbers is either impossible or very expensive. It also means they are always behind by an appreciable amount of time.

As for hypersonics, we developed them and then chose not to continue into LRIP (Low-Rate Initial Production) for various reasons (cost/benefit).

We have been living under the possibility of WWIII for a long time. Russian pilots secretly flew against us in North Vietnam, and we were well aware. Chinese forces directly attacked our forces by surprise in Korea. Yet we never resorted to nuclear weapons. If Putin wanted to have his entire country obliterated in a nuclear holocaust, he didn't need to invade Ukraine to do so. It would be a very unwise move for Putin to even use low-yield tactical nuclear weapons. We have a defense shield which would make ICBMs an even bigger mistake. It wouldn't be pretty, but that is the world in which we live. But what is the alternative? Allow some tinfoil-hat dictator to commit atrocities against innocent nations which in no way attacked or threatened Russia one-by-one like the NAZI's? Of course we can't. So, we are left with a conventional war at the moment between Russia and Ukraine, while preparations are made should Putin make such an egregious mistake.

Any nation which allows its leader to launch an unprovoked opportunistic invasion of a peaceful neighbor cannot be allowed to proceed without consequences. Russia is not a Super-Power. If we don't allow Ukraine to defend itself, Putin will persist one nation after another as Hitler did. Should we sit back like a modern-day Chamberlain until the day when Putin might actually represent a competent conventional threat? Of course not!