The war with the superpower. Dangerous scenario

240


Experience - knowledge of how not to act in situations that will never happen again.



Generals are preparing for past wars. And what is the result? The combat capability of any army is determined not by the number of its past battles, but by the talent and abilities of the current commanders.

What experience did the Wehrmacht Blitzkrieg had before the successful 1939-40 Blitzkrieg? What personal combat experience did Yamamoto and his subordinates have when planning to strike at Pearl Harbor?

A properly organized and trained army does not need “combat experience”.

The army needs training that simulates a standoff with a technically developed and numerous adversary. In a thorough analysis of the threats and realities of a similar war. In the creation of new tactics and working out of their elements in the course of regular exercises.

How will the abstract "combat experience" when conditions change? History It is full of examples when armies that constantly fought against weaker opponents instantly lost their combat capability in conflicts of a different type. The tragic “summer of 41”.

Now they are talking about the combat experience gained in Syria. But what is the use of it?

The army can “acquire combat experience” as much as possible by acting against the guerrillas, the Mujahideen and the terrorists. Take part in police operations and territory patrols.

But will such “experience” be useful in a collision with modern mechanized divisions, armies and fleets USA and China? The answer is too obvious to be said out loud.

On this account there is one instructive story.

“An army that did not fight with anyone”

Ironically, the United States is the only one who has the experience of a full-scale modern war. At least, of all the conflicts of the twentieth century, the conditions of “Storm in the Desert” are considered to be the closest to modern ones. And in scale, this “storm” has become the largest since the end of World War II.

But, as mentioned above, the acquired combat experience for a quarter of a century dissolved in time. The essence of this story is in the preparation and planning of the operation itself. Moreover, the Yankees had no experience of war in the desert before.

The situation was complicated by distance. A group of half a million soldiers and thousands of vehicles (without taking into account the forces of the allies, who often needed help themselves) were transferred to the other side of the Earth.

“War with the Papuans”

For a quarter century, Saddam has accumulated so much weaponsthat the armies of most developed states could envy him. By the quantity and quality of the armed forces, Iraq in 1991 objectively ranked fifth in the world. Guards tank the divisions “Hammurappi” and “Tavalkan” are not barmalei in the vicinity of Palmyra.

Saddam’s army was a proven military tool sharpened during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war (1980-88)

In 1990, she had one day to capture and occupy Kuwait.

Invaluable combat experience. Motivation. Modern samples of Soviet and Western weapons, exacerbated by their number. One of the most advanced air defense systems in the world.

“2.0 Citadel”

While the Yankees were carrying diapers and a Coke across the ocean, the Iraqis erected three defensive lines on the southern border of Kuwait and laid 500 thousand min. To maneuver fire weapons in the directions of a possible breakthrough in the desert, more than 1000 kilometers of new ways were laid, bringing flank attacking units of the Multinational Force. With disguised shelters and prepared positions for Iraqi military equipment.

Southern Kuwait was turned into an impregnable frontier able to withstand the massive strikes of enemy tank and motorized columns. “Kursk arc” in the sands.

Wear out in defensive battles. Discard. To cause unacceptable losses.

Unfortunately for Iraqis, the Pentagon also had the opportunity to study the results of Operation Citadel. To study well enough not to repeat the mistakes of the Hitler generals.

Such a serious milestone can not be crushed by air strikes or heavy artillery fire. Any land army, stepping on such a “rake”, would have suffered terrible losses. The example of the “Citadel” left no doubt - thousands of tanks that had been burned down, 83 thousand dead fascists.

“Six weeks of supersonic warfare”

The first phase, expectedly, was offensive air “preparation”.

Due to better coordination and numerical superiority, aviation The MNF (80% of the US Air Force) immediately seized the initiative in the air. Iraqi pilots, the heroes of the air battles of the Iran-Iraq war, could not provide any distinct resistance. The surviving "MiGs" and "Mirages" in a hurry flew to Iran. From the powerful and layered air defense there is no trace left.

The deafening blow of 88 500 tons of bombs undoubtedly weakened Iraq.

But how did this affect the half-million grouping in Kuwait?

“Bomb every dune”

In recognition of the Coalition's command, erected on the “Hussein Line” shelter, engineering structures and road embankment reduced exploration capabilities by 90%. After six weeks of intense bombardment, the 2 / 3 of Iraqi armored vehicles and fortifications remained in the ranks. Then it turns out that the Americans overestimated the accuracy of their strikes - the real losses of Iraqis turned out to be even lower.

The weakened but undefeated group continued to occupy the frontiers, having everything necessary for the continuation of hostilities. No air strikes could force Saddam to withdraw an army from Kuwait.

This is well understood and the command MNF. There was no “electronic miracle” capable of winning the war. This task could be solved only by a soldier, “putting his boots on the border of Kuwait and Iraq”.

“Contactless” war of a new type they talked about in the following years - no more than a propaganda “duck”, created with the aim of hiding from the public the true extent and risks of the “Storm in the Desert”.

We will not talk about future wars, but as of 1991, neither the US Armed Forces nor any other country could break through the “Hussein Line” without the risk of return fire and counterstrikes by the Iraqi Guard.

Therefore, the main intrigue, the event and the lesson of “The Storm” were not the bombing and the tomahawk launches, but the last three days of the war. Ground phase.

270 kilometers per 12 hours

The Americans planned a forced march along a large “arc” passing through the territory occupied by the enemy. Through the Iraqi desert. With the subsequent breakthrough into Kuwait from the northern, weakly protected direction, to the rear of the group, entrenched in the "Hussein line".

The war with the superpower. Dangerous scenario


Smoothly only on paper. In reality, the plan raised concerns. The “Hussein Line” is not a static Maginot Line. It was based on the “steel fists” of armored units, able to turn around and take the fight from any direction.

It all depended on the pace of the attack. Will the American tanks and motorized infantry have time to break into Kuwait before the enemy regroups forces and launches a counterstrike? Will the technique withstand the test of fire and sand?

By the evening of the first day of the offensive, the MNF units, moving through Iraq, dived 270 km. Then the pace slowed down, the resistance grew. On the fourth day, the advance units wrapped the 430 tracks of desert kilometers.

First of all, the Iraqi generals were shocked. Nobody imagined that modern tank armada will be able to move with such speed. In the sand. Day and night. Instantly suppressing any resistance.

A considerable “positive” role was played by the experience of the Iran-Iraq war, where opponents are accustomed to trample on the ground, leading fierce battles for every ruin in human settlements.

Attempts to detain "Abrams" by forces of separate units, who managed to stand in the way of the enemy, were not crowned with success. The most significant battle on Esting-73, where parts of the Tavalkan division managed to dig in (one of the best Iraqi units that had new types of tanks in service, including T-72 and T-72М). There is no reliable loss data in that battle. But, the overall result indicates that the resistance was broken. A few hours later both brigades "Tavalkan" ceased to exist.



Helicopter landings were used to capture the control points along the route of the tanks. Then began the transfer of air fuel and ammunition. By the time of approach of technology in these areas, refueling points were already ready. After tanks, 700 trucks with fuel rushed from the border.

All artillery was divided into two groups. While one provided fire support, the other moved forward at maximum speed, barely keeping up with the tanks.

Like a giant skating rink, heavy divisions of the United States crushed everything that got in their way.

“Blitzkrieg on new physical principles”

The main components of the success of the ground phase, which passed surprisingly quickly and without noticeable losses for the Coalition, are:

A) The use of the latest means of observation, control and communication. Compact navigation devices “Trimpak” and “Magellan” were much more important for the soldiers than the odious CD “tomahawk”. Analogues of GPS-navigators, which became popular in the civilian market a decade later. Unlike civilian devices, they allowed to calculate the angles of the art. fire and warn about the danger of being in areas of air strikes.

The next important novelty was night vision devices, massively implemented in all units of the US Army. AN / PVS-7 monocular glasses for crews of combat vehicles, AN / AVS-6 glasses for helicopter pilots, AN / PVS-4 thermal sights for rifles and machine guns.

All this made it possible not to reduce the rate of occurrence in the dark. On the contrary, at night the Americans gained absolute superiority, opening fire even before the Iraqis learned of their presence.

Everything is clear here. For eight years, the Iraqis fought on equal terms with Iran. But during the "Storm" they felt all the delights of war with a technologically advanced adversary.

But that was not all.



B) The second reason for success was, without exaggeration, an outstanding organization. The Americans could coordinate the actions of their units, stretching hundreds of kilometers across the dangerous desert. And to establish a supply system, which leveled the traditionally lack of reliability of Western technology in difficult conditions and allowed to maintain an unprecedented pace of occurrence.

In addition, the ability to conduct large-scale offensive operations around the globe was demonstrated. In the shortest possible time, having transferred half a million land grouping across the ocean and adjusting its supply.

Finale

The speed with which “blew out” Iraq shows that it was preparing for another war. Despite careful study of old methods? It turned out that the Iraqi military had no idea what they would have to face in the hot winter of 1991, in the Arab-Israeli conflicts and in the long, bloody confrontation with Iran.

Last time, the Americans surprised the world with a system of organization and technical innovations that changed the situation on the battlefield. Navigators, thermal imagers, attack helicopters with automatic detection of enemy positions (Firefinder). What variations are possible in our time?

According to the author, one of the most significant aspects is the massive introduction of guided weapons. Up to guided artillery shells and guidance systems for unguided aircraft missiles (NURS). Practice confirms the theory. If at the time of the “Storm”, only 30% of ammunition were classified as guided weapons, by the time of the invasion of Iraq (2003), the share of such ammunition had increased to 80%. Currently, almost every bomb has its own guidance system.

All this will make even a “limited military conflict” with the participation of technically developed countries completely different from what we used to see in the reports about the defeat of ISIS.

You can recall the more dense aviation support. When each combat aircraft is able to use high-precision weapons and find targets at any time of the day. For comparison: during the war with Iraq, only 1 / 7 of American aircraft had such capabilities.

Robotics, Dronesplanning a hundred kilometers of bombs. New classes of combat vehicles. Even more long-range artillery.

However, quite predictions.

Even with the example of “The Storm in the Desert” one can see how serious, in a military relationship, is a country with superpower status. And how does a conflict of this level differ from the usual “anti-terrorist operations” and clashes between the countries of the “third world”.

Based on materials modernarmy.ru
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

240 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    20 September 2017 07: 00
    In addition, the ability to conduct large-scale offensive operations around the globe was demonstrated. In the shortest possible time, having transferred half a million land grouping across the ocean and adjusting its supply.

    And what, did they take islands in the Pacific Ocean in WWII without organizing supplies and troop transfers?
    Five tons of supplies per paratrooper ... EMNIP.
    But an embossed air defense system should be considered. And the appearance of the whole mass of URO. And eyes from space.
    1. 0
      21 September 2017 16: 50
      By analogy with computer "shooters", we can say that this is the same as shooting homing bullets, or in autoaim mode.

      In essence, this reduces the reaction time.
    2. +7
      21 September 2017 16: 52
      The article is good in that it forms the correct thinking about the conduct of hostilities, and eradicates incorrect concepts.

      In short, organization and professionalism are important.
      1. +1
        23 September 2017 00: 02
        That's it - I ran to give up ...
      2. +2
        23 September 2017 13: 42
        Quote: zarya
        Article

        The full informational article ...... you yourself will find what to substitute for the ellipsis. The conditions on the account of the "victorious" Amer army are good for domestic American use, but the realities are Korea-losing, Vtnam-losing, Grenada and then zilch came out. Iraq is not in the end, the camel loaded with gold turned out to be stronger than the will to resist the army of Iraq. In Syria, gangs prepared by the Americans are defeated.
        So what's the bottom line of this rotten essentially article?
        Bet on computers and smart bongs?
        So the destruction of the control point nullifies all this. And the entire rhetoric of the author of the article is good against countries where the equipment and armaments of the 1,2 post-war generation are good, but alas, it will not work against the army at a level or superior to the Aeroan forces in equipment.
        1. +6
          23 September 2017 14: 06
          Quote: Pancir026
          it will not work against the army at a level or superior to Aero’s armed forces in equipping.

          You are certainly right. Remained a trifle. Find such an army.
          Maybe Veishnoria will do? Very harsh men, as it turned out.
          1. +6
            23 September 2017 14: 32
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Maybe Veyshnoria will do

            Fashingtonia?
            Either her servants in black, Ishilovites, are dying in the hundreds, along with the curators.
            1. +3
              23 September 2017 14: 44
              Quote: Pancir026
              igilovtsy, hundreds die

              Excuse me, but who feel sorry for them? To the Americans?
              Quote: Pancir026
              along with the curators.

              Well, who is there to whom the curator is - a difficult question.
              1. +2
                23 September 2017 14: 47
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Well, who is there to whom the curator is - a difficult question.

                Your wards will die. With your curators. So star-striked. You should not make a decent mine in case of a obviously lost war.
                And remember. Many people went to Russia. Yes, not many feet were carried away.
                1. +4
                  24 September 2017 01: 37
                  Quote: Pancir026
                  Your wards die

                  "Ours" there are SSA and Kurds.
                  Quote: Pancir026
                  And remember. Many people went to Russia. Yes, not many feet were carried away.

                  Oh, how stern. And in order to enroll in patriots, is it mandatory to refuse commas?
                  1. +1
                    24 September 2017 09: 23
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    And in order to enroll in patriots, is it mandatory to refuse commas?

                    Trump will be poked with Clinton.
                    And with regards to commas, it will do for you.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    "Ours" there are SSA and Kurds.

                    Yours there, ISIS and Nusra, so do not make a decent mine, with the absolute failure of your fuss in BV.
                    1. +2
                      24 September 2017 13: 26
                      Quote: Pancir026
                      Trump will be poked with Clinton.

                      In English, the word "thou" is used mainly in prayers.

                      "Oh, what a harsh mother's patriots!" You are right, that’s better.

                      Quote: Pancir026
                      commas for you

                      They told me at school that adults aren’t forced to write correctly by a teacher, but by a sense of language (in my case, by three). But you, it seems, collected AK at school.
                      Quote: Pancir026
                      with the absolute failure of your fuss on BV.

                      Unfortunately, "our" fuss is not there. No one is interested in seriously understanding who is less than other cannibals there. Just in such cases - when all the big ones do not care - the most epic massacres arise, such as the 2nd Congolese War.
                      1. +2
                        26 September 2017 11: 20
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Unfortunately, "our" fuss is not there.

                        There is no need for miserable excuses; yours train, supply and cover up bandits from SSA and other rabble there.
                        Only the army of the SAR, units of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, are legal according to the permission of the SAR and those who are subordinate to the Government of the SAR.
                        Everything else including your MTR, ISIS and other rabble-criminal gang to be destroyed.
        2. +2
          23 September 2017 14: 11
          Many fought against gangs and terrorists. And who fought against states and coalitions of countries. How many have won in the last 50 years? Usa unlikely? Israel yes it was a matter. USSR yes, but still more than half a century ...
          1. 0
            25 September 2017 20: 22
            USA- Japan, the Cold War (a whole military bloc defeated) Balkans, Iraq, Iraq.
            Israel - Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq
            USSR (Russia) - Germany, Georgia
            "And who fought against states and coalitions of countries. How many have won in the last 50 years?"
            ps if one state is fighting a war against another, then most likely one of them will win :-)
          2. 0
            April 21 2018 21: 08
            Quote: Shahno
            How many have won in the last 50 years?

            And why is such a restriction 50 years? Because is it more convenient for you? Or because your state simply did not exist before?
      3. 0
        April 21 2018 20: 59
        Quote: zarya
        The article is good in that it forms the correct thinking about the conduct of hostilities, and eradicates incorrect concepts.

        Yeah, and gives rise to new wrong concepts.
        The author does not understand the reasons for the defeat of the Red Army in 1941. The author confidently called the Iraqi army modern and prepared, although this is not so. The author has absolutely no idea what aviation is for in a modern war.
  2. +3
    20 September 2017 07: 22
    The tragic "summer of the 41st."

    And our pre-war Spanish database experience here also inspired the author.
    1. +6
      20 September 2017 07: 41
      Quote: k_ply
      pre-war spanish database experience

      Spanish, Finnish, Khalkhin-goal, even on Formosa were noted (the old name of Taiwan) - TVD throughout Eurasia
      105 thous. Irretrievable losses of the Red Army during the prewar years

      And where is this combat experience
      1. +8
        20 September 2017 07: 58
        Quote: Santa Fe
        And where is this combat experience

        The USSR practically had no combat experience in defensive operations against a strong enemy. On the contrary, the Wehrmacht had extensive experience in offensive operations. After all, it is no secret that the German troops both in Austria and in Poland "mowed down" quite a bit, they turned out to be the most "pancake lumpy".
        So this example refutes your points rather than confirms

        With the "combat experience" in fact, everything is very, very difficult. He can not only help, he can greatly interfere. As in the example with the Iraqi army, by the way.
        1. +2
          20 September 2017 08: 10
          How do you rate the experience gained in Syria?
          1. +31
            20 September 2017 08: 28
            No After five years, traditionally will be forgotten. But at the same time, the inner psychological feeling of “nagibators” will remain.

            In martial arts there is such a phenomenon as the "disheartened" fighter. So he actively trained, participated in sparring, and then “tied up”. And after a while he has a tendency to overestimate himself, his physical condition and real readiness for battle does not correspond to either his self-conceit or his subconscious attitudes.

            Here is a question for you. How did it happen that 19 MSD, which during the second Chechen one never suffered losses from ambushes, managed to fly twice in 8 years after a very short period (that battle. When Khrulyov was wounded in the Faldo and Zemo-Quiti).

            The problem is that we do not have a system for recording and accumulating combat experience and putting the results of this work into combat training programs.
            1. +4
              20 September 2017 08: 52
              The main idea of ​​the article is in your paragraph. Formulated the idea perfectly.

              It also contains the answer about 19 MSD
              1. +11
                20 September 2017 09: 06
                Quote: Santa Fe
                It also contains the answer about 19 MSD

                Just the same with 19 MSD, everything is much more complicated. Losses from ambushes during the 2008 war are primarily due to the fact that the carriers of vast experience in confronting such threats have gone away - officers who have passed Afghanistan. In particular, in 693 SMEs that flew into Zemo-Quiti, it was the deputy regiment commander who banally retired.
                Combat experience cannot be overestimated. But also underestimate and not take into account its obvious mismanagement.
                1. +6
                  20 September 2017 21: 56
                  The main thing is man ???
                  1. +6
                    21 September 2017 06: 30
                    Quote: Okolotochny
                    The main thing is man ???

                    Definitely.
                    And the more perfect the technique, the more thoroughly it needs to be prepared.

                    Including carefully processing combat experience.
                    1. +2
                      21 September 2017 07: 58
                      Quote: Spade
                      Including carefully processing combat experience.

                      Hmm.
                      I met this idea many times, but in a more Russophobic presentation.
                      One of the problems of the RF Armed Forces is precisely the lack of combat experience, no matter how many times you plop. Afghanistan, Chechnya - everything erased like an eraser from memory. If not at the level of individual regiments, then at the general level - for sure.
                      At the same time, any advanced army very clearly adopts a stranger, and, above all, his own experience.
                      So the author, on this side, is right. If there is no sane training system, then experience is neither useful nor harmful. It simply does not exist, it does not accumulate. How to pour water into a sieve.
                      1. +4
                        21 September 2017 09: 01
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        One of the problems of the Russian Armed Forces is precisely the lack of combat experience.

                        No. Just the same combat experience, the sea. The problem is its accounting and distribution.

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        At the same time, any advanced army very clearly adopts a stranger, and, above all, his own experience.

                        I am not aware of such "advanced armies." Everyone is inclined to ride on a rake, not considering not only the mistakes of others, considering their own big problem.
                        Here you look, for example, at the history of American special operations, and involuntarily ask yourself the question "will they ever ever learn how to plan them properly?" Indeed, almost none of them went without serious “shoals”, most often associated with problems at the preparation stage. Why, for example, the British CAC is not so substituted?
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. The comment was deleted.
                      5. 0
                        21 September 2017 21: 59
                        Quote: Spade
                        Just the same combat experience, the sea. The problem is its accounting and distribution.

                        I, apparently, expressed myself too floridly.
                        Experience can be understood as the number of adventures collected on the ass, and the amount of what remains in the head. During the discussion, it seems to me that these two understandings of experience are constantly confused.
                        Unfortunately, one fig goes into another not by itself. And here, they say, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation have serious problems.
                        Quote: Spade
                        I do not know such "advanced armies"

                        Perhaps he went too far.
                        Quote: Spade
                        Look, for example, at the history of American special operations ... Why, for example, the British CAC

                        Excuse me, where are you watching this?
                        Quote: Spade
                        I am absolutely right. A properly trained army does not depend on the presence or absence of special talents among its commanders.
                        Israel is generally a very good example in this regard. In the vast majority of the wars he waged, the average level of training of soldiers and commanders was higher than that of the enemy. And attempts to turn the tide by introducing a number of military advisers, whose level was higher than the average for Tsakhal, into the opposing Israel’s troops, in fact yielded nothing.

                        He wrote in a hurry with Lebanon, so it is not clear why I remembered this.
                        This refers specifically to the Sultan Yakub and the actions of commanders of all levels in that story. Yes, AOI - in general - have benefited from - in general - better preparation. But this cannot be understood so that "a properly trained army also does not need the talents of commanders." Even as it needs. And the ability to nominate the right people to the right posts is one of the most important components of a "properly trained army."
                2. 0
                  21 September 2017 16: 54
                  Quote: Spade
                  Combat experience cannot be overestimated. But also underestimate and not take into account its obvious mismanagement.


                  Thanks for the interesting example.

                  Do you think it is possible to somehow train for the sake of gaining the experience that the Afghans have carried away?
                  1. +4
                    21 September 2017 17: 11
                    It is possible and necessary. For example, there is nothing complicated in training the method of setting outposts from infantry units that are put on the route of the “core” of reinforced SMEs and are removed immediately after passing the convoy. There is nothing difficult in practicing artillery "fire combing" on the sides of the road in places convenient for ambushes. There is nothing difficult in teaching infantry methods of organizing such ambushes so that they can then determine such convenient places. Well and so on ...
                    All this is pretty easy to practice.
                    1. +1
                      22 September 2017 11: 54
                      Quote: Spade
                      It is possible and necessary. For example, there is nothing complicated ...

                      I suspect that from the time of the USSR, they specifically tried not to train conscripts with extra wisdom. Because after demobilization, they can easily end up on the wrong side of the barricades. And indeed, they tried to keep the army at such a level that it could not interfere in politics.
                      1. 0
                        24 September 2017 12: 25
                        Quote: brn521
                        since the times of the USSR, they specifically tried not to train conscripts with extra wisdom. Because after demobilization, they can easily end up on the wrong side of the barricades.
                        - this is where in the USSR, after the urgent MASSOVO, sodates could be on the wrong side of the barricades ??
      2. +7
        20 September 2017 12: 58
        Quote: Santa Fe
        And where is this combat experience

        What do you mean by combat experience?
        This is a very vast field ... fellow
        It is clear to the horse that a well-trained fighter and experienced in combat command headquarters is better than an un-fired one without one.
        As for Iraq, he no experience could helpbecause the Iraqi armed forces were radically inferior in the quality and quantity of aviation, air defense and electronic warfare systems, without which resistance in the conditions of a flat-desert terrain was impossible.
        The casket opens simply - netuti of the necessary weapons systems, what is there to align Iran, etc. Total superiority in air and space (intelligence), the absence of natural shelters such as mountain ranges, forests, despite the measures taken, the low level of training of troops and headquarters (more than once proven in the wars with Israel)
        And they say, the Iraqis gained “the wrong” experience.
        But how can a third world country resist in an open, not partisan war, SSHA?
        The whole experience just says that it is "not at all impossible." request
        Or, without, for example, air supremacy, could you successfully fight in World War II, say, to land in Normandy?
        Yes, and the experience of using electronic warfare systems or delivering attacks with cruise missiles differs, probably, from the experience of operations as part of the DRG or the combat use of a tank company in defense, although this is necessary.
        1. +8
          20 September 2017 23: 05
          Quote: Alekseev
          But how can a third world country resist in an open, not partisan war

          Well, Vietnam somehow resisted. True, with the help of the Union. If during the war with Iraq in the USSR it was not Mishka tagged, but Andropov or Romanov, the history of this war would go according to a different scenario.
          1. +4
            21 September 2017 06: 54
            Quote: albert
            Well, Vietnam somehow resisted.

            This is hardly Vietnam or North Korea at the time.
            This is the USSR and China in Vietnam and Korea successfully resisted.
          2. +1
            21 September 2017 08: 01
            Quote: albert
            If during the war with Iraq in the USSR it was not Mishka labeled, but Andropov who was in power

            Well, how BE would have said senselessness under Andropov, and how it HAS BEEN BEFORE Andropov in six months is known. Bear-19.
            1. +1
              21 September 2017 08: 43
              By the way, yes . half of the Politburo believed that Assad should be helped with the most modern weapons, the second half believed that in the presence of Afghanistan, it was not necessary to intervene in Syrian affairs at all. As a result, half measures were taken - they supplied junk, but a lot. Of course, as a citizen of Israel, it suits me perfectly.
          3. +1
            21 September 2017 08: 38
            Exactly that somehow. While the Americans were playing political games, here we are bombing, we are not bombing here, it was possible to resist. After all, Vietnam was also not very supplied, until they decided which of the older brothers is closer to them — the USSR or China. Have you seen photographs of ZU-23-2 somewhere in reports from Vietnam, not to mention the 125s, Shilka or cubes?
            1. 0
              25 September 2017 15: 17
              So they finally decided only by the middle of the 70s, after the end of the war.
        2. wvg
          0
          21 September 2017 09: 38
          But how can a third world country resist in an open, not partisan war, SSHA?
          Very easy! First of all, we need a real assessment of the current situation: why did you decide that the enemy will advance on the forehead? Why did you decide that the SA will not provide its territory to the Coalition for entering the rear? The absolute analogy is, all the same, the Maginot-kk line turned out to be easier to get around than to storm.
          In addition, the army awaiting the attack is simply doomed - remember the same 41 years!
          Here you need to proactively crush the enemy, without fear of consequences. After all, only the winners are not judged.
          And what kind of Americans are warriors known from Vietnam ...
          1. 0
            21 September 2017 11: 39
            Losses of the US Army and North Vietnam Fighters Compare
            1. +2
              21 September 2017 18: 11
              1) as soon as the mattresses in Vietnam were quickly quickly lowered from heaven to earth - the ground part fell just as quickly. 2) Hto won the Vietnam War? Well, in terms of the ratio of losses, the point is not in the ability to fight, but in the fascist methods used then and now by the US Army !!! am
              1. +1
                25 September 2017 15: 21
                You know, I, as a citizen of the Russian Federation, will not condemn the use by our army of any methods of warfare against our enemies. If only our losses were minimized. And, in my opinion, we in Afghanistan often acted not very humane.
                For some reason, the Vietnamese and Koreans praised the quality of training for the US military. They in Americans saw a strong and worthy enemy.
      3. +1
        20 September 2017 18: 50
        Mentioning Spain - between the lines implied the now successful and also overseas experience, but only in Syria. The final is unknown as long as. I take it only as the Polygon, which does not characterize in any way the combat readiness of the Armed Forces as a whole (+ only certain weapons and systems), and the skill and training of each individual unit, unit.
        I doubt the full-fledged plenipotentiary regional command of independently conducting a database (rather administrative management, the organization of communications, combat and rear support in the area of ​​operations, and the reg.center for intelligence gathering). In my opinion, operations management is carried out centrally, not without reconciliation and direct connection of the resources of the capital’s General Staff and with its consent. With such a centralized approach, if necessary, operational management resources may not be enough for several fronts (directions). It is possible that I am mistaken and my conclusions are superficial.
      4. +1
        21 September 2017 18: 03
        This “lost honey agaric” is re-equipment for effective winter equipment and the corresponding requirements for equipment (frozen fascists confirmed the conclusions with correct carcasses), rejection of the vicious BT principle and the beginning of the development and implementation of medium and heavy tanks (that’s what the Nazis really saw when the T- 34 and especially KV). And much more.
      5. 0
        25 September 2017 15: 09
        And where is this part of the Red Army fought in Taiwan?
      6. 0
        April 21 2018 21: 12
        Quote: Santa Fe
        And where is this combat experience

        The meaning of the question is not clear! A similar question would make sense if the USSR lost.
        At the beginning of the war, the Third Reich with satellites was twice as superior to the USSR in population, and four times in industrial potential. At the beginning of the war, 3.2 million Red Army fighters were concentrated near the western border of the USSR against 5.5 million Wehrmacht fighters with satellites!
        And where is all this? And how did the Nazis manage to lose with such overwhelming superiority? Here it is - the combat experience of the Red Army
  3. +24
    20 September 2017 07: 24
    An excellent propaganda article on praising the American forces and the hopelessness of fighting it! After viewing this “MASTERPIECE”, it is immediately clear that we are barbarians and savages armed with junk and the successes of our Armed Forces in Syria - this is nothing compared to “the greatest US Army,” in short, you already need to raise the white flag and go dry the shabby shirts! Neighing from the heart! laughing laughing laughing
    1. +19
      20 September 2017 07: 49
      Quote: Sergey-svs
      the success of our forces in Syria is nothing

      All the same, the article is not about success, but about the value of the combat experience gained in such a war. In this sense, for the Armed Forces, the “West-2017” doctrine is more useful, where at least opposition from the “conditional adversary” is simulated. This is not a pig in the sand throw

      With regard to success in Syria - two years to bomb the territory, smaller than the Sverdlovsk region - and things are there. The war is in full swing, retreating - advancing. The situation changes unpredictably every month.
      1. +10
        20 September 2017 08: 00
        Do not, as they say - pull out of context! Yes The article is a golimy propaganda slag, a mixture of truth, lies and fantasies, and therefore wrote that this:
        An excellent propaganda article on praising the American forces and the hopelessness of fighting it!
        1. +24
          20 September 2017 08: 10
          Quote: Sergey-svs
          Article - golimy propaganda slag

          The article has nothing to do with propaganda.

          Its main message is the prerogative of combat training over a certain “combat experience”. An indication that this "combat experience" should not be overestimated. It is often not only useless, it is harmful.
          1. +5
            20 September 2017 08: 21
            Quote: Spade
            The article has nothing to do with propaganda.

            Well, if you think that this article is not propaganda, it is your right - I will not even argue. And I have a completely opposite opinion, which I described above. hi
            1. +4
              20 September 2017 14: 41
              The article is good. She opened her eyes to many things.
              1. 0
                April 21 2018 21: 22
                Quote: Stalingradpobeda
                The article is good. She opened her eyes to many things.

                wassat laughing crying soldier negative sad am
          2. +10
            20 September 2017 14: 20
            Quote: Spade
            It is often not only useless, it is harmful.

            How's A.S.?
            "And Experience, the son of difficult errors,
            And Genius, paradoxes friend,
            And Chance, god inventor. "
            Yes-ah-ah, there it is!
            The template is harmful, the circuit is golem, not EXPERIENCE! This is the first.
            Second. Levels of "experience": tactics, operational art, strategy - this is one. And database experience is completely different. An experienced fighter throws a grenade before stepping around the corner. Novice - rushing borer, shouting "Hurray."
            And here is the experience: In WWII, the Germans still had air superiority - "Drang nah Osten" - walked without problems. As soon as they lost dominance, they rolled back "nah Vaterland"!
            The third. For some reason, the author is modestly silent about how the Axes broke the Iranian air defense, how the DRG disabled the radar of the Far Eastern Military District, how they bribed the generals .. That's where the experience is !!! And the fact that technical superiority allowed the use of new tactics for maintaining a database is not experience? Or should it already be attributed to the “gift of foresight”?
            I have a question. Will the Russian Federation or the People's Republic of China, after the application of the massed missile defense system of mass missile defense systems on their missile defense system using their anti-missile defense system, flourish in the blissful bliss, or will they deafen what they turn up to arm! And after that, will the advancing tank armada of the Abrams not need refueling? Ammunition, repairs? And do airplanes land on non-existing airfields? Or does the author believe that we and NATO will play in the sandbox for Easter cakes? Maybe he heard something about the retaliatory strike, passing by the military department in his bursa? I’m not talking about electronic warfare, anti-terrorist operation, camouflage and the dispersal of forces in reserve and secret areas ... on the eve of the expected strike, and not after the bombs fell on his head.
            Questions of tactics and operational art are a very serious thing and do not tolerate the TEMPLATE, but with respect and attention to EXPERIENCE. For experience is the son of difficult mistakes! (A.S.) It is he who allows you to stop walking on the rake.
            IMHO.
            1. +3
              20 September 2017 19: 03
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              The template is harmful, the circuit is golem, not EXPERIENCE! This is the first.

              Bye bye bye, not so fast. Patterns in the military are good, not only that, it's vital. It’s just that there should be a lot of them, for as many situations as possible, they should be worked out more than once and applied at least in team-staff training.
              Indeed, it is not worthwhile in such stereotyped situations as, for example, movement of a column with a high probability of an attack by the DRG to show excessive creativity, as Khrulyov can do.

              However, the template is not a dogma, the commanders must be sufficiently intelligent and tactically developed to fit the template into the situation, or even completely abandon it.

              Now about the combat experience. The thing is very thin. On the other hand, we must remember that not every combat experience is positive. For example, for such a "combat experience" of the second Chechen one, as shooting artillery at topographic data instead of the calculated installations, it is necessary to give horns.

              The combat experience, after its accumulation and evaluation, should become the source of the very templates that I wrote about above. Templates that need to be vaccinated during the implementation of combat training.

              But here, too, one must be very careful. Again remembering the movement of the column. According to the experience of the second Chechen war of 08 and the Syrian war, we can conclude that for a successful confrontation with ambushes, the distances between the cars should be as small as possible And in those conditions it really is. To drive this into the template for combat training? Noooo. The enemy in these wars did not use either aviation, or the WTO, or artillery to fight the columns. And in these cases, reducing the distance will lead to the opposite, to greater losses. That is, from such a positive combat experience it is necessary either to refuse, or to try to stop the shortcomings with something. For example, putting "in operation" complexes of group defense like "Infauna", which are of little use in local wars (that is, combat experience shows that you can do without them)

              In short, combat experience is a very, very controversial thing
            2. +9
              21 September 2017 05: 59
              A trained fighter will also throw a grenade. Having combat experience to throw a grenade is optional.

              Russian generals are sold no more than Iraqi ones. Only here we also have the political leadership sold wholesale and retail.

              Air superiority will not be ours. Neither in quality nor in quantity. And no C-300-400-500 will help, the curvature of the earth will interfere with them (the experience of Syria).

              If America attacks, it will prepare well. And they will have what they need. And ours will only swagger that mattresses will crap on us to climb, that they will be sour.
            3. +2
              21 September 2017 08: 13
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              Experienced fighter before

              A trained fighter.
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              WWII Germans so far had air superiority - "Drang nah Osten" - walked without problems

              As it became known later, the war was lost in the summer of the 40th, the abolition of the sea lion. East - in the fall of the 41st, when Comrade Stalin changed his mind about fleeing Moscow. There were no problems with air yet. War loses, first of all, the political leadership.
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              Or does the author believe that we and NATO will play in the sandbox for Easter cakes?

              If they allow. Korea 52. And MiGs in the sleeve this time will not be found.
            4. 0
              25 September 2017 11: 37
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              Maybe he heard something about the retaliatory strike, passing by the military department


              Kick - Away ahead.
              And with this we have ...
            5. 0
              25 September 2017 11: 41
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              The template is harmful, the circuit is golem, not EXPERIENCE

              Multiplication table - sample template.
              But it helps when necessary. wink

              Also: the conditioned reflex is about the pattern.
              But the unconditioned reflex - maybe about a cliche. Cliches are mostly not useful wink
      2. +3
        20 September 2017 12: 41
        But did you try to fight the Sverdlovsk region?
      3. +2
        21 September 2017 08: 48
        Are you serious?
        Two years ago, Assad Jr. was simply decommissioned. Both in Aleppo and in DeZ, the cart has long been there.
        1. +1
          21 September 2017 11: 44
          Should we leave and instantly the situation will recoup, Palmyra’s example is indicative
      4. 0
        21 September 2017 18: 14
        I’m a lovely man. At least the approximate number of our VKS (on airplanes) can you bring something like “to portray the voice of a sheep”? And compare this number with the so-called “coalition” during the years of sole domination in the air where terrorists drove the SAA into the capital and almost nailed there !!
    2. +9
      20 September 2017 10: 46
      there is practically no propaganda. the described events are confirmed both temporarily and in other respects.
      in Syria, the conflict is of a completely different plan and of a different intensity. something like what the Americans are fighting in Afghanistan
      1. +8
        20 September 2017 11: 08
        Quote: jonhr
        there is practically no propaganda. the described events are confirmed both temporarily and in other respects.


        I agree. You can have a different attitude to the American military, but not to admit the facts, it means to be a blind fool. We must try to be objective. But objectively, the Americans as soon as possible gathered at the other end the sphere a group of half a million people, were able to supply it and ensure its effective combat use. Yes, no other country in the world has had such a large-scale experience and still does not have it. True, since the 90s, the US army has changed. Fleet tonnage decreased, logistics and troop transfer capabilities. The United States, like many other countries of the world, has begun to tune its armed forces for terrorist threats, and not for a global military conflict with a technologically equal or close rival.
        1. +6
          20 September 2017 11: 16
          well, let's say not in the shortest time, but for half a year the preparation was for the operation, but these were half a year at the kindergarten
          and for half a year it just says that the Americans didn’t underestimate the kindergarten and did not scream, they prepared.
          and I don’t remember exactly, but the Americans were preparing for the 30 thousand dead for their part, and this is only for Kuwait, and it’s not known how it would go further with such a development. perhaps it would be necessary, then to capture the whole of Iraq
          1. +3
            20 September 2017 11: 31
            Quote: jonhr
            and I don’t remember exactly, but the Americans were preparing for the 30 thousand dead for their part, and this is only for Kuwait, and it’s not known how it would go further with such a development. perhaps it would be necessary, then to capture the whole of Iraq


            It’s hard to say why they stopped. Maybe just because planning a counterattack is one thing, but planning an occupation of all of Iraq is a much more difficult task and more costly. We decided to choose the option for which we were preparing in accordance with UN decisions. I think that was right. In this regard, more interesting preparations for the second Iraq campaign. Then there was already a task for the occupation and defeat of the Saddam regime. And it succeeded in 3 weeks. The result is more than worthy. Again, not a single country in the world had and does not have the experience of waging such a successful war, albeit not with an equal rival, but to say that Saddam’s army was also not a whipping boy, although their potential, due to subsequent sanctions and other things, certainly decreased, but fact on the face. Again, the operation was successful. You can find a bunch of excuses that Saddam wasn’t fought, that the Iraqis "can’t fight," but that’s all a convention. Military art is determined by the fact that the enemy is destroyed precisely when you have the ability to destroy it and do not suffer unacceptable losses, but to get involved in a war with an equal and receive multimillion-dollar losses is not military art, this is recklessness. Therefore, to the credit of the Americans it’s worth saying that they choose the one who can handle them and allocate as much strength for this as they need. Although guerrilla resistance remains a problem for all the armies of the world. Not a single country in the modern period has won the war against partisans. As we had problems in the Caucasus, they still exist now, as the USA had problems in Afghanistan, so they remained. So far, no recipes have been invented against the partisans.
            1. +3
              20 September 2017 15: 26
              There is, and always has been, a recipe against partisans, to lure the local population to their side.
              1. +4
                20 September 2017 19: 06
                Or relocate him away.
                Successfully applied by the USSR, post-war Poland and Great Britain.
                1. 0
                  21 September 2017 11: 45
                  Or destroy, all the ancient conquerors
      2. +1
        21 September 2017 18: 42
        Forgive me, but I have already unsubscribed above on separate facts, and in total it’s a goofy propaganda. As it was correctly noted, the Americans did not invent anything, having vast world experience before their eyes, and more importantly, the complete initiative Where and How to carry out the offensive, they almost repeated Hitler’s experience against France. Yes, yes, "beautifully" and cheerfully circumvented the "line can." And in the offensive through the desert with supplies on the march, they are not at all innovative - China, the USSR in 1945 instantly multiplied the millionth Kwantung army of the Japanese by zero. And notice neither DZhySySa, nor helicopters, nor NVD, and moreover, the USSR did not have much else. No experience simply could not help the Iraqi command because of the incompatibility of those. and quantitative levels. Americans could suffer losses solely by their stupidity.
        And the last thing is that Hitler’s war against France, that this example of a US attack on Irka is precisely a “blitzkrieg”. But as soon as the war does not end after the “first attack” and goes into a “war of attrition”, we see that both the USA and fascist Germany, despite all their combat experience, suffer a crushing defeat.
        Therefore, in fact, I hope that the leadership of our country has drawn conclusions and will inflict a preemptive strike on the American troops concentrated at our borders !! Yes, then there will be a lot of screeching, but already there will be no “blitzkrieg” on their part and there will be no monstrous victims on our part in the first hours !!
    3. +5
      20 September 2017 13: 09
      \ and where do you see
      Quote: Sergey-svs
      praise of the Americans
      ,
      Quote: Sergey-svs
      barbarians and savages armed with junk

      Quote: Sergey-svs
      nothing compared to the "Greatest US Army"
      ?
      Verily, everyone sees the measure of their corruption. I am ashamed, sir. Try to understand what the author wanted to say, and not that you want to see from him your interpretation of his words. The head is not to be in it, it is to try to think, not to shout slogans.
    4. AUL
      +3
      20 September 2017 20: 02
      An excellent propaganda article on praising the American forces and the hopelessness of fighting it!
      Yes ... This is the case when they look at a book, but they see a fig! The person did not even understand what was at stake.
    5. +1
      21 September 2017 14: 25
      do you think that the U.S. Army is a light nut?
  4. +6
    20 September 2017 07: 46
    Again, the advertisement of the Americans .. We will tear all cool. Well - well. We have something to meet you. Let's see how you fight without electronics, when our landing will chop you into bloody cabbage with sapper blades, I would like to see what your bunch of transvestites looks like in hand-to-hand combat. When your abrams will sink on our roads, and those who get there will receive Cornets with armor penetration of 1,5 m in the forehead, when the tomahawks get lost in the woods, and the planes get into the belly from the S-400.
    1. +6
      20 September 2017 10: 47
      they broke. and twice what’s the most interesting. in 91 and 2003
      1. +9
        20 September 2017 12: 07
        Well, not everything is transvestites in the United States and they are all right with hand-to-hand combat. Do not spit saliva about this. They have more army, more money, more allies ... so we always have time to wash ourselves with blood. Do not rush things.
        1. 0
          20 September 2017 15: 07
          there are some, for example, and most of them are https://youtu.be/0j6tZBYYlN0
    2. +14
      20 September 2017 12: 14
      Yes, felling with sapper blades is a technique against which no army can resist. Such a moment is not clear - the use of a sapper blade in air defense and vocational training. But I think everything is thought out there, but it is highly classified.
      For some reason, in a certain category, attempts to highlight the strengths of a potential adversary cause increased emphasis on urapatriotism and a desire to chop the author with a spatula.
      1. +1
        21 September 2017 09: 00
        It’s just that the author, along with the absolutely correct provisions, just has delusional ones. For example, the Iraqi army was by no means a model of the modern army. Numerous, yes, with the experience of the DB, it’s also, but in terms of modernity, it is incomparably worse than the Soviet one. Although the latter also it wasn’t all chocolate at all. It’s enough to read what communication problems were and how hard the Maneuver was. But, I repeat, in Iraq it was incomparably worse (according to the proverb, everyone has their own difficulties, some have small pearls, and some have liquid soup). In the Union of Gadfly and Tunguska, there were only groups of troops, and in Iraq there were 60 Shiloks for 150 divisions, and the KShM was not from the word at all.
    3. +9
      20 September 2017 13: 12
      Another shirt on his chest began to tear. And to think what the author wanted to say, did not try? Fools, damn it.
    4. +1
      20 September 2017 14: 00
      and you are cool, bully, right?
    5. +3
      21 September 2017 14: 28
      yes you can easily handle
  5. +5
    20 September 2017 07: 48
    Experience - knowledge of how not to act in situations that will never happen again.

    A properly organized and trained army does not need “combat experience”.
    This is not just a controversial definition, it is a very stupid definition.


    Generals are preparing for past wars. And what is the result? The combat capability of any army is determined not by the number of its past battles, but by the talent and abilities of the current commanders.
    The combat readiness of any army is determined by a combination of very many factors. To reduce everything only to the talents of commanders is a very stupid decision, very characteristic of purely civilian theorists.

    What experience did the Wehrmacht have a blitzkrieg before successful blitzkrieg 1939-40 gg.? What personal fighting experience did Yamamoto and his subordinates plan to strike at Pearl Harbor?
    I don’t know what the Japanese have, and as for the Wehrmacht, I want to note that there was no “successful 1939-1940 blitzkrieg” In fact, there were 2 campaigns at different theaters, with a long time span between them. The rapid defeat of Poland was due to the lead in deployment much more than the application of new tactics by the Wehrmacht. In fact, Poland unwittingly played the role of a cat, on which the Wehrmacht worked out a new tactic before applying it to the French. And they had enough time to correct the shortcomings.
    1. 0
      20 September 2017 08: 06
      Quote: Mik13
      To reduce everything only to the talents of commanders is a very stupid decision, very characteristic of purely civilian theorists.

      In fact, a properly trained army also does not need the talents of commanders.
      Combat training - alpha and omega. And not stiffened in the "Programs" created back in the USSR
      1. 0
        21 September 2017 08: 16
        Quote: Spade
        In fact, a properly trained army also does not need the talents of commanders.

        You're not right. Lebanon 82.
        1. +1
          21 September 2017 09: 07
          And who said that she, i.e. Was the Syrian army properly trained? Even with the old junk, much more could be done. If the equipment was not masked, the positions were not changed and the spare and false ones were not prepared (by the way, false ones should be prepared so that they look authentic - you also need to be able to) the shooting discipline was a problem, the result was quite predictable. Assad did not have a chance to win, but it was possible to lose, as in 73, but it turned out as in 82.
        2. +2
          21 September 2017 09: 24
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Quote: Spade
          In fact, a properly trained army also does not need the talents of commanders.

          You're not right. Lebanon 82.

          I am absolutely right. A properly trained army does not depend on the presence or absence of special talents among its commanders.

          Israel is generally a very good example in this regard. In the vast majority of the wars he waged, the average level of training of soldiers and commanders was higher than that of the enemy. And attempts to turn the tide by introducing a number of military advisers, whose level was higher than the average for Tsakhal, into the opposing Israel’s troops, in fact yielded nothing.
          1. 0
            April 21 2018 21: 40
            Quote: Spade
            I am absolutely right. A properly trained army does not depend on the presence or absence of special talents among its commanders.

            You are right, but partially. This is less dependent on training - the ability to fight without commanders. Different nations have different abilities for self-organization, so for some armies without commanders disperse and stop resistance, while for others, lower ranks begin to command up to rank and file.
    2. +6
      20 September 2017 08: 08
      The combat capability of any army is determined by a combination of very many factors.

      As a result, the “aggregate of many factors” comes down to the main thing - the ability to efficiently use the available forces, maximizing the advantages and disadvantages of the enemy

      All this is the merit of those who make decisions.

      And these are not even talents and not "the role of the individual in history." It is important that there are no career-free opportunists at the top. Who think only about saving epaulettes

      Regarding the lead in the deployment and the rapid defeat of Poland - whos is the merit and fault. In addition to those responsible for making decisions and building the army as a system
  6. +4
    20 September 2017 07: 54
    Well, the United States did not receive its position in the world for beautiful eyes, on the other hand, Russia too. And about the unprecedented speed of the march, the Nazis in 1941 and the Red Army in 1945 in Mongolia moved a little slower, the enemy’s actions and conditions are more important than their own logistics, although here the Americans must be given credit.
  7. +5
    20 September 2017 08: 23
    The article is somewhat reminiscent of a draft on a fan.

    The initial thesis is at the elementary school level. The author, apparently, considers the combat experience exclusively shelling of specific parts. It seems that he does not connect the changes in the am-army between Vietnam and Iraq with the Vietnam experience.

    And in the war of '91 there is a really peculiar moment. The core of the coalition forces seems to be the former American group in Germany. Which showed that all this time she ate her bread for good reason. But the speech of their former opponents in the 94th, they say, caused (as they like to write on other occasions) shock among Western politicians, staffers and specialized media.
    1. +1
      20 September 2017 09: 09
      Do not compare with the shock that caused the performance of these opponents in 2014
      1. 0
        21 September 2017 08: 24
        Quote: Sofa Analyst
        Do not compare with the shock that caused the performance of these opponents in 2014

        You are right.
        At that time, it turned out that the Soviet army, which was taken very seriously in the European theater of war in the 80s, was already dead for a long time (because it is impossible to decompose in 2 years, most of the younger, ALL middle and senior officers and generals of the Chechen war are officers and generals of the Soviet army). It was a great surprise.
        This time it turned out (again!) That the border of Europe and Asia does not pass along the Ural Mountains, especially not along the Amur River, but along the EU border. This is annoying, but nothing more.
  8. +10
    20 September 2017 09: 06
    Good article. Correct and about combat experience. The USSR had a difficult war with Finland. So what? How useful was this experience in 41? Prior to this, H.G.
    About Syria. Here, no one talks about special combat experience. Although at the level of staffers he is. But running-in equipment, pilots raids and logistics is.
    In the USSR, that the Winter War, that the beginning of the Second World War speaks more about the stupidity of command, the lack of reliable information, the low level of military education, pressure on the military leaders from the party apparatus. During the long war, the husk disappeared, everything fell into place and began to win.
    But then there was an opportunity for 5 years to fight, now alas, this will not happen. Start I.V. Stalin, then a preventive war, there would be no such sacrifices and destruction. Europe was under occupation and the Red Army would be greeted as liberators, but alas.
    Here is Ukraine. We created a headache not only for ourselves, but for the whole world. Having released the troubled country in the 90s into free swimming (although their current behavior is not a discovery), they are now being used by a probable adversary against us. And without introducing troops into it three years ago. And now we have a splinter in the ass. The probability that the States can use it against us at any moment is very high. Remember Mishiko and South Ossetia and our PK.
    From the point of common sense and loss, both military and political would be much less. They took the Crimea. Seven troubles, one answer.
    Of course, I understand that the decision (not to send troops) was made taking into account all factors, but the chance has already been missed. But the States are great in this regard. Reformatted the people and reaping the benefits, and we are constantly making excuses ....
    1. +4
      20 September 2017 12: 48
      How was this experience useful in 41?

      It was very useful in the tactical link. And the fighters and commanders learned to act in battle. For example, near Leningrad in 41 the Shpilera tank battalion operated, in which Zinovy ​​Kalabanov was also a member. Do you remember? In one battle, he destroyed an 22 German tank from an ambush. Could he have acted this way if he had not had the experiences of the Finnish war behind him?
      And the uniform of the Soviet troops? In the Finnish war, ours froze, but in the Second World War this was no longer such. Yes, there’s a lot to talk about.
      1. +1
        20 September 2017 21: 11
        I agree. Any operation is unique and its details can be applied in new ones. But the theater of the Winter War was a little different. Intelligence worked poorly, and in the end, the locations of powerful flanking Finnish pillboxes were not explored. Tanks with infantry passed between two hills and received machine gun art. Fire. As a result, the infantry lay down, and the Finns burned tanks without infantry. The mess there was complete.
        I believe that the protracted SF war brought us enormous problems. Hitler decided that the Red Army was nothing for the Wehrmacht and instead of Britain began to prepare an attack on the USSR. So the experience of this war is negative.
        As for Zinoviy Kalabanov, there was an outstanding tanker. For the Finnish presented to the Hero. But they took away the rear Star. Something reminds me of A. Marinesco, but here it is more tragic.
        As for uniforms ... My father lived on Poklonnaya, marching passed by their house. He says that they were dressed in sheepskin short fur coats, but probably this is already in the second half of the war.
    2. 0
      April 21 2018 21: 47
      Quote: SCHWERIN
      Start I.V. Stalin, then a preventive war, there would be no such sacrifices and destruction.

      Stalin physically could not do this. The problem is that, due to more developed infrastructure and smaller distances, the Wehrmacht mobilization and deployment is THREE times faster than the Red Army. Whenever the USSR begins mobilization, the Third Reich will finish earlier.
  9. +1
    20 September 2017 09: 33
    Well, it’s not clear who the author is, so you can relate to the article differently. Of course, combat experience is desirable and must be used at different stages. But there are no identical wars and conflicts, everywhere there are peculiarities and troops must be prepared for them. As for the United States, they did not participate in large-scale wars and the war in Iraq is classified as local. Therefore, gaining experience with a 4, 5-fold advantage over the Iraqi Armed Forces is very problematic, just like in Syria. But individual elements of combat use can be used in combat training. As for the superpower, not everything is decided by economic and military advantage, the spiritual component is important here, as well as the goals and objectives of the hostilities. If it’s a war with the aim of protecting one’s homeland or with the goal of defending “democracy”
    worldwide.
  10. +4
    20 September 2017 09: 49
    A properly organized and trained army does not need “combat experience”
    Does the author have brain inflammation? Armies that do not have combat experience cannot initially be considered trained.
    For the successful organization and preparation of any army, it is not enough just to buy / create weapons, they (weapons) still need to be tested, and tested in large quantities and under various conditions, which the Russian Federation generally deals with in Syria.
    Moreover, in order to manage an army, it must be known and felt not only verbally, but also mentally. This is where the experience gained in
    acting against partisans, mujahideen and terrorists. Take part in police operations and patrolling areas
    since in exercises such as the West, it is impossible in any way to create the psychological atmosphere of a real battle and even more so to define how a soldier, today, brought up on liberal lifestyles, will behave in battle, against a real, not a virtual enemy.
    One of the most advanced air defense systems in the world.
    author, do you really think that in 1991 the air defense built on the basis of the s-75 and s-125 (not even s-200) was perfect? Especially against the background of the fact that 2 early warning air defense stations were destroyed before the operation. And the effectiveness of the c75 and c125 against the F4G with anti-radar equipment, and even more so against the F117-A, tends to zero.
    1. +3
      20 September 2017 10: 31
      You’ll be surprised, but c75 and c125 versus f4, it’s somewhere c300-c400 versus f35, or even worse, taking into account hordes of planning bombs and drones, in general, that the Iraqi air defense was hollowed from afar, which according to ours will also be hollowed approximately with the same result.
      1. +1
        20 September 2017 11: 33
        The main problem of Iraq was that it couldn’t reach the airfields with which American aviation was based, but Russia could reach any American airdrome in Europe or Asia.
        1. +2
          20 September 2017 11: 51
          with a total thief, it certainly is, only now who will decide on it? nobody will be beaten into direct Russia while there is something to crash, and this is not necessary, all that is needed can be taken for greens, the third decade has been working fine.

          but the fact that any "supposedly ally" who bought "supposedly air defense" like 300-400 can be smashed at any time by cabbage soup, not particularly straining, it’s like an indicator who has everything with combat experience, training, and military force.

          The problem of Iraq in the nineteenth year - the lack of a roof, with a tenfold difference in GDP - you won’t be able to win the war on your own.
          1. +1
            20 September 2017 12: 04
            That is, you want to say, and the Russian Federation can not?
            1. +3
              20 September 2017 12: 14
              It can, but only in causing an unacceptable level of damage through nuclear weapons, there is no question of winning the war without nuclear weapons,
              plum Iraqi level on any TVD.
              1. +1
                20 September 2017 13: 03
                Quote: viktorch
                It can, but only in causing an unacceptable level of damage through nuclear weapons, there is no question of winning the war without nuclear weapons,
                plum Iraqi level on any TVD.

                I don’t agree, the conflict between the superpowers is completely unpredictable even without nuclear weapons, nor economically nor from a military point of view to calculate what will be impossible.
                1. 0
                  21 September 2017 11: 51
                  Putin says that now there is only one superpower in the world, and this is the United States.
                  1. 0
                    25 September 2017 15: 36
                    But is he not right? China, Russia, India, etc. they are great powers, but not superpowers.
                    1. 0
                      April 21 2018 21: 53
                      Quote: Sergej1972
                      But is he not right? China, Russia, India, etc. they are great powers, but not superpowers.

                      If only the USA is taken into account, it is not right, but the USA is not in itself.
                      In fact, it is a two-tier colonial empire. Where the United States is the metropolis, its colonies are Germany, South Korea, Japan, Britain, several other countries, which in turn have colonies, the rest of the world.
          2. 0
            20 September 2017 15: 16
            Quote: viktorch
            The problem of Iraq in the nineteenth year - the lack of a roof, with a tenfold difference in GDP - you won’t be able to win the war on your own.

            But what about Cuba? There, sort of like with better logistics.
          3. 0
            20 September 2017 20: 01
            Do you think the United States crawled out of Vietnam as winners? The author of the article indicated that Iraq retained more than 2/3 of the existing weapons, it is difficult to call it an unconditional defeat. The statistics of US losses in the Iraqi wars are classified information, right? Who is the backbone of the ISIS army? But this is Hussein’s personnel military army!
            Judging by Syria, the RF Armed Forces are ready for local conflicts.
            1. 0
              21 September 2017 08: 32
              Quote: shoemaker
              Do you think the United States crawled out of Vietnam as winners?

              They lost. And from the point of view of combat experience at the political and strategic level, this gave them much more than a victory in WWII. After WWII, the same army arrived in Korea that was in the 45th. After Vietnam, the Americans took up the matter seriously and changed more or less everything.
              1. 0
                April 21 2018 21: 57
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                victory in WWII

                I note that the Americans did not have to take Japan by storm, someone believes that this is good, such as fewer losses, but in fact it is bad, an invaluable experience passed by.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                After WWII, the same army arrived in Korea that was in the 45th.

                The same army that was not ready to shed its blood in WWII, it was not ready to die in Korea, in Vietnam, and now it (the US army) is absolutely not ready for war.
            2. 0
              25 September 2017 15: 37
              I think the backbone of the modern Iraqi army is exactly the same as the officers of the former army of Saddam Hussein.
        2. +1
          20 September 2017 12: 01
          You probably misunderstood the arguments of the article. The ability to get and the implementation of the opportunity to get different things in general.
          1. 0
            20 September 2017 12: 18
            the article that with good investments, study and analysis of other people's combat experience level real combat experience and the butting of performance characteristics and the speed of updating the principles of combat work, which always wins the one with GDP longer, is nothing new.

            ps I don’t understand what the military experience has to do with Syria, there is a banal running-in of equipment.
    2. +1
      21 September 2017 09: 14
      Yes, it’s not so much the air defense system (or rather, the lack of modern ones), but the lack of systematicity. The Iraqis practically didn’t have ASU-senezha, nor, moreover, Baikalov or Polyan. As far as I remember, there weren’t even primitive Krabov and PU-12 (I could be wrong here). Yes, there was a KARI, but it was not originally designed for such databases, and indeed it turned out to be a kind of Trojan horse
    3. +1
      21 September 2017 19: 04
      I press a paw good
      I would like to convey to the author’s moron a “simple thought”: officers and generals (they are also officers) undergo special training without which they can only wear uniforms, both officers and generals have their own combat experience (depending on the rank of students) , if there are no military officers, then oooh - they use the methodological instructions written by them (or on their experience) (see book, textbook) !!
      To say that the US Army "does not have combat experience, but is simply well trained," this must be a complete moron !! This is the only army in the world that practically does not crawl out of wars. Therefore, to give an example of "excellent organization of supply or redeployment" as "the unnecessary combat experience" is a blatant box, it is the experience of the Second World War that underlies such organization of supply and transportation.
      But I advise you to see how even such an experience fails with the same Afghanistan. As soon as the “target” is not a coastal country and the locals stop selling - FSE, in the best case scenario, the Americans sit besieged in their “fortresses” and try not to highlight very much.
  11. +7
    20 September 2017 12: 40
    Flies, honey, shit and bees. All in one heap.
    It is necessary to separate the combat experience of the tactical link and strategic. If the platoon commander holds the defense, it makes no difference to him, the tanks and infantry of ISIS or US marines attack him. In any case, the order of destruction of the enemy does not change. Soldiers gain combat experience, what could be bad about it and how might it not be useful to them?
    But for the generals, there really is either a fight against the Papuans or against a high-tech opponent.
    If the difference in technology between the belligerents is significant, then the Papuans with bows and arrows would somehow not organize combat training, they will still lose to the colonialists with firearms. This is the meaning of the war between the United States and Iraq. Hussein had nothing to oppose to a high-tech adversary.
    1. 0
      20 September 2017 15: 19
      How about guerrilla warfare in the desert? winked
    2. 0
      21 September 2017 11: 55
      It’s a huge difference to wait for him ISIS carts with a bunch of beards and fig art. Or a flurry of smart weapons, excellent night sensors of the enemy and the mass of robots.
      And the T-72M and Mig-29 is a bow and arrow? Oh well
      1. +1
        21 September 2017 13: 26
        Actually, in the SA, the T-72 tanks were consumer goods.
        This, if we don’t say that both 29 and 72 were in the export version, and in percentage they were much less than in the SA
        1. 0
          21 September 2017 17: 26
          But at the same time, there was no critical technological difference with the USSR in technology, to call it bows. The United States generally dragged the M-60 into the war and nothing.
          1. +1
            22 September 2017 11: 43
            I do not quite understand - with whom there was no technological difference?
            If between Iraqi and Soviet of that time - that is exactly what happened.
            1. 0
              22 September 2017 13: 16
              Critical technological difference
              1. +2
                22 September 2017 13: 30
                Exactly, there was a critical technological difference between the Soviet and Iraqi army. It is strange that this is not clear.
      2. 0
        21 September 2017 19: 13
        Yes, in a high-tech war (an example of the author), both the T-72 and Mig-29 become a "bow and arrow" with the complete absence or knocking out of the enemy reconnaissance and guidance (control) means.
        Syria is a great example, where VKS (in spite of its small number) seriously took up the IS, then all the armored vehicles and artillery of the enemy rapidly multiplied by zero !!
  12. exo
    +2
    20 September 2017 12: 44
    Incompatible in quantity and quality, strength. Iraq lacks normal technical intelligence. And Iraq’s combat experience is still with an army of a different quality than the United States and its allies.
    But still, Arabs are not the best military men, as the history of the last century shows.
  13. +18
    20 September 2017 12: 56
    Deliver the Lord and the Supreme from such scenarios
  14. +1
    20 September 2017 13: 20
    I agree that the article is a golimy propaganda slag. And wiseacres and various Western analysts can wish, read the classics. For example, “You cannot understand Russia with your mind ...”, “Who will come to us with a sword ...”, etc. They all have one conclusion as a whole: victory will still be ours.
    1. +5
      20 September 2017 15: 00
      The author has written many clever things. It’s bad that our generals think such articles do not read.
      1. +1
        25 September 2017 14: 09
        Quote: Stalingradpobeda
        The author has written many clever things. It’s bad that our generals think such articles do not read.

        Rather, it’s good that the generals did not go down to articles from the Internet. There are also much more specialized literature and sources of information. Including the one to which few will be allowed. Or do you think that our generals only plump in black and cut into strategic toys?
  15. +4
    20 September 2017 13: 38
    "Desert Storm" is not an experience of war with a modern adversary!
    1) Where is 1991 year and modernity ??? A quarter of a century is a noticeable period in the change of technology, and other "army devices"
    2) I don’t think that Russian pilots (who had experience in Syria, at least on land work) will repeat the “feat” of Iraqi and fly to Armenia, for example. Again, the C-400 is noticeably different from the C-75 and 125 of Iraqi air defense, and the Shell is different from Shilka. So there will be no "freebie" for the US Air Force. In Syria, they seem to be shy of Russian planes.
    3) I’m interested in the behavior of any unit of the US Army at the forefront when their positions are processed from the Smerch MLRS. How many hundred meters will Ji-Ai overtake his own screech, wounding at evacuation points ??? About the instability of American troops under shelling say "generals" of the United States.
    4) and the moral factor ??? Can any US special forces cause fire on themselves, as our man did in Syria ???
    1. +3
      21 September 2017 08: 46
      Quote: nnz226
      In Syria, they seem to be shy of Russian planes.

      Who wants to fly in Syria and does what he wants. If Turkey / Israel / USA decides that there is no place for a Russian base there, then it’s maximum half a day.
      Quote: nnz226
      So the "freebies" of the free sky for the US Air Force will not be

      Quote: nnz226
      I’m interested in the behavior of any unit of the US Army on the front line when their positions are processed from the Smerch MLRS

      Briefly tell how healthy people fight.
      ...
      4. The battle for the ether. All enemy communications systems incapacitated.
      5. The battle for air.
      6. Destruction of enemy heavy equipment by air or NLOS weapons
      ...
      Go to the next stage upon completion of the previous one. Infantry hit by Tornado = tribunal for the commander of the group.
      Quote: nnz226
      moral factor ???

      It seems that all the commanders from the colonel and above, 42 or so, were taken out from under Sevastopol in 600. From near Stalingrad - 30 thousand wounded and not a single general.
      Here it is, your moral factor. But the martyrs of the war do not win.
      1. 0
        21 September 2017 19: 16
        An attempt to suppress the command management of Russia - almost automatically leads to the launch of MBRK across the United States bully Will you check?
        1. 0
          21 September 2017 22: 17
          Quote: Mih1974
          An attempt to suppress the command management of Russia - almost automatically leads to the launch of MBRK

          1. And what is MBRK.
          2. For example, during the next surge in activity of miners and tractor drivers in the peaceful 9K515 Tornado-C working in the Rostov region, the AGM-158B, launched by unknown persons or animals, possibly migratory St. Petersburg cormorants, begins to fly from a strange cloud of interference over the Black Sea, somewhat reminiscent of B -52H CCJ. The cunning plan of Putin A is to destroy the northern hemisphere, the cunning plan of Putin B is to pretend that there was nothing, and crush the tomatoes. What would you bet money on?
      2. +1
        1 October 2017 22: 31
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        From near Stalingrad - 30 thousand wounded and not a single general.
        Here it is, your moral factor. But the martyrs of the war do not win.

        And you come to us in Stalingrad and see where the KP were: at the commander Chuykov - in the basement of the mill, and at the commander Rodimtsev - on the ground floor of the same mill. And Pavlov’s House, the forefront, is 70 meters from this mill. And behind is the Volga. Chuikov sent large-caliber artillery to the other side of the Volga, so as not to expose the German infantry to attacks, it worked from there. And he himself remained on this shore, with his troops, 70-meters from the front line. And not his "fault". that the fascists did not kill him and did not injure him. They just learned how to fight, and in the war everyone has his own profession and the general should not raise the company to attack, otherwise he is not a general, but a lieutenant.
        1. 0
          1 October 2017 23: 29
          Quote: Svateev
          and look where the KP were: at the commander Chuykov

          My friend, not a single general - it was about the Wehrmacht.
          But here you are right, Chuikov from Oktyabrsky noticeably differed in personal qualities.
          1. 0
            2 October 2017 13: 01
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            But here you are right, Chuikov from Oktyabrsky noticeably differed in personal qualities.

            And about Oktyabrsky you are right ... How is it even possible to abandon your subordinates? !! A normal commander will not be forced to do so.
  16. +2
    20 September 2017 14: 19
    Whoever comes to us with a sword will remain with us fertilizer! am
  17. +1
    20 September 2017 15: 03
    The author raves in reality. Well, of course, the American army is the most expensive in the world. But the fact that she is so “cool” - let it show. In Afghanistan, in Iraq, where else would they like? The author does not understand the difference between the FIRED and not fired fighter. This was the difference between our and German troops in the 41st. The Germans fought for two years. ours and a half later - in Stalingrad. "reached" the desired level, and the front rolled to the west ...
  18. +9
    20 September 2017 15: 09
    In everything written, including and comments, there is no one important point: the war with the superpower (USA) will take place on its terms. Where it is directly dangerous to fight directly - for example, due to the presence of nuclear weapons by the enemy - other methods will be used.
    But this is not important.
    It is important to understand that the "wet dreams" of the Cornets, which will meet Abramsa, who are getting stuck in the mud in the mud under Tver, are not even tales. The Americans are not going to and will not be going to invade Russia - this is not required to win the war. It is enough to inflict several peripheral defeats on the Russian army in the regions of Comrade Syria and so on - and nothing more. After that, and at the same time, it will be introduced not sectoral, but global sanctions on the supply of anything and everything. You do not even need to block the allies of Russia because of their almost complete absence.
    Another question is the causes of the conflict. What can they be? Most likely, we must admit at the moment the complete absence of these very reasons. Russia seeks to show that it is a significant political global dimension. It turns out? In my opinion, not really. The same Ukraine and Syria, in fact, are not particularly important geopolitical points for the West. Noise - yes, a lot, but there are not many economic interests here and there. Resource deliveries are not violated, there are threats, but only in words. You can, of course, threaten to disrupt gas supplies to Europe - there is no greater gift for the United States.
    In reality, to keep the Russian Federation in its current position - even without strengthening sanctions - for several years - and everything will become much worse for us in terms of development prospects than most of those present think.
    The United States today is stable, with decent economic growth - over 3%. Europe as a whole is about 2,5%. Nothing and nothing threatens them in the long and short term.
    In general, the desire to "avenge defeat in the Cold War" seems to turn into a joke: the West will not ruin any arms race, since during the past they raised their standard of living and riveted weapons, and now even more so. But what will happen to Russia?
    1. +6
      20 September 2017 15: 12
      Today, Russia, in fact, can be considered strong only on its territory or somewhere not far. America, according to the experience of the Desert Storm, can “become strong” anywhere in the short term. Their forces will increase over time or will be on the same level, but due to low prices for raw materials, they will only decrease in our country.
      1. 0
        20 September 2017 15: 23
        Do not underestimate the strength of the US Army, but do not overestimate. The Russian army also has night vision and modern means of detecting the enemy. All that the author writes about is enough in our army. And about the experience of the war and say nothing. Our Russian army has enough experience with Georgia, for example.
        1. +7
          20 September 2017 19: 49
          Sorry, it’s ridiculous to compare the experience of the US Army and the Russian Army - they have been fighting for several times without a break. decades, gained tremendous logistic experience, worked out forms of interspecific interaction up to max. at the moment possible perfection. This is not a doctrine and butting with Georgians - this is WAR
      2. +2
        20 September 2017 20: 24
        The Roman Empire also defeated everyone. The United States, like any empire, will fall apart from within, and Russia will not be to blame. And huge GDP will not save America. Well, as history teaches, all empires are self-destructing. Just don't talk about American democracy.
        1. +1
          21 September 2017 09: 52
          Quote: shoemaker
          USA, like any empire

          You are certainly right.
          It is believed that the Empire is a belief, a kind of global mission of the country. As long as faith persists, the Empire is alive. When faith runs out, that's all. And she is exhausted, because damn expensive.
          However, after the death of the empire, a national state remains. That is, with reference to the USA - it is exactly the same country as it was. Only less getting into different boils. And a certain rollback from the idea of ​​missionaryism has been going on for a long time.
    2. +1
      20 September 2017 15: 30
      Dear a.sirin, in some ways you are right. It is bad that all this bravado from Russian television about the invincibility of Russia is only wishful thinking. Russia is defenseless against economic pressure. Although it should be treated as a military threat to the country.
    3. +4
      20 September 2017 16: 40
      At the beginning, you described one to one Crimean War. How did it end (in historical perspective)? That's right - NOTHING!
      Quote: a.sirin
      After that, and simultaneously with this, not sectoral, but global sanctions on the supply of anything and everything will be introduced

      Tell me, what is not in our country? I believe that Russia is the only country in the world where EVERYTHING is !!!
      Quote: a.sirin
      Another question is the causes of the conflict. What can they be?

      Comrades Marx and Lenin have long uncovered and extensively described all the causes.
      Quote: a.sirin
      In reality, to keep the Russian Federation in its current position - even without strengthening sanctions - for several years - and everything will become much worse for us in terms of development prospects than most of those present think.

      You are strange people, you don’t want to work yourself, and when you are forced to shout about tyranny. In Russia, no one wants to do dirty work, and when they move to the West for any, they take it, because hunting is like eating. Not so long ago (by historical standards) the entire population of the planet was 150 million people and nothing - they lived somehow.
      Quote: a.sirin
      The United States today is stable, with decent economic growth - over 3%.

      But doesn’t it bother you that the US national debt is growing at a much faster pace? In my opinion, this only says that the United States is an ordinary colonial power that sucks resources from all over the world and lives clearly beyond its means.
      Quote: a.sirin
      But what will happen to Russia?

      If we stop rushing about, but keep the continuity of the current line, then everything will be fine. The main thing is not to make sudden movements and correct mistakes gradually.
      1. +3
        20 September 2017 19: 47
        There is some Labuda ... a stream of unconstrained consciousness, nothing more.
        The Crimean War ended for Russia very badly - a defeat. Also say that Tsushima is also without consequences ...
        What is not in our country? A lot of things ... First of all, a climate that allows you to have relatively low living costs. There are many fossils, but only the cost of their extraction and transportation is more or less acceptable only with huge sales volumes. And here is the problem.
        Marx and Lenin wrote a lot of things, and without them everything was clear "before"
        Who doesn’t want to work here? Dirty work, you say? I have provided myself with education and work the opportunity to work with the clean and clean. And we are in the West, everything there (here) is not bad either. need to work. To myself
        The US national debt is growing, mainly due to internal borrowing, there are no problems and threats. There are countries - for example. Japan with much more debt relative to GDP. Is Japan "on the verge" too?
        Continuity ... what? In throwing?
        1. +5
          20 September 2017 20: 55
          Quote: a.sirin
          The Crimean War ended for Russia very badly - a defeat.

          No one disputes, but ... In fact, the mountain gave birth to a mouse. The most powerful coalition in three years of the war was able to take half of the city. And I almost overstrained ... After a few years, all the results of the war were leveled.
          Quote: a.sirin
          Marx and Lenin wrote a lot of things, and without them everything was clear "before"

          As the saying goes: "If everyone is so smart - why don't you go in formation?
          "
          Quote: a.sirin
          I provided myself with education and work the opportunity to work with clean and clean

          Very happy for you. Everything is the same for me: higher education, good work, wealth. I see no reason to whine that everything is bad. Harnessing for those who do not want to work is not going to.
          Quote: a.sirin
          The US national debt is growing, mainly due to internal borrowing, there are no problems and threats.

          No need to manipulate. Debt is debt. The difference between them is the same: the problem of external debt is solved by a small (or not so) victorious war, and the internal one by the scam of the electorate. If the owners of the country are quite arrogant and strong, it easily rolls.
          Quote: a.sirin
          In throwing?

          Personally, I see attempts to exclude them. The goal is visible, the path is twisty ("assistants" abundantly)
        2. 0
          April 21 2018 22: 22
          Quote: a.sirin
          What is not in our country? A lot of things ... First of all, a climate that allows you to have relatively low living costs.

          Do you have a climate change plan? Life in more severe climatic conditions has not only minuses, but also pluses. For example, wheat ripens in Yakutia, but not in warmer Iceland. Without negative temperatures, the formation of chernozems is impossible.
          There are many other factors.
          Quote: a.sirin
          Dirty work, you say? I have provided myself with education and work the opportunity to work with the clean and clean.

          How much arrogance !!! You were not mistaken by a forum?
          Quote: a.sirin
          To myself

          Self-employed are parasites on the body of the state.
    4. +3
      21 September 2017 09: 05
      Quote: a.sirin
      In everything written, including and comments, there is no one important point: the war with the superpower (USA) will be held on its terms

      + + + +
      Quote: a.sirin
      Most likely, we must admit at the moment the complete absence of these very reasons.

      Unfortunately, not everything comes down to pragmatism. The USSR in the 80s also did not bother anyone. But sometimes you want to sit on a white horse and defeat some dragon. And Russia is approaching much better than, say, China. Precisely because she has more smoke, but no fire at all.
      Quote: a.sirin
      But what will happen to Russia?

      It is believed that Russia was written off a long time ago. To stay in place - you need to run as hard as you can. The famous "stability" is the refusal to run. It began not in the 14th, but much earlier. As a result, China (GDP per capita at face value, median income), Kazakhstan (in terms of consumer spending), and Rwanda (in terms of duing business and most indicators reflecting the quality of public administration), and many others (with the Baltic states, already passed by). for example, it’s already strange to compare). People who want to run as hard as they can quickly reach the airport. What happens to such countries is well known.
    5. +2
      21 September 2017 19: 26
      America is on the brink of economic death! There is one indisputable fact - the United States has a monstrously negative trade balance.
      So be explained on the "fingers" - all the "happiness" of life in the United States is based solely on the fact that for candy wrappers the country receives a huge amount of all kinds of goods and resources. But the "suppliers" no longer want to get candy wrappers and give them back to the United States, they want to get "peaches" for their "bananas" and no longer shouting - they do everything so that US dollars from the world currency become the usual currency of a single country. And then the USA as a country will be forced to "live within its means" !! This will be the end of them as a "world hegemon."
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. 0
        21 September 2017 21: 43
        Quote: Mih1974
        There is one indisputable fact - the United States has a monstrously negative trade balance.

        You are certainly right. But, you see, the patient has been dying for a damn long time. Since 1976, to be precise. And not even coughing, for some reason.
        Quote: Mih1974
        what kind of candy wrappers the country receives a huge amount of all kinds of goods and resources

        Import is about 12% of GDP, it seems. Germany - 28%, China - 14% (oops), Russia - 13%.
    6. 0
      April 21 2018 22: 09
      Quote: a.sirin
      It is enough to inflict several peripheral defeats on the Russian army in the regions of Comrade Syria and so on - and nothing more.

      And who will do it?
      "And who will hang the bell on the neck of the cat?"
      Quote: a.sirin
      After that, and at the same time, it will be introduced not sectoral, but global sanctions on the supply of anything and everything.

      What a muddy stream of consciousness? Why maintain an army, because there is (heh) sanction)))
  19. +1
    20 September 2017 15: 36
    Modern models of Soviet and Western weapons, aggravated by their number. One of the most advanced air defense systems in the world.
    -------------------------------------------------
    -------------
    After this nonsense I did not want to read further
    1. +1
      20 September 2017 16: 46
      But you must! To imagine what a mess in the minds and with whom you have to fight.
  20. 0
    20 September 2017 15: 50
    Any combat experience will not be superfluous. What kind of plus is different, but the main thing is sho plus, even 0.5 but in any way plus.
  21. 0
    20 September 2017 16: 57
    jonhr
    Tore the Iraqis with overwhelming superiority, so what? When did the Americans beat the real enemy?
    You can recall how they raked near the Ardennes in 1945 from the 6th SS Panzer Army.
    From the Koreans, from Vietnam?
    I watched the video - not impressed.
  22. +2
    20 September 2017 17: 52
    Winning with total superiority in the air is normal, but if the Yankees lost it would be unusual.
    1. +1
      20 September 2017 18: 05
      Quote: 82т11
      Now, if the Yankees lost it would be unusual.

      Yes, it was already like that! Remember the Vietnam War ...
      Nobody argues that the Yankees had an advantage in the air ... But no, it didn’t work out ...
      The Viet Cong were stronger in spirit and the help of the USSR did their job.
  23. +1
    20 September 2017 18: 17
    Laudatory ode to America)) how can you ... proamers (
  24. UVB
    +3
    20 September 2017 18: 40
    I have one single question, or rather one and a half. How much time did the US and allies transfer forces and resources for the upcoming company? And in full view of the whole world. And most importantly, hypothetically, in preparation for the invasion of the Russian Federation, will Russia wait until they accumulate all the necessary forces, observe and dig trenches like Saddam? I doubt it very much.
    1. +1
      20 September 2017 21: 24
      First I wrote my koment, and then I saw yours))) the same thought and the same)))
    2. +1
      21 September 2017 12: 13
      Right now, the United States is moving more and more forces to Europe, what is Russia doing? Is waiting
      1. UVB
        0
        21 September 2017 18: 32
        Quote: BlackMokona
        Right now, the United States is moving more and more forces to Europe, what is Russia doing? Is waiting

        What kind of strength? Do not make me laugh.
        1. 0
          21 September 2017 22: 21
          A bunch of news was on topvar
    3. +1
      21 September 2017 19: 29
      I really want to hope that the Russian leadership, observing such “deliveries” at some point, will firmly raise the “ribs question” - either bring it down from our borders or we will leave only radioactive ashes from your troops !! And if the Americans refuse to clean up, we have the courage to strike first!
      "Wax, the committee must be destroyed"
      1. +1
        21 September 2017 23: 35
        Quote: Mih1974
        at some point he will firmly raise the "question of the ribs" - either bring down from our borders or we will leave only radioactive ashes from your troops !!

        In this case, the partners will politely remind that the distance from the Kremlin to the border of the closest NATO ally is 451 km. 451 <500, if you know what I mean. This is in addition to many other things that can be recalled.
        Comrade Kim talks about nuclear ashes every week. You see, they don’t believe him. And if they believe it, the deputies of Comrade Kim will quickly agree among themselves.
        1. 0
          25 September 2017 15: 49
          The history of the DPRK shows that the "deputies" do not agree. For 70 years, no one has managed to pick Kim. And here they are a bunch of high-ranking comrades (which both the USSR and the PRC stood for) have been stripped of their posts, and some of their lives.
          1. 0
            26 September 2017 00: 18
            Quote: Sergej1972
            For 70 years, no one has managed to pick Kim.

            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Comrade Kim speaks every week. You see, they don’t believe him.

            Quote: Sergej1972
            deprived of their posts, and someone's life

            You see, if by the evening you are waiting for the Tridents, then the position and life are perceived somewhat differently.
  25. 0
    20 September 2017 20: 25
    The SGA army did not and does not have experience of large-scale wars. Large-scale war - when with the threat of seizing your territory and population. And the SGA has colonial "operations", and even that is mainly with mixed military-political results.
    The Yankees were still able to fight (there was a fuse from the time of the War of Independence and the Civil), but among the current Americans, soldiers are from shit bullet.
    1. +2
      21 September 2017 09: 19
      Quote: Turist1996
      The Yankees were still able to fight (there was a fuse from the time of the War of Independence and the Civil), but among the current Americans, soldiers are from shit bullet.

      Americans have never been so powerful relative to others as in the 90s and beyond. If they were like that in the 41st (I’m not talking about the Kyrgyz Republic and the raptors, but about the approach to business) - not like Berlin, Kharkov would be freed from the Nazis.
      1. 0
        1 October 2017 22: 48
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        not that Berlin, Kharkov would be freed from the Nazis.

        Rave, my dear? It happens...
        1. 0
          1 October 2017 23: 55
          Quote: Svateev
          Rave, my dear? It happens...

          I am convinced that the Americans in that war were very unsuccessful, despite all the nishtyaks who broke off to them.
          Soviet patriots, as far as I can tell, agree with me on this.
          And Kharkov IRL was released on 30.08.1943. Of course, it is difficult to reach him from the West during this time, but ...
          1. 0
            2 October 2017 13: 07
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Of course, it is difficult to reach him from the West during this time, but ...

            What is the “but”?
            All "but ...", "and if ...", etc. - this is just a method of psychological warfare NOW and has nothing to do with history.
            History does not know the subjunctive mood. Therefore, if it could be different, then it would be different. And if it happened that way, then it could not have happened otherwise.
            1. +1
              2 October 2017 16: 45
              Quote: Svateev
              psychological warfare

              Oh my goodness

              "The Americans fought badly." Arranged?
              1. 0
                4 October 2017 13: 06
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                "The Americans fought badly." Arranged?

                And this is another method of psychological warfare, called "bring the position of the opponent to the point of absurdity." I did not say. that the Americans fought badly.
                Objectively, you need to say this: "The speculation of the" Cherry Nine "that the Americans could liberate Kharkov instead of the Red Army - these are just fantasies that are not based on historical facts."
                That's it - it will work.
      2. 0
        April 21 2018 22: 33
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        If they were like that in the 41st (I’m not talking about the Kyrgyz Republic and the raptors, but about the approach to business) - not like Berlin, Kharkov would be freed from the Nazis.

        If the Germans were like that in 1940, they would have freed America from the Jews ... and the rest of the "subhuman."
        Organizationally, the US Army is still inferior to the Bundeswehr
  26. +1
    20 September 2017 20: 53
    I note that in the photo for the article there is a Georgian soldier, in the ranks and PC / PKM there.

    A mountain shooter, this is one of the main points of the article that the un-fired Yankees fired at the fired Iraqis.
  27. +1
    20 September 2017 21: 23
    The Americans were where to gather strength. Nobody shot down their transports or drowned. That is, they had time to prepare, as they decided to start first
  28. +4
    20 September 2017 23: 08
    As much as the author of the article would not like to sing laudatory odes, the United States is forced to upset him ... 1) The Iraqi army had outdated equipment. The best tanks in Iraq were the T-72 Lev Babylon tanks, which were produced in Iraq itself, based on the Soviet export tank T-72 Ural-E of the 70s of the 20th century. Moreover, these tanks were in service with the Iraqi guard divisions, which the author of the article estimates so highly. Not a small proportion of the tank units of Iraq consisted of the ancient T-55s, or their copies made and purchased by Iraq in China. 2) The Iraqi army was significantly weakened by a long and bloody war with Iran, in which it suffered significant losses ... 3) The Iraqi army did not have a single modern anti-aircraft missile system, and its aviation was small, did not have a significant number of modern fighters and in general had not a large number of combat aircraft suitable for flight. 4) It was not the United States that fought against Iraq, but NATO, the United States did not dare to attack Iraq alone .... 5) The United States bothered to buy many Iraqi generals who simply retired ....... That's why the United States is afraid to fight with Iran, into which many parts of the Iraqi army betrayed by their generals had gone ... In Iran, the government and the military are not for sale, there are ideological guys and fighting with them means getting a new Vietnam. To defeat Iran, the Yankees will have to destroy at least 40% of its population, and this will have serious consequences for the United States and even more serious for Israel, to which Iran missiles reach ... Therefore, the United States has not yet decided to attack North Korea .. .There is an ideological population that will require its destruction to defeat, and this means huge losses for the United States and its allies ... In the event of a war between the United States and the Russian Federation, or China, the United States and NATO countries will simply be physically destroyed ... So all that the United States could easily eat, they have already eaten, and on the other hands are short ...
    1. +1
      21 September 2017 00: 34
      That's right! Nobody has canceled the fighting spirit and moral and psychological stability! To the point, my friend!
      1. 0
        21 September 2017 11: 27
        Morale is a good thing, but it's not just about it. North Korea, and especially Iran, have more equipped armies, from a technical point of view, in comparison with: Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Grenada ... And to compare the capabilities of the Yugoslav army with the armies of the Russian Federation, or the PRC is simply ridiculous ... When attacking these US countries will receive not only a well-ideologically motivated opponent, but also well-equipped in technical terms. It is the technical equipment that will allow the United States and its allies to cause significant damage, or destroy them altogether ... Yugoslavia, which included about a dozen suitable flights MiG-29B and MiG-23MS, physically could not resist the massive attacks of NATO, despite the heroism of their combat pilots, who fulfilled their duty to the motherland to the end, having shot down, together with anti-aircraft gunners, about a dozen enemy aircraft of various types, among which Mirage 2000 and F-117 ,, Night Hawk ''
        1. +1
          21 September 2017 13: 28
          In Serbia, there was no Mig-23 at all, only Mig-29 (9-12B) in scanty amounts and Mig-21.
          I would like to know more about the downed Mirage. I suspect that you have confused it with a drone with a similar name.
          1. 0
            21 September 2017 14: 52
            The mirage was shot down in the 90s, it seems over Bosnia, air defense systems And the MiG-23MS were in Iraq, here you are right.
      2. 0
        23 September 2017 11: 46
        Quote: Grishka the Cat
        Fighting spirit and moral and psychological stability

        How could invincible warriors be defeated in Crimea in 1861 and especially under Tsushima? Why didn’t they swim to the Japanese cruisers and cut out the whole crew with dirks / drafts / shoulder blades? Because such pearls exist only in the imagination.
        Sun Tzu, it seems, said: "By sending an unprepared (and also unarmed) warrior into battle, you betray him. It is no accident that the first detachments appeared in the PMV in the Russian Army, whose valiant commanders expected to throw Germans with cheap and massive" cannon fodder ", without normal weapons and artillery preparation, for the soldiers (half-starved peasants, basically) understood that they were being betrayed and simply tried to survive by surrendering en masse.
        There is a tangible contrast with the US army of those times, which instead of people preferred to "spend" shells.
        1. 0
          April 21 2018 23: 18
          Quote: 3danimal
          How invincible warriors could be defeated in Crimea in 1861

          What kind of defeat are we talking about? In Crimea, Russia did not lose.
          Quote: 3danimal
          and especially under Tsushima

          The battle is lost, but not the war.
          Quote: 3danimal
          Sun Tzu

          Who it? Is it from the area - "Chinese are great warriors"?
          Quote: 3danimal
          It is no accident that the first detachments appeared in WWI in the Russian Army

          It is no accident that the detachments were still used by the French during the French Revolution.
  29. +4
    21 September 2017 04: 37
    I categorically insist - we will drop our hats, we will plant seven Japs per one Cossack peak, "with little blood, on someone else's territory" and so on. One MiG-29 will destroy the US Air Force because it is super-maneuverable, because they "knew how to do it," because the Swifts and Pugachev’s cobra. Well, then the Armat couple will reach the English Channel in four days, and the Yankees will overturn in the next Dunkirk.
    Unfortunately, if something is changing in our country and society, then this is clearly not proportional to the content of haters and other carriers of the extra chromosome.
    As for the main message of the article - I think that not everything is so hopeless. As long as there is nuclear weapons and there is no terrible connection between the American missile defense and the Global Strike, we can prepare for any kind of war, including with the barmales. But in ten years unpleasant nuances are possible, alas ...
  30. 0
    21 September 2017 08: 37
    In Syria, it seems like a purely pragmatist, and a test of technology. you can prepare the army for offensive operations, reach Moscow but have partisan areas in the rear (the same barmaley current of the times of the Great Patriotic War) with which you don’t know what to do. There is a superpower, a war with them is a bald radioactivity balloon. There are barmalei why not rasshrechatyvat if a threat. These wars require different approaches, and experience is experience, all the more so our “partners” prepare units, sometimes even Barmalean ones, so the experience of the “partner countries” is also being studied.
  31. +1
    21 September 2017 19: 44
    I completely agree: it’s not worth belittling the capabilities of a potential adversary, they must be carefully studied, analyzed, drawn conclusions and look for weak points. It is imperative to introduce innovations into your army, train it every day, and accumulate your own experience. The main thing is not to live by the phrase: Katz offers to give up.
  32. 0
    21 September 2017 20: 15
    Our generals demonstrated their intelligence in the case of the "Drying" shot down by the Turks. ONE TRANSPORT MI-8 was sent to rescue the pilots of the downed aircraft, without any support from the shock machines. As a result, another soldier killed and a lost helicopter.
    And in the case of the loss of 2 aircraft on the Kuznetsovo, they also distinguished themselves. Although the situation there is a little different, a simple Russian gouging.
    The author is right - A strong adversary will not forgive such blunders. Dizziness after 08.08.08 and especially the Crimea, our generals probably will not pass for a long time. Like many cheers-patriotic comments on this topic.
    The author is not right. - A fired soldier, a unit, will always act in a combat situation more efficiently, and will be more resistant than an unfired one. And "Desert Storm" is not an indicator. The huge air superiority won by the Amers (including with the help of the traitor Judas Shevarnadze) played a decisive role. Like 41m with the Germans. There, of course, there was one more misfortune, the almost complete lack of radio communications among our troops, while the Germans radio stations were even on armored personnel carriers and REMs.
    And besides air superiority, it’s already totally total-electronic, satellites, and others described in the article. Our "strategists" in those years did not practically pay attention to this issue, even in our army. The Syrians had practically nothing to do with this.
    Well, the resilience of the Syrian soldiers left much to be desired. What they demonstrate in today's war. At the slightest hint of failure, feet in hand, and throwing weapons to rush away. In general, even with our support in the air, Syrians without Iran and other allies and mercenaries would never have achieved what they did now.
    The most clearly demonstrated that a strong opponent can be fought if you want to win, the Vietnamese.
    The worst in our situation is the competence of our generals. Chechnya has shown that on one road, there are several useless ones. And on 08.08.08 they showed themselves not in the best way, having suffered unreasonable losses, especially in aviation, including from their fire. Of course, wait a while, a lot of water has flowed and God forbid that the number of such “commanders” in our army is reduced. Then, not only MI-8 will be involved in the rescue operation, but as it should be with cover from shock machines.
    Good article, with some controversial points.
  33. +1
    22 September 2017 12: 01
    Whatever they say, but the experience is valuable. How many new things were delivered to the troops and how to use them only in theory, now there is practice. And on the account of previous experience, the same WWII, Afghan, Chechen wars, no one forgot about them, they are studying it. And the experience that is gained now will be based on troop control and other things in the future. Experience is not only the experience of a particular fighter, or commander. Experience is a system that needs to be considered globally.
  34. 0
    22 September 2017 18: 31
    One phrase that the modern army does not need military experience shows that it is not respectful to read the author, the army that launched the war and the army that ravaged the Kwantung army and took Berlin are two big differences. And in Iraq, the Americans did not come up with anything new. Won complete superiority everything that was possible was crushed in the air. Almost the whole west fell on Iraq. And Iraq in terms of capabilities is not Russia but not in Vietnam in terms of landscape.
  35. 0
    23 September 2017 11: 52
    Quote: Msta
    F-117 ,, Night Hawk ''

    The downing of only one aircraft has been confirmed. The reason is the error of the pilot flying below the clouds and the presence of a French optical sight with a direction finder in the calculation of air defense. The radar S-125 117th could not be taken for escort.
    1. +1
      23 September 2017 15: 07
      You are sorry .but this nonsense was taken apart literally a couple of weeks ago.
      So far you have managed to make at least 5 factual mistakes in a short phrase.
      https://topwar.ru/124898-samolety-nevidimki-f-117
      -uhodyat-na-pensiyu.html # comment-id-7342983
      F-117 Invisible Airplanes Retire
  36. 0
    23 September 2017 11: 55
    Quote: Msta
    In Iran, the government and the military are not for sale, there are ideological guys and to fight with them means to get a new Vietnam.

    They chose another tough country, about which the US Army should mull over its teeth. Before that, they called Iraq (Zhirinovsky was especially ruined) and the same Syria, which would sink US Navy ships onshore complexes. Now Iran ..
  37. 0
    23 September 2017 12: 55
    Quote: Msta
    In the event of a US war with the Russian Federation, or China, the United States and NATO countries will simply be physically destroyed ...

    In the event of a mutual exchange of blows using the entire stock of US and Russian military forces .. Perhaps, however, we will suffer greater losses (in% of the population) due to the uneven and "crowded" resettlement of most of the people in million-plus cities (~ 50 million out of 145 us, ~ 40 million out of 310 with them). After all, 1000 warheads "at the platoon" and only 7000 in storage. But China, if anyone does not know, has only 250 warheads available and the Air Force fleet is basically based on outdated vehicles. Damage, possibly unacceptable, can cause, but the price will be terrible even for them.
    The main thing is not to forget that if one of the parties uses nuclear weapons, a similar answer will inevitably follow. And also the fact that from Estonia to Moscow a medium-range missile flies less than 10 minutes, and from the territory of the Russian Federation to the USA - about 30. A pistol at the temple, decapitating blow .. They know about this and our rulers, too. And Kiselev talks about nuclear ashes only for ordinary people.
    1. 0
      23 September 2017 13: 32
      Quote: 3danimal
      40 million of 310 of them

      You're not right. Most of the US population - 6 urban areas (4 in the corners, south Texas, the Great Lakes region).
      Quote: 3danimal
      Estonia’s medium-range missile flies less than 10 minutes to Moscow,

      This from Germany Pershing flew 10 minutes 2000 km. To Latvia is less than 700 km, to Ukraine - less than 500. I wrote above about this. 500 km rumored, Iskander flies 2 minutes. Without violating the INF Treaty, I note.
    2. 0
      25 September 2017 15: 57
      I will join the comment below. About about 40 million in the millionaires of the United States, you are wrong. First, the nominal administrative and actual boundaries of large cities in the United States often do not match. Near each major city there are many satellite cities and urbanized areas, which constitute huge urban agglomerations with them. There are not only megalopolises, but also megalopolises such as the Boswash conglomerate.
    3. 0
      25 September 2017 19: 00
      In the event of a mutual exchange of blows using the entire stock of US and Russian military forces .. Perhaps, however, we will suffer greater losses (in% of the population) due to the uneven and "crowded" resettlement of most of the people in million-plus cities (~ 50 million out of 145 us, ~ 40 million out of 310 with them). After all, 1000 warheads "at the platoon" and only 7000 in storage.
      Who cares who suffered big losses in the case of using the entire stockpile of nuclear missiles? Then the nuclear winter and the living will envy the dead.
      1. +1
        25 September 2017 19: 12
        ".... War with the United States or China is not possible without an exchange of global nuclear strikes, no matter where it starts ...."

        Why are you so sure of this .... who will give such an order in your opinion? ....
        1. 0
          25 September 2017 19: 20
          Anyone who has nothing to lose will be after a major defeat.
          Or the one who will face huge losses (hundreds of thousands of people) and try to solve the problem with tactical nuclear weapons, will receive the same weapons in response, deliver a new, more powerful blow, and eventually an exchange of global attacks will take place.
          Or someone who believes in the impenetrability of their missile defense.
          Both the US President and the President of Russia can issue such an order.
          1. 0
            26 September 2017 00: 21
            Quote: Vadmir
            Anyone who has nothing to lose will be after a major defeat.

            There is always something to lose. If not the big boss himself, then his generals (see Gaddafi). This applies especially to the Russian Federation.
            1. 0
              26 September 2017 01: 07
              There is always something to lose. If not the big boss himself, then his generals (see Gaddafi). This applies especially to the Russian Federation.
              There are different people, there are those who are scared, and there are those who follow the order. And if the generals save, there will always be some colonel or captain of the 1st rank in the submarine.
              And then, the Perimeter will come into play.
              You don’t know the Russian mentality if you compare Russians and Arabs. Learn the story.
              1. +1
                26 September 2017 01: 13
                Quote: Vadmir
                but there are those who fulfill the order

                Oh, these suicidal people.
                Not for so many years overwork, to a nuclear strike on their own grandchildren. Not at all for that. This, incidentally, concerns the commander in chief.
                1. +1
                  26 September 2017 04: 56
                  Not for so many years overwork, to a nuclear strike on their own grandchildren. Not at all for that. This, incidentally, concerns the commander in chief.
                  I agree with you, but not so that Uncle Sam came and took everything acquired through overwork, by the way, many have already tried to pick it up - it did not work out. And it won’t work out. And suicidal people are those who still decide to try again.
                  I do not know such people, for example, Trump even does not dare to attack the DPRK.
                  I repeat, one must be crazy to attack a nuclear power, hoping that it will not use nuclear weapons in response.
                  1. +2
                    26 September 2017 08: 24
                    Quote: Vadmir
                    Uncle Sam came and took everything acquired with overwork,

                    Uncle doesn’t have to go anywhere, everything acquired has long been exported to his jurisdiction.
                    By the way. Even when Uncle Sam hung - 11 people in Nuremberg, 7 in Tokyo - not a single grandson was touched. So, I repeat, there is always something to lose.
                    Quote: Vadmir
                    many have already tried to pick up - failed

                    Until now, they have not tried, they rested as they could. But the situation is changing.
                    Quote: Vadmir
                    Trump even does not dare to attack the DPRK.

                    You see, Ginger the greyhound on Twitter, basically. And in the wreck, a fraer.
                    But if every potus is forced to prove that he is not Putin's spy, there is a chance to live to Reagan. Small but there.
                    Quote: Vadmir
                    I repeat, one must be crazy to attack a nuclear power, hoping that it will not use nuclear weapons in response.

                    You see, suicidal people are constantly trying to cosplay Stalingrad in their fantasies. In real life, all schemes have long been developed and tested. If, say, 10.08.08/94/2014 JDAM flew into the Roki Tunnel, and partners informed that not a single occupier would leave Georgia alive, it would immediately become clear that there were no invaders there, and there had never been any, deserters only. In the XNUMXth, it was SOCHI, who left the unit without permission, in XNUMX - vacationers. The Russian Army Always Win, and when it does not win, it is not the army, but tractor drivers. You fell off the moon, honestly.
                    1. +1
                      26 September 2017 18: 04
                      If, say, 10.08.08 JDAM flew into the Roki Tunnel, and partners reported that not a single occupier from Georgia would leave alive
                      However, this did not happen, and could only happen in your fantasies.
                      it would immediately become clear that there were no invaders there, and there had never been any, only deserters perhaps.
                      After the official announcement of the introduction of troops? Fantasy again.
                      In the 94th, it was SOCHI, who left the unit without permission, in 2014 - vacationers.

                      These are not wars, rather special operations, when it was beneficial for Russia to remain in the shadows. It also discusses the direct war between the United States and Russia, here it is not possible to go into the shadows, here is an all-in game, or we or us.
                      1. 0
                        26 September 2017 21: 50
                        Quote: Vadmir
                        However, this did not happen, and could only happen in your fantasies.

                        You are right, in 2008 the partners were not so determined. Nobody even intended to fit seriously into ORDLO.
                        However, the idea was not about that. And the fact that it is not at all necessary to arrange a full-blown war.
                        Quote: Vadmir
                        After the official announcement of the introduction of troops? Fantasy again

                        Here you seem to underestimate the inventiveness of the commanders-in-chief.
                        Quote: Vadmir
                        It also discusses the direct war between the United States and Russia, here it is not possible to go into the shadows, here is an all-in game, or we or us.

                        So I’m trying to explain to you, in psychotherapy, that the question “we or us” is only on TV. In the scenario you propose, neither them, nor us (at least within the MKAD, for sure) will remain. At the same time, both in Libya and Iraq, most of Us are quite alive and feel relatively well. I am about the commanders of divisions and above. And the children who left on time flourish quite well, whoever can. Killing your children like Goebbels? For what?
    4. 0
      April 21 2018 23: 23
      Quote: 3danimal
      however, we will suffer greater losses (in% of the population) due to the uneven and “crowded” resettlement of most of the people in million-plus cities (~ 50 million out of 145 with us, ~ 40 million out of 310 with them).

      The degree of urbanization of the United States and Russia is approximately the same; Americans will suffer heavy losses due to a higher population density, as they have a population two and a half times larger.
  38. +1
    23 September 2017 17: 24
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    500 km, according to rumors, Iskander flies 2 minutes.

    Everything is great, but 2-3 minutes of OTR (with a possible special unit) flies from Ukraine to Moscow as well. The complexes are mobile, it will not work to find out the exact location of all. And the threat of a pistol at the temple is more relevant than ever. No decisions can be made in 2 minutes. “Their” blow will be decapitating, “ours” will disable several installations on the satellite’s territory (yesterday’s brother, by the way, that is also our defeat). What is more significant?
    1. 0
      24 September 2017 01: 24
      Quote: 3danimal
      Ukraine to Moscow as well.

      When I mentioned the Iskanders, I had in mind the estimate of the flight time, and not that someone would shoot from the MKAD in the Sumy region
  39. 0
    24 September 2017 02: 31
    Do not confuse yesterday with today. Today, rocket technology is developing at a frantic pace, like air defense and electron and I struggle. This is the whole success of the war. A large landing to land, it takes time and is not noticeable. Everything can be seen from space in real time, it can be destroyed at distant approaches. What is NATO at our borders, we have everything on the fly. What happened to Iraq was planned there in advance. The USA destroyed her dream three, many generals sold out. The army was not controlled, it turned out to be a mess. The USA used it all, with less casualties.
  40. +2
    25 September 2017 09: 30
    It is beautifully written, but to be honest, the main victory was not made by military units, not by technical superiority, not by the talent of the generals, but by a simple case filled with “green papers”, Basra’s example, when for a whole month this whole boasted system couldn’t take the city, but only took then when the “green suitcase” arrived, that’s the whole victory. Learning, analyzing, applying, testing, training is necessary, but there is one more factor that with all the equipment, the mass of weapons you will never get when it is SOLDIER, ARMY, COUNTRY, PEOPLE - WINNER, not all armies of the world have this factor, fortunately OUR ARMY it has, for example, even a broken, deprived EBNets in the 90s, it was simply beautiful with old weapons in the 2008 war, it created a boiler for Georgians with their American and Israeli instructors (the Israelis quietly "rolled fishing rods two or three days before the start of hostilities "home, yes, Jewish people - smart people), GLORY to these commanders who created this boiler, GLORY to everyone who sold it. Read those article by the Western journalist “do not need three hundred, just one was enough,” about the RUSSIAN SOLDIER (he is drilled by nationality) and remember SOMALI how the “invincible Yankees” were dragging from there.
    1. 0
      25 September 2017 12: 34
      It is a pity that you can only plus one time! good I agree to all 100%!
    2. 0
      26 September 2017 00: 44
      Quote: I.P. Stalnov.
      ) and remember SOMALIA

      They performed very strongly. And then the State Department realized that he had entered a foreign war. Not always, by the way, he's so smart.
      Quote: I.P. Stalnov.
      for a whole month this whole boasted system could not take the city

      And what, it was necessary to have time for Cheney's birthday?
      Quote: I.P. Stalnov.
      she in the 2008 war is just beautiful

      And here, by the way, is a good topic.
      What happened on 08.08.08? Who gave the order of the 58th Army to go to the Roki Tunnel? You may not remember, but the commander of the North Caucasus Military District Makarov began that war on his own responsibility, and the two-sided commander in chief had nothing to do with it for two days. Only when it became clear that everything was quiet - then he got out from under the shaft. Then the Americans would have freaked out - the tribunal with Makarov, together with Khrulev, and the commanders-in-chief knew nothing of both of them. The eldest one was in Beijing in general, ORT does not catch it, and he does not understand Chinese TV.
      You do not remember, but the generals remember, I assure you.
      1. 0
        1 October 2017 23: 09
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        two days the commander-in-chief for two days, as it were, had nothing to do with it.

        Putin from Beijing when he flew directly to the Caucasus, do not recall?
        1. 0
          1 October 2017 23: 39
          Quote: Svateev
          utin from Beijing when he flew directly to the Caucasus, can I recall?

          The evening of August 9th. After meeting with Bush in Beijing, where the latter guaranteed that no one was going to fit in with Mishiko.
          So what?
          1. 0
            2 October 2017 13: 15
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            So what?

            So first you blame Putin at the same time as Medvedev:
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            а double commander two days, as it were, had nothing to do with it.

            But it turns out you know that Putin, on the day the DB began, already acted as supreme — he probed whether the world war would begin if the Russian Federation entered Georgia, and within a day arrived from China almost to the DB area.
            Your accusations to Putin are not based on facts, don’t you?
            1. +1
              2 October 2017 17: 33
              Quote: Svateev
              So first you blame Putin at the same time as Medvedev:

              Yeah. Here I am convinced that the date of the beginning of the movement was appointed from this side, respectively, they guessed intentionally.
              Quote: Svateev
              on the day the database starts

              58 I moved the night to 8, no later.
              Quote: Svateev
              acted as supreme

              Quote: Svateev
              probed

              Quote: Svateev
              Arrived almost in the database area.

              Colleague, you have a distorted understanding of the functions of the commander in chief. He does not arrive almost in the area, he commands. In particular, it assumes political responsibility for its decisions.
              What was there in the 08th? Mr. Putin is a civilian official no orders can’t give. Even the paper signed by him - for Khrulyov nothing more than a memo. But she was not there. Who ordered the army to cross the state border?
              Federation Council? Everything in the buffet.
              Commander-in-Chief Medvedev? Busy, buys sneakers.
              Minister of Defense Serdyukov? Busy, mastering the budget.
              Head of General Staff N.E. Makarov? Busy, struggling with falsification of history.
              District Commander S.A. Makarov? Bingo! Switchman found.

              Do you think that the country's political leadership has the right to do this with the army? Not everyone agrees with you.
              1. 0
                4 October 2017 13: 35
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Yeah. Here I am convinced that the date of the beginning of the movement was appointed from this side, respectively, they guessed intentionally.

                Nothing is clear. What is the "movement" from which "this" side? And how does this confused phrase of yours answer the question: "Where are the facts of" sitting under the bosom of the dual commander-in-chief "?!
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                58 I moved the night to 8, no later.

                And?
                And do a favor. share the rights and duties of President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin at that time.
                All this Georgian mess was provoked by NATO in the hope of the incapacity of the Russian Armed Forces under the President - Supreme Commander-in-Chief Medvedev.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                you have a distorted understanding of the functions of the commander in chief

                And you, therefore, the only bearer of true understanding? The nimbus above the head still does not shine?
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                He does not arrive almost in the area, he commands.

                In that situation of uncertainty of our command (will the decision to enter Georgia be approved?) A personal meeting was needed and Putin understood this and flew in.
                By the way, Putin won the first election this way. when he flew in a fighter to the North Caucasus. Forgot? He feels the mood of people and acts adequately.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Do you think that the country's political leadership has the right to do this with the army?

                And here, let's "dot the i." Putin pushed through the "locum tenens" of Medvedev. Fact? Fact! And therefore is responsible for his actions? Yes! He recommended it himself - he wiped it for his "protege", flying to the Caucasus ... Did he erase it? Also a fact!
  41. 0
    25 September 2017 10: 42
    Quote: your1970
    Quote: brn521
    since the times of the USSR, they specifically tried not to train conscripts with extra wisdom. Because after demobilization, they can easily end up on the wrong side of the barricades.
    - this is where in the USSR, after the urgent MASSOVO, sodates could be on the wrong side of the barricades ??

    And why? It is enough that one of the first seizures of aircraft was done by conscripts from a unit specially trained to release the seized aircraft from terrorists. About militants in criminal groups with experience of real war, you can not even talk. About the "partisans" that had to be chased up to the 60s. About the authorities and party leadership in the field, dreaming of gaining at least partial autonomy. Tales of a united and all conscious Soviet people remained propaganda.
  42. +2
    25 September 2017 12: 28
    A lot has been written ... But! The most correct words here are these - "to get involved in a war with EQUAL and get millions of losses - this is not a martial art, it is recklessness. Therefore, it’s worth the Americans honor to say that they choose the one who can handle them ..." HERE !! ! In other words, the Americans boldly attack ONLY ONE WHO IS WEAKER! And I would argue a lot about their “honor"! Yes Someone praised this article above, saying that everyone who disagrees with it is “patriots cheers,” etc. That the article makes you "take a sober look ..." and never praises the successes of the US Army! Oh well! And now the attention is the question - in which state, which is not inferior to the American army tens or even hundreds of times, the Americans were not afraid to "bring democracy" ??? (they call it any military invasion) wink And if they were afraid to touch Korea, which has a meager nuclear potential, then what can we say about the US war with Russia?!? This is just unreal! There are not so many diapers in America! To contain the consequences of waiting for the response of the Russian system "Perimeter"! laughing
  43. +1
    25 September 2017 18: 51
    But will this “experience” be useful in a collision with modern mechanized divisions, armies and fleets of the USA and China? The answer is too obvious to say it out loud.
    War with the United States or China is not possible without an exchange of global nuclear strikes, no matter where it starts. So in such a war there will be no winner and the likelihood of such a war is extremely low.
    Local wars are another matter, there will be many more and it is necessary to prepare for them, so the Syrian experience will be quite suitable in the future.
    We have Central Asian countries in our allies, the emergence of a conflict similar to the Syrian is very likely there, and we will help them, naturally.
    For the United States, we have a Strategic Missile Forces.
  44. +1
    25 September 2017 19: 24
    If Bu Saddam Hussein, instead of passive waiting, would hit the Americans himself. When the latter were just deployed, he would definitely win.
  45. +1
    25 September 2017 19: 32
    Quote: Vadmir
    Anyone who has nothing to lose will be after a major defeat.
    Or the one who will face huge losses (hundreds of thousands of people) and try to solve the problem with tactical nuclear weapons, will receive the same weapons in response, deliver a new, more powerful blow, and eventually an exchange of global attacks will take place.
    Or someone who believes in the impenetrability of their missile defense.
    Both the US President and the President of Russia can issue such an order.




    That is, the presidents, all those hundreds of people who will have to carry out such a crazy order .. they have nothing to lose? ... they are all suicides ... they have no families, children, grandchildren, etc. .... and they will doom them to death ....



    For the sake of what, by the way? .... that they lost the next war? ... are there few of them Russia or any other country? They didn’t ... are alive and well .... but right now all of them will go crazy and self-destruct ... so as not to lose war ...
    1. +1
      25 September 2017 20: 02
      That is, the presidents, all those hundreds of people who will have to carry out such a crazy order .. they have nothing to lose?
      I will ask a counter question. What kind of madman is needed to start a non-nuclear war with a nuclear power? Even if the chance of a retaliatory strike by nuclear weapons is very small?
      Therefore, despite all the contradictions and crises, the war between the United States and Russia (USA) has not been for so many years.
      If there is a madman, then the war will be nuclear, since the madman costs nothing to use nuclear weapons and stopping the madman in a different way will also fail.
      Therefore, I do not believe in a war between the United States and Russia or China. If the impossible happens and it begins, it will certainly be nuclear, because otherwise there will be millions of losses, which is unacceptable in our time for any country.
      In general, if a war of this magnitude begins as a high-tech one, it will end with infantry. Since modern weapons not only cost a lot of money, but are produced too slowly, and when the initial stocks of high-tech weapons and equipment are knocked out, the time will come for the infantry. Or someone, faced with unacceptable losses, will use nuclear weapons.
  46. +1
    25 September 2017 19: 37
    the war in Syria is for Russia a testing ground for the latest weapons and a demonstration of these weapons to the whole world. In 41, the USSR was attacked not by Germany, but by the whole of Europe with its economic and military potential, as well as by the armies led by Germany.
    1. +1
      25 September 2017 20: 09
      war in Syria - for Russia a testing ground for the latest weapons
      I agree, but if we hadn’t been in the thirties of Spain, Finland and Khalkhin-Gol, we would have had T-1941, KV-34, Yak-1, MiG-1, LaGG-3, Pe-3, Il-2 by 2 with which we went through most of the war and the modifications of which led us to victory)?
      I have big doubts.
  47. 0
    25 September 2017 19: 39
    The Amertsians in the Persian Gulf did not force the transfer at all (half a year), but as in the exercises they were engaged in a systematic phased development of the issues of strategic mobility of troops and conducted combat training of deployed units on the spot, waiting for the independent withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait in accordance with the UN resolution.

    In general, the American command needed to transfer more modern equipment and weapons to the Iraqi army, take care of the fighting spirit of its military personnel, and offer Iraqi soldiers relaxing procedures, a psychiatrist so that they did not look intimidated - they always do this in a war; and then, after a month of air, carry out a land operation.
  48. +1
    26 September 2017 01: 27
    Quote: Vadmir
    Then the nuclear winter and the living will envy the dead.

    This is just one of the popular hypotheses. Assuming the formation of extensive fires. But they are far from volcanic eruptions ..
    According to other sources, the combined reserves of the Russian Federation and the United States will be enough to "plow" (to create a zone of high and medium destruction) a piece of territory the size of ... France.
    1. 0
      26 September 2017 05: 06
      This is just one of the popular hypotheses. Assuming the formation of extensive fires.
      What are those who want to test this hypothesis in practice?
      By the way, another hypothesis is nuclear summer, where the plot is even worse than that of nuclear winter.
      In any case, there will be an exchange of blows, and even the “winner” will have multi-million losses, exceeding those that were combined for all the warring countries for both world wars. And only then the survivors will find out which of the hypotheses is true.
  49. +1
    26 September 2017 01: 38
    Quote: Alexander Alexander
    Everything can be seen from space in real time, it can be destroyed at distant approaches. What is NATO at our borders, we have everything on the fly

    You do not quite imagine the work of optical reconnaissance satellites. They do not hang in a geostationary orbit, you need to be closer to the surface, therefore, the observation is inconsistent. OTP complexes are mobile, in a dangerous period they can move continuously. And the time to prepare for launch is less than additional reconnaissance and target designation for the Iskander.
    It is dangerous to live in a fantasy world where we will defeat the “one left” of any strength (and that. Level) of the enemy ..
  50. 0
    13 October 2017 15: 11
    Quote: Pancir026
    And remember. Many people went to Russia. Yes, not many feet were carried away.
    Yet...

    Key point: nobody is going to go to the territory of Russia now. And we can well lose the remote war. The current Russian Federation causes persistent associations with the Republic of Ingushetia at the beginning of the 1905th century: emphasis on the raw materials sector, corruption, nepotism. They threatened the "Japs" with their hats in 1861m and ended with the profit of the WWII .. And in XNUMX they lost the Crimean War amid technical backwardness, despite the abundance of "cannon fodder" in the army of slaves.
  51. 0
    4 November 2017 20: 28
    Quote: Sedoi Zmei
    then what can we say about the US war with Russia?!?

    What do you mean by Russia? A group of criminal oligarchs who privatized the state (see the ending of the film Zhmurki), building copies of Catherine’s palaces with stolen money? (read about Vasiliev in St. Petersburg)
    These people (unlike you) have something to lose. In the spring of 2018, their accounts/assets/housing abroad will begin to be confiscated en masse. And they are already looking for approaches to Western politicians, explaining that in their hearts they have always been against Crimea and ask not to be included in the lists..
    They tried to raise the stakes by voicing nuclear threats through Kiselev and co., but this did not work, and Kiselev was eventually reined in.
  52. 0
    14 January 2018 12: 49
    Everything is correct. There is only one “BUT” - if Saddam had understood that this was a matter of life and death, then in his place I would have fucked the United States itself. Then the chances would be equal - when your ass is on fire, it’s somehow inconvenient to carry out an attack.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"