The Russian army through the eyes of an AUSA expert

100

The development of the Russian army and the results of these processes invariably attract the attention of foreign specialists. Foreign analytical organizations are trying to study the potential and capabilities of our armed forces and regularly issue reports on this topic. Recently, the report "How to Fight the Russians" from the Association of the US Army (AUSA) received due attention.

Not too new document


The loudly titled "How to Fight the Russians" report was published by AUSA last November in Land Warfare Paper No. 135. For some reason, this publication was noticed only now - and attracted a lot of attention of the domestic press and specialists.



The author of the report is retired Colonel Richard D. Hooker, Jr. In the past, he served in various airborne units and units, in which he participated in several military operations. Then the officer entered the National Security Council and held other positions. R. Hooker specializes in the Russian army, which he considers the main threat to US security.

The 19-page report "How to Fight the Russians" is divided into several parts. After the preface and introduction, the chapter "How Russia Fights" follows, which examines the main features and capabilities of the Russian army. Then comes the chapter "The Warfight" with a scenario of a hypothetical conflict, after which the author moves on to conclusions and conclusions.


R. Hooker believes that at the moment Russia is the most dangerous likely enemy for the United States. Today's Russian army is inferior in its capabilities to the Soviet during the Cold War, but even in this state it is a formidable force. The enemy is well armed and equipped, trained and capable of competently fighting. It will be difficult to fight it, but the United States can emerge victorious from the war.

Of greatest interest in the report is the assessment of the state and capabilities of the Russian army. The composition and various characteristics of the troops are considered, and their strengths are noted, which the United States should pay attention to. The proposed scenario of a hypothetical armed conflict is also curious, but very similar to a fantasy based on well-known stereotypes.

How they fight on earth


According to Colonel Hooker, the Russian army was created for offensive operations. Its commanders at all levels are ready for action, they are taught to attack even on the defensive. In addition, as such, there is no light infantry - motorized rifle and airborne units are equipped with armored vehicles.

The backbone of the Russian army is ground forces, divided into several combined arms armies. The latter are an approximate functional analogue of the US Army Corps. As in Soviet times, armies include several divisions and separate brigades for different purposes.


The main components of the ground forces - tank and motorized rifle formations. In service there are samples of different classes with similar characteristics. R. Hooker notes the presence of apprx. 1 thousand main tanks T-72B3, 350 newer T-90 and 450 gas turbine T-80. These machines are modern and dangerous, but the author of the report does not consider them equal to the best foreign models.

Motorized riflemen generally continue to use the old Soviet BMP-2, although the units also have newer BMP-3s. This is fast, mobile and well-armed equipment, but in terms of protection it is inferior to modern foreign counterparts. Some of the connections are equipped with BTR-80 armored personnel carriers, obsolete but modernized. The Airborne Forces have specialized vehicles BMD-2 and BMD-4.

The Russian army places great emphasis on artillery systems. Artillery maneuver is also envisaged: guns can be transferred to the most important sector of the front for the development of an already begun breakthrough, incl. to the detriment of other areas. To obtain high combat effectiveness, the brigade usually has three artillery battalions, two howitzer and one with MLRS. Such units can combine to strengthen fire in a given direction.

The self-propelled artillery of the Russian army is built on the old 2S3 Akatsiya and the newer 2S19 Msta-S vehicles. The Airborne Forces use self-propelled 2S31 "Vienna" and towed howitzers D-30. The main rocket system is BM-21 Grad. There are also other types of rocket, mortar and howitzer systems. The Iskander missile system is mentioned separately. In recent years, Russian artillery has been actively using tactical UAVs for reconnaissance. Guided munitions have been developed and are in service, but due to their high cost, they are used less often than conventional ones.


R. Hooker believes that Russian artillery poses a particular threat. US tactical commanders should be aware that the enemy has a large number of long-range weapons and missiles. This should be responded to with more effective reconnaissance, maneuver and return fire.

Russia has advantages over the United States in the field of electronic warfare. Each ground brigade has its own electronic warfare company, and at the army level there are entire brigades of this purpose. At the same time, the bulk of the brigades is concentrated in the Western Military District. All of these formations and units are capable of disrupting communications and control of the US Army, as well as interfering with the use of modern weapons. The answer to this should be active counteraction and destruction of electronic warfare systems, as well as the creation and deployment of control loops that do not depend on the situation on the air.

Air warfare


R. Hooker calls Russian attack helicopters a serious threat to the enemy. There are several types of such vehicles in the ranks with different characteristics, but all of them are well protected and armed. Organizational army aviation is part of the VKS. Each military district has one army aviation brigade with 88 helicopters; each army is supported by one regiment with 66 units. technology. The ZVO army aviation is reinforced by three squadrons of Su-35 fighter-bombers.

The main attack helicopters are the Mi-28 and Ka-52, equipped with built-in 30mm cannons and carrying various missiles. It is especially noted that Russian helicopters are not armed with fire-and-forget anti-tank missiles. However, their ammunition load includes an R-74M air-to-air missile, which allows them to attack enemy helicopters. At the same time, as expected, during the battle, strike aircraft will focus on ground targets.


The author of the report calls the US Air Force "the pearl of the armed forces." Considering the potential of this type of troops, Russia pays great attention to the development of its air defense. As a result, the Russian ground forces have a well-developed echeloned air defense system with high performance. Tactical units are armed with portable air defense systems of various types, including the newest Verba. The artillery systems, such as "Shilka" and "Tunguska", remain in service. At the operational-tactical level, there is an air defense facility based on the S-400 systems with a range of up to 400 km and an altitude of more than 18 km.

The commanders of the US ground forces must be prepared for the fact that they will have to fight in the area of ​​the Russian air defense, with all the negative consequences. Suppressing such defenses is an extremely difficult task associated with losses. Accordingly, both at the beginning of the operation and in the future, the ground forces will not be able to count on massive and effective air support.

General conclusions


While acknowledging all the advantages of the Russian army, the AUSA report points to problems. So, a significant part of the personnel are conscripts and serve only a year. The training programs are probably inferior to the American ones. Most of the hardware is outdated and lags behind the equipment of the United States. The "non-commissioned officers" of the Russian army do not have much experience. At the same time, in recent years, commanders have become more literate and ready for more flexible actions.

In the course of a hypothetical conflict of high intensity, according to R. Hooker, much will depend on the issues of strategic planning. At the same time, the effectiveness of US tactical units will also make a significant contribution. Accordingly, the commanders in the tactical echelon will bear great responsibility.


The report recalls that the US Army has not faced a truly developed and powerful adversary for a long time. Recent conflicts did not require the massive involvement of artillery, air defense and electronic warfare, which led to negative consequences in these areas. At the same time, the army is almost completely manned, and it consists of soldiers and officers with good training and real experience.

Commanders should prepare for battle in conditions of disruption of communications and control, under heavy artillery fire and little or no air support. In such circumstances, the skills of commanders at all levels are of particular importance, as well as their willingness to act decisively and aggressively. This will allow the US Army to use its qualitative advantages over the enemy and turn the tide of battles in its favor.

Biased assessments


Despite the release date, the AUSA report "How to Fight the Russians" remains relevant. It shows the views of the American military analytical community and partly reflects the views of the military leadership. On the whole, the military and specialists from the United States admit that in recent years the Russian army has come a long way and has become a dangerous adversary. Confrontation or open confrontation with it is associated with the most serious difficulties and risks.

At the same time, there are ambiguous and biased assessments. In particular, R. Hooker's thesis about the offensive nature of the Russian army raises questions. Our doctrine provides only defensive measures, although it does not exclude the introduction of hostilities into enemy territory. It is also not clear on the basis of what conclusions were drawn about the lagging of Russian methods of training personnel and materiel.

It should be borne in mind that reports of this kind do not simply show current opinions. They can be used as a reference and analytical material for further military planning in real Pentagon agencies. Therefore, such documents are of interest to our army as well - with their help, you can predict the actions of a potential enemy and prepare in advance for them.
Our news channels

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

100 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +13
    8 October 2021 04: 38
    Not a word about the Strategic Missile Forces - they are even afraid of the name! laughing
    1. +12
      8 October 2021 07: 01
      "In particular, R. Hooker's thesis about the offensive nature of the Russian army raises questions." - from the text - the author needs to understand for himself that, the offensive nature of the Russian army and military aggression are not the same... Moreover, this is confirmed by Hooker, who says that the Russians, even if they defend themselves, do not care try to attack the enemy, to impose their initiative. I do not see anything seditious at this point in the statements of the American military request
      1. +5
        8 October 2021 07: 40
        Quote: Proxima
        Russians, even if they defend themselves, they still try to attack

        Video from 1:59 "... when we retreat, it is we who go forward ..."

        1. +9
          8 October 2021 08: 09
          "R. Hooker notes the presence of about 1 thousand main tanks T-72B3, 350 newer T-90 and 450 gas turbine T-80. These machines are modern and dangerous, but the author of the report does not consider them equal to the best foreign models. "[/ i] "- from the text - A very bold statement of the American military. recourse And nothing that "the best foreign samples" (Abrams and Leopards), while other performance characteristics are comparable, are 10-15 tons heavier than our tanks (depending on modifications)? For me personally, this decisive characteristic, from cost to mobility... Such a weight culture of domestic tank building has developed since the time of the Great Patriotic War. For example, the IS-2 weighed as a "medium" tank Panther, about the Tigers, I generally keep quiet. And naturally, Americans have fully become full-fledged good "successors" of the Wehrmacht tank builders on this issue!
          1. +11
            8 October 2021 08: 58
            does not consider them equal to the best foreign models.

            I wonder what kind of foreign samples and how many of them are there in the arsenal of the West?
          2. +3
            8 October 2021 22: 58
            Quote: Proxima
            for 10-15 tons?

            Ahem, more precisely at 20-25 ...
          3. 0
            24 October 2021 11: 12
            Their tanks are heavier than ours, because they are better armored and this shows the attitude of their commanders towards the soldiers who will fight in this technique. And in our country, unfortunately, the opinion still dominates: why take care of the soldier-women still give birth! Unfortunately, this is no longer the case! Large families remained only with our "fellow citizens" from the south. And it seems to me that in case, God forbid, a big war we will get a stab in the back ... IMHO ...
            1. 0
              11 December 2021 05: 34
              Very controversial vyser
    2. +3
      8 October 2021 12: 10
      And what can he say about the Strategic Missile Forces? He is not an expert in this area. Paratrooper, manager on the floor. Although the article says that he participated in the operations. For me, a more or less objective report. I can't say anything about the level of training. At one time, he stood on guard for exactly a year, everything else was drill, Statutes, PCBs. A couple of times there were tactics classes, and we went to the shooting range. Such was the training in 82-84, but I served in a specific unit.
    3. -1
      9 October 2021 20: 54
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      Not a word about the Strategic Missile Forces - they are even afraid of the name! laughing

      Well, he didn’t write a word about SAC USA either ...
  2. -4
    8 October 2021 05: 13
    If this Yankee had written not a scribble laudatory for the US army, but an objective report, he would have been expelled from the army. We have enough problems, we know this, but to emphasize our weaknesses without noticing that we can even level our weaknesses, at least, is stupid ...
  3. +4
    8 October 2021 05: 48
    Nothing new! They have been cultivating everything he wrote for a long time, the same film "Rambo III (Afghanistan)" - supermen saving the world who stop only to be surprised at the antediluvian Russian technology and soldiers in earflaps.
    And history cannot be changed, - many tore apart a mitten on Russia, but only everyone choked!
    1. +2
      8 October 2021 16: 56
      the mitten looks like a female dumpling - that's why they gape and want to remember forgotten sensations
  4. +14
    8 October 2021 06: 33
    How to fight the Russians.

    Better not, for both sides it will be a disaster.
    1. +7
      8 October 2021 09: 21
      It will be a disaster for ALL.
  5. +18
    8 October 2021 06: 38
    "How to fight the Russians"

    They already understood how, with the help of Hollywood, McDonads and the dollar, it is much better at it than with the help of Abrams, Burke and Ф16 ...
    1. +14
      8 October 2021 08: 39
      That's for sure! And also offshore and British schools ... And so far we are losing.
      1. +7
        8 October 2021 08: 53
        Quote: Krabong
        And also offshore and British schools ...

        Important addition hi
        1. +4
          8 October 2021 18: 47
          Quote: Doccor18
          Important addition

          I was surprised by the following quote from the regiment. R. Hooker:
          both at the beginning of the operation and in the future, ground forces (USA - Udav) will not be able to count for massive and effective air support.
          I don’t remember that the Yankees went ahead if they didn’t have air superiority ... Nope, a former Mexican, Guinean or Arab (who joined the US Armed Forces to obtain American citizenship) will not "patriotically" climb on Russian machine gun until it is suppressed by aviation ... Something in the fortitude of this combined Babylonian hodgepodge was not particularly distinguished anywhere, where partisans fired at them from around the corner ...
          So, "Wouldn't you, Joe / Pedro / Ahmed, be a soldier!"
          AHA.
          1. +2
            8 October 2021 19: 43
            If earlier it was impossible to count on victory without ensuring air supremacy, now (and in the future) this conquest has generally become a paramount task. Without its solution, there is nothing to think about the conflict ...
            It is strange that the Americans write about this, with their 5th generation in the Air Force and the active use of UAVs ...
            1. +4
              8 October 2021 19: 46
              Quote: Doccor18
              It is strange that the Americans write about this, with their 5th generation in the Air Force and the active use of UAVs ...

              The colonel before that, very "impressed" narrated about the Russian air defense and electronic warfare ... Apparently, he realizes that "not all the carnival for the cat, there will be Great Lent!"
            2. +1
              15 October 2021 01: 01
              Quote: Doccor18
              If earlier it was impossible to count on victory without ensuring air supremacy, now (and in the future) this conquest has generally become a paramount task.

              not uniquely hi just recently, guys in slippers with AK took Afghanistan, dispersing several times the superior forces of the Afghan army, which had total air superiority, and not only its own, but also the support of the US aviation. personnel motivation remains critical.
              1. +1
                15 October 2021 09: 08
                Quote: SanichSan
                just recently, guys in slippers with AK took Afghanistan, dispersed several times the superior forces of the Afghan army, which had total air superiority ...

                Well, those guys not only had slippers and AKs ... laughing
                Motivation is certainly important, but combat experience is also important. hi
  6. +6
    8 October 2021 07: 03
    The main attack helicopters are the Mi-28 and Ka-52.
    - and sho, crocodiles have already written off everything? Your deeds are wonderful, Lord
  7. 0
    8 October 2021 07: 41
    I propose to name the article differently: "Getting to know the Hookers"
  8. KCA
    -3
    8 October 2021 07: 53
    I served for a relatively long time, 91-93, but served in two separate motorized rifle brigades, 131 and 135, which had neither MLRS, nor electronic warfare, nor air defense, at 135 there was a hurricane division in Prokhladny, but it was in itself, a separate unit not connected with the brigade, maybe the analyst of the brigade confused the divisions?
    1. 0
      19 October 2021 08: 06
      The anti-aircraft (anti-aircraft missile) division was exactly ...
  9. +6
    8 October 2021 08: 17
    I see that most of the commentators are again going to throw hats at the enemy. Sadly...
    Personally, I took the following from this Report:
    - "Motorized riflemen basically continue to use the old Soviet BMP-2"
    - "Russian helicopters are not armed with fire-and-forget anti-tank missiles"
    - "... a significant part of the personnel are conscripts and serve only a year. ... A large proportion of the materiel is outdated and lags behind the equipment of the United States."
    They probably lie?
    1. KCA
      +14
      8 October 2021 08: 36
      American troops use the old American Abrams M1A2 tank and don't sweat somehow, why is the BMP-2 bad? Even in our army, they use old Soviet Urals, KAMAZ trucks and even KrAZ trucks, they are taking them where they need to and how they should, what is the problem?
      1. +5
        8 October 2021 10: 32
        GAZ-66 (Shishiga) is also used, this generally all-terrain vehicle good Shakes, however, not childish, but a thing !!!
        1. KCA
          +6
          8 October 2021 10: 54
          I know, I served on the R-409 and KShM R-142N relay, they were on the shishiga, and on the R-145 BTR 60PB, I had half a liter of alcohol under the cabin of the 66th, it was very useful in the Ossetian-Ingush conflict zone in the 92nd year, when in the early days they almost crawled for food, they shoot, however, but alcohol added courage
      2. -6
        8 October 2021 15: 16
        Quote: KCA
        what is the BMP-2 bad?

        At least the level of security. Abrams already had a bunch of upgrades, but the BMP-2?
        1. +4
          8 October 2021 19: 20
          Would you compare Abrams with the UAZ in terms of security ... fool laughing
          1. -5
            8 October 2021 19: 59
            Quote: Kayala
            Would you compare Abrams with the UAZ in terms of security ...

            You would read carefully and then you probably would not have to write this stupid comment.
    2. +6
      8 October 2021 09: 01
      Most of the hardware is outdated and lags behind US equipment. "

      I would like to know more - which samples of our materiel are lagging behind the corresponding US samples? When were the last American tanks, self-propelled guns or infantry fighting vehicles produced there?
      1. +6
        8 October 2021 09: 36
        Quote: paul3390
        Which samples of our materiel are lagging behind the corresponding US samples?

        I am an aviator by training, and to be honest - in aviation
        we are really lagging behind in most AME positions.
        1. +2
          8 October 2021 11: 36
          Well, in fact, the winner is not the one who has the latest technology, but the one who forces the enemy to fight according to his own rules ...
          1. +4
            8 October 2021 11: 58
            Quote: Barberry25
            wins ... the one who forces the enemy to fight according to his own rules ...

            But it is better to do it on modern technology,
            with modern weapons.
            1. +4
              8 October 2021 12: 26
              this is desirable, but the same Hussists pinch the Arabs with quite old weapons ... here, in any case, active and sensible leadership is in the first place
              1. 0
                8 October 2021 13: 26
                Quote: Barberry25
                here, in any case, in the first place is an active and sensible leadership

                And this is exactly about ours?
                1. 0
                  8 October 2021 16: 18
                  And why not?
                  1. -3
                    8 October 2021 16: 32
                    Quote: Barberry25
                    And why not?

                    Personally, I'm not very sure about them ...
      2. -2
        10 October 2021 20: 55
        And communication is all good about electronic warfare and air defense, but the main thing in command and control is communication and logistics in Russian, just the rear. And here, as always since the times of the USSR, there are problems.
        1. KCA
          0
          12 October 2021 08: 38
          Since the times of the USSR, everything has been smooth with the rear, with logistics too, do you know such an organization as Rosrezerv? So their storages are designed to supply the entire population with food, and not only the military, for three months, you will learn logistics from L.P. Beria, when the entire factories for the Urals were sent
          1. -1
            12 October 2021 12: 25
            You have a superficial understanding of the work of the rear. In short, this is a set of measures for conducting military operations, and this does not only include food, fuels and lubricants, ammunition, and uniforms.
    3. +2
      8 October 2021 09: 23
      A year of service is not enough. Only learned something and demobilization! And when is the actual service?
      1. -2
        8 October 2021 09: 33
        Quote: Black Colonel
        A year of service is not enough.

        Yes, this is not enough, but to replace conscripts
        contractors, we have no money.
        1. -1
          8 October 2021 10: 35
          There is money, but in the wrong hands ...
          1. 0
            8 October 2021 16: 20
            300 conscripts, each needs 000 rubles a month for a total of 40 billion rubles at least, and taking into account all kinds of mortgages and allowances, all 000 billion a year ..
        2. +3
          8 October 2021 19: 04
          Quote: Bez 310
          to replace conscripts
          contractors, we have no money.

          Maybe so ... I will not argue.
          But we have a mixed type of manning for the aircraft - by contract and by conscription. This makes it possible - a) to reduce the cost of the army, and b) to prepare mobilization reserves. The states with this ... not very well. Troops ter defense and national guard - only for their own territory. But we are not going to trample on the radioactive ash, it seems. And those tanned scruffs that will snuggle into EUROPES - we, God willing, will sip ... with all the proletarian hatred!
          Therefore, "let's live together!" (with).
          AHA.
          1. -1
            10 October 2021 21: 06
            That is, you do not take into account those Americans who did not extend the minimum 3-year contract and went into the reserve. I very much doubt that the Russian reservist is better than the American one.
    4. +1
      8 October 2021 16: 58
      you may be right, but one thing decides all the presence of a vigorous bomb cancels it all
  10. +6
    8 October 2021 08: 35
    "For some reason, this publication was noticed only now - and attracted a lot of attention of the domestic press and specialists."

    The reasons are clear: this report was written by a retired American colonel from an unknown private, nonprofit organization, the United States Army Association (AUSA), in the Land Warfare Paper.
    The site's commentators are full of retired colonels, and each of them can write a 19-page report, "How to Fight the Americans," and publish it on VO. But this report is unlikely to attract much attention of the American press and specialists - I am afraid that even the readers of VO will not master all these 19 pages
    1. +5
      8 October 2021 11: 10
      And this is the way the idea!
      Who is it from Polkanov retired?
      Drop me a line pliz an article on the topic!
      Well, not in the 19 pages of course.
      And this ..... submarine and the Strategic Missile Forces are excluded.
      wassat
      1. +1
        8 October 2021 11: 29
        Quote: kytx
        And this is the way the idea!
        Who is it from Polkanov retired?
        Drop me a line pliz an article on the topic!

        Gone are the days when it was possible to write objective articles about the real state of affairs in the Russian armed forces.
      2. +2
        8 October 2021 18: 22
        Quote: kytx
        Drop me a line pliz an article on the topic!

        Never Colonel, but Easy!
        How to fight? The answer is simple))) NO!
        The only scarecrow for Russia is the Strategic Missile Forces, but this is a one-way ticket for everyone.
        Conventional remedies? But they are not. You can talk as much as you like about those that have no analogues, but all these analogues, and not so much due to the fact that the fleet is in a position of cancer, will reach the shores of the Atlantic at the most. And then ... Paste the tanks with penoplex, hook the sausages to the RTOs and go ahead to discover America)). Since there are no trite means to end the war on the enemy's territory, the result is natural, whatever the Great Divan Troops say there together with the cap industry with earflaps)
        1. 0
          8 October 2021 22: 47
          You are not a strategist! hi we capture Europe, they build a fleet (if we don't know how, they definitely can!) and discover America on it! soldier and another option was described in the game by Red Alert: we quietly load the invasion army on dry cargo ships, in China you can buy it and sail directly to America, then we capture coastal cities with airports and Ruslans there and what else we find we throw in reinforcements. While the Yankees are figuring out what to do with us at home, we seize Europe and land the second wave on the bulk carriers captured in the ports of Europe, and all the victory is ours. lol
          1. +1
            9 October 2021 10: 03
            Well, yes, of course, how could I forget about RA. True, with the Chinese, a plug can come out, while we are there, they come here))
  11. +7
    8 October 2021 08: 41
    In modern databases, the winner is the one who first saw. And with this, the Americans have always been ahead of the rest. But on the other hand, the habit of relying on your electronics in everything is pernicious. If suddenly the enemy succeeds in blocking communication, then how the commander will behave is a big question. The undoubted advantage of amers at the tactical level is rifle training, well, and a fairly large percentage of servicemen with real experience in the battlefield. As for the fire-and-forget missiles, recently a helicopter pilot here argued that such a system is not always better.
  12. 0
    8 October 2021 09: 30
    Quote: "The enemy is well armed and equipped, trained and capable of competently fighting."
    The American believes that he has listed the main components of the Russian army, but, like all the others who are longing for the Russian land, he did not take into account, in my opinion, the main component of the Russian army is MOTIVATION. And in another way, you can call the Russian spirit! It was this component that made Russia the winner.
    1. +1
      8 October 2021 10: 09
      [
      Quote: pronik
      Russian spirit! It was this component that made Russia the winner.

      Is it okay that the multinational USSR won the victory in the Great Patriotic War? The whole people fought, regardless of nationality. And when they sang about "Russian" (Kazakh, Azerbaijani, Latvian, etc.) and other national "spirits" - did the country collapse?
  13. +5
    8 October 2021 09: 55
    Here is a big question that has been left out of brackets: at what level of threat and at what stage is Russia ready to use nuclear weapons? Because, in terms of the number of soldiers and equipment, it is apparently inferior to the united NATO army. Of course, it would be necessary for the Russian leadership to clarify. To say clearly: you are doing something concrete - and immediately, without warning, you receive a nuclear strike. Because otherwise, "Putin's partners" are tempted to try to find the boundaries of the possible on their own.
    1. +7
      8 October 2021 10: 39
      Yes, what a blow there
  14. +1
    8 October 2021 11: 04
    About this document on VO already wrote yesterday the day before yesterday. Well, the second time is better turned out anything intelligible.

    By the way wonder how serious General refers to the Russian air defense.
  15. -6
    8 October 2021 14: 19
    Russians don't have:
    1) a normal machine gun with normal sighting complexes;
    2) a normal grenade launcher in the army;
    3) not a single modern infantry fighting vehicle that can hold a bushmaster in the forehead;
    1. +7
      8 October 2021 14: 44
      1) a normal machine gun with normal sighting complexes;
      - half of the world is fighting with Kalash
      2) a normal grenade launcher in the army;
      - again, half of the world runs with our RPGs
      3) not a single modern infantry fighting vehicle that can hold a bushmaster in the forehead;
      - duels on the BMP? or massive BMP battles?
      1. -6
        20 October 2021 17: 11
        1) (assault rifles) half of the third world - I do not deny, this weapon is suitable for a war against abreks, but not China or NATO
        2) (RPG) half of the third world - I don’t deny, try to hit at least something from 500 m from RPG 7. This is an outdated weapon, already useless against modern armies. Against gigil og7v yes, pg7vl (r) - please. But not about NATO and China.
        Once again I say in the troops there are no modern RPGs. To shoot reports on a star about RPG 28,30,32 is cool. But they are not in the troops. Watch any exercise video.

        3) centric use of infantry fighting vehicles, tanks, arts, aviation, uavs, reb. And here are the duels, or as you say massive BMP battles, you know what I'm saying.
        And in this situation, the BMP, rolling out onto the hillside, will burst from a pair of 35 mm (40mm telescopic shells) of the Western BMP. Hope for ptury is good, only in case of X hour NATO will hang modular stanag 5 and kazy on its BMP.
        The ATGM flies for a very long time, the BMP of enemies has a laser irradiation sensor, so, like in a shooting range, no one will ever shoot. And to send a couple of dozen armor-piercing 35 mm in return is a nice thing.
    2. +2
      8 October 2021 17: 00
      you are like his Ukrainian?
    3. +1
      8 October 2021 21: 58
      1) The AK-12 and AK-15 for army units and AEK-971 and AEK-973 for special forces have been adopted.
      2) Are you laughing? - 125 mm RPG-28 "Cranberry", 105 mm RPG-30 "Hook", 105 mm RMG
      3) not a single western modern infantry fighting vehicle holds 2A42 head-on
      1. -6
        20 October 2021 16: 59
        In all recent exercises, the Russians use RPG 7,
        Aeki in the troops? Funny. If there are 100 aeks for the whole army, is this also "in the army"?
        Western BMPs hold 30ku, they have mounted modular stands for different tasks. BMP 2 does not hold kpvt what you are talking about. The bulk of the troops are fighting on the BMP 2 / m. When they put MASSOVO in the T15 troops, then we will talk (although he also does not hold either the bushmaster or the cba 40 with telescopic ammunition)
  16. +6
    8 October 2021 15: 11
    I confirm that there are no LGBT people in the Russian army. And yet, I do not advise American LGBT soldiers to surrender to the "blue berets". It would not be worse.
  17. -1
    8 October 2021 15: 21
    I partially agree that the general condition is something like this. The mat part is outdated, the equipment, although it is produced, is very slow. I served myself, so I know that the motorized rifle brigade is BMP 1 and BMP 2 .. I have not seen BMP 3 in my eyes ...
  18. -1
    8 October 2021 22: 01
    Today's Russian army is inferior in its capabilities to the Soviet during the Cold War, but even in this state it is a formidable force.


    This is fairly wrong. Most of the times when documents like these are sold publicly, tend to include a high dose of self-complacency. No-one in the United States would have accepted some analysis exposing the unsustainability of the position of the United States in Afghanistan. And then, the defeat comes like a surprise for all.

    The Russian Armed Forces, and specially the Russian Army conserved the best part of the Soviet Armed Forces, and improved it with the years. And this best part is not small, includes large amounts of the right armament. This statement is not sustainable analyzing the facts. The Sovietic Armed Forces had higher numbers, Russia made a reduction of material to achieve sustainability, but did it keeping only the best material, in large amounts and in the right proportions, completing it with new productions of modernized material and with unitis of new modern projects in the necessary areas. Even if it is not totally evident for some people still, at the end of the process only the best combination of the best material will remain.

    The statement would be false even if refered to other branches of the Russian Armed Forces that suffered more strict reductions, like the Russian Strategic Missile Forces, affected by nuclear armament reduction treaties that limited the reduction only to the most veteran material, or the Russian Navy , more affected by sustainability issues that forced the total exit of some strong units of the Sovietic Navy. I certainly would have not conceded still the very recent scrapping of the A Lazarev (Project 1144 (/ 2)) and the K-322 Kashalot (Project (/ 0) 971 (/ 1)), before the exit of some unit of projects that are not to continue.

    The colonel of the United States should explain what reduction of which weapons of the Soviet Army made the current Russian Army weaker, providing evidence of the reductions, and comparing them with the new material acquired, but doing it would reach the opposite conclussion.
    1. 0
      8 October 2021 23: 02
      In short, from what is written not in our opinion, EFFICIENCY is at the forefront of the development of the Russian army! From the outside it looks like this, in spite of the priar of all different things, the military does not fire grandmothers on steamed, but take what is needed today and now.
      1. -1
        9 October 2021 05: 50
        At strategic level Russia really made not important mistakes in the referred to the conservation of the material inherited from the Soviet Union, and managed well the reductions, much better than what apparently has been seen.

        The main evidence of it will be that at the end of the process of reduction of the land, air and sea based combat and heavy auxiliary fleets, the Il-38 will be the alone survivor project that should have been exhausted during the process of reduction , keeping instead some unit more of the Tu-95/142.

        The rest, including the (M) T-12, Be-6/12, D-30, Project 1204, T-5455/62, and others cases of armament and heavy auxiliary material of the same age and technological level, will be totally exhausted in the Russian Armed Forces by the end of the process of reduction. In fact the process of reduction will end when the total exit of this projects is completed.

        The conservation of material of worse level over material of better level would be the sign of strategic mistakes, but this will not be the case by the end, because to say it with one example, the total exit of the T-54/55 / 62 makes coherent the total exit of the T-64, and the same about the rest of cases. This, and the large and homogeneus (in the refered to the amounts) reserves conserved of material of all the types, including the material limited by the nuclear treaties, make the entire process of reduction strategically correct in overall terms.

        At strategical level only some minor objections can be included in the refered to the cited case of the Il-38, and to the lack of conservation of some combat ship. And just it makes likely that Russia takes care about most of the remaining early decommissions. From the point of the Russian defense, at the end of the process of reduction, the result of the process will be almost optimal. And the end of the process is very near except in the case of the air and sea based fleets of heavy auxiliary material.

        With the high level features and performance of the modern material of the new generation that reached the arsenals it is evident to me that the level of the Russian Armed Forces today is higher than the level of the Sovietic Armed Forces. And the level continues to improve.
        1. 0
          9 October 2021 09: 46
          To note that to achieve a situation where the Russian Armed Forces are stronger than the Soviet Armed Forces, Russia needed to take a right strategic way also in the refered to the development and the procurement of new armament that complemented the reduction in a form also almost optimal.

          Again in this case only very few minor objections can be made at this point, in the related to the scrapping of a few unfinished hulls of projects to continue, in the referred to the avoidable purchase of some foreign heavy auxiliary material that finally had not a diplomatic benefit for Russia, and in the refered to the efforts to keep Beriev as a military brand.

          Also very well by this side.
        2. 0
          9 October 2021 11: 50
          Where does the text come from? Something similar has already been written in VO, only in Russian what
          Regarding the fact that the Russian army is steeper than the Soviet army, this is unlikely, maybe a separate unit taken and more effective than the Soviet one, which is understandable, all the same 30 years have passed. Despite the collapse of the 90s, it was possible to survive the collapse and continue development, which led to an increase in the effectiveness of the units in comparison with the USSR army in the 80s of the 20th century. At the same time, the scale of the Russian army is not at all the same and it does not have the capabilities of the USSR army even in 1980! feel imagine that there would have been no failure in the 90s, and the USSR army would have developed systematically for these 30 years, I think today's Russian army, in comparison with the hepothetical army of the USSR of the 21st century, has the capabilities of the aborigines against the US Marine Corps at the end of the 20th century laughing
  19. -3
    8 October 2021 22: 06
    The American army can attack once and that will be enough. The second time to step on the same place, it will be slippery and there is no one. Again, this spelling of the Americans is incomprehensible to anyone, but it resembles a Ukrainian anecdote - I try tebe for a cholovik, and you mene try for a putsiurenu. Here the Americans are holding on and apparently they do not understand that this will be their first and last battle. There is no Stalin and there will be no help from the American army.
  20. -2
    8 October 2021 23: 41
    The paragraph summarizing the results is not clear: "... the US army has not faced a truly developed and powerful enemy for a long time. Recent conflicts did not require the massive involvement of artillery, air defense and electronic warfare, which led to negative consequences in these areas. At the same time, the army is almost completely manned, and there are soldiers and officers with good training and real experience in it ........ ".......... If they did not face a serious enemy, what kind of combat experience did they gain? Have you watched Rambo Part 3 10 times each? Even in Afghanistan, they could not cope with collective farmers in slippers.
  21. 0
    9 October 2021 00: 39
    A simple listing of aircraft technology. Empty and worthless set of letters
    1. 0
      12 October 2021 21: 32
      Unfortunately, even the enumeration is not at all complete, so a really useless set of letters. Hardly anyone seriously thinks that without good preliminary preparation, some kind of ground operation will take place. To drag infantry and tanks across the ocean so that in some kind of stubborn battles they are likely to achieve something without the support of aviation? Nobody will go for it. And if so, then it is necessary to begin with an analysis of how such preparation can be carried out - what and how can be adjusted and what can be opposed to it. Above, the English-speaking commentator mentioned the Il-38 - these are thoughts in the right direction, but the article does not say anything about this.
  22. +1
    9 October 2021 05: 59
    Both in the article and in the comments, modern methods and means of command and control of troops at various levels are not considered at all, including methods and means of automation of command and control of units, formations and formations of various combat arms.
    Meanwhile, even at the end of the 60s of the last century, in the general staffs of potential adversaries (at that time the countries of the Warsaw Pact and the countries of NATO, SEATO and other ANZUS), great attention was paid to the problems of automation of command and control of troops.
    In particular, in the USSR, a number of automation systems were developed and built, which were intended to control all types of troops as part of a district / front and at all levels of their control, up to the front command post.
    It should be noted that when these means were created, very serious attention was paid to the issues of protection against electronic countermeasures of a potential enemy, and many problems associated with this counteraction were successfully solved. This is for those for whom "electronic warfare is our everything." With a competent approach to the development and use of ACCS, the impact of electronic warfare on the operation of ACCS, if not completely excluded, then at least reduced to acceptable damage. Tested and proven many times.
    Of course, with the level of miniaturization of components that was then available to the developers of ACCS, it was quite difficult to compete with "partners", but nevertheless, in terms of functionality, domestic ACCS were not much inferior to foreign developments.
    These ACCS underwent comprehensive tests, took part in military exercises of various levels, up to the West 81 exercises and a number of command and control systems of these ACCUs were adopted and began to enter the troops, primarily in the GSVG.
    Then the Union collapsed and these ACCS were forgotten for a long time.
    Now there are attempts to revive the mentioned ACCS, but the attempts are somehow convulsive and not systemic. And they are made using a backlog that is already about 30-40 years old. Which is understandable in principle. If about 80 thousand people worked on the creation of the same ACCS Maneuver in the mid-25s (and this is only as part of NPO Agat, Minsk), then those who work on similar systems now can hardly be compared in terms of number, experience, financial, production capabilities, etc. a team of NPO AGAT and dozens of other research institutes and industrial enterprises of the USSR. Therefore, the current developments of purely Russian ACCS are reduced mainly to replacing the outdated element base with a more modern one. And this will not be enough.
  23. 0
    9 October 2021 07: 17
    At the operational-tactical level, there is an on-site air defense system based on S-400 systems with a range of up to 400 km and an altitude of more than 18 km ... 404 out of unfinished, that you are so busy and write such nonsense ... and further in the text ... the thinking of this Hooker, the main components of the ground forces ... should be ... the household, the construction battalion, the medical battalion (although they are very much even needed ... and not only they are there, and communications, and engineers ... etc., etc.) . NS. )
  24. -1
    9 October 2021 21: 00
    So, a significant part of the personnel are conscripts. and serves only a year... The training programs are probably inferior to the American ones.

    A bastard has stepped right on the corn ... of course, what kind of training can be at a military unit who served for a year ...
  25. 0
    11 October 2021 13: 19
    I believe that the thesis about the offensive strategy of our army is based on the fact that although quantitatively we surpass the Americans in heavy equipment, for the most part this equipment (albeit modernized) is the technology of previous generations, from the point of view of the Americans (and probably in fact ) inferior to NATO technology in MOST of its own (I'm talking about the T-72), or at least not having advantages over them in terms of the complex of means in defensive battles (because the Americans believe that their detection and guidance devices are generally better than ours). Also, the Americans probably proceed from the fact that in the event of defensive battles on our side there will be significant losses from their "smart weapons" relying on the best capabilities of their reconnaissance and guidance equipment (how all this will work in a major war and developed electronic warfare especially thought), by analogy with how they crumbled Iraqi tanks. So, in view of this, they naturally believe that we will try to use the running and quantitative advantages of our vehicles over NATO vehicles, at least at the initial stage of the conflict, in order to try to impose "our own game" on the enemy.
    classic It may not be called an offensive, but active defense is quite. This is probably what they represent.
  26. 0
    11 October 2021 16: 22
    I read the article, read the comments and thought: to compare the current qualitative characteristics of weapons, the organizational structure of units and the combat training of soldiers is correct. But for some reason, I have not read anywhere here about the production potential necessary to restore losses in equipment and weapons. After all, a possible conflict with "probable partners" will be protracted, under almost equal conditions (insignificant superiority in one or another sphere of armaments and / or the morale-organizational state of the troops mutually overlap the leadership / lag of each of the parties). How quickly and, most importantly, what is the quality of the replenishment of the losses of the material base of the troops? If in the 40s of the last century everything was decided by the word of the Leader of the Nations, then how will this issue be solved now? "There", it is understood overseas - "money in the morning - chairs in the evening." And we have? Will we be able to replenish? Or will we shoot from the stock? Is society (all without exception!) Ready to stand at the bench, to give up its property for a common Victory? Morally ready? Here's the question ...
  27. 0
    12 October 2021 11: 25
    .... Accordingly, both at the beginning of the operation and in the future, the ground forces will not be able to count on massive and effective air support ... is the main problem that they do not know how to solve and so far this issue has not been resolved what kind of planning of offensive operations is out of the question. NATO army is too dependent on air
  28. 0
    13 October 2021 21: 39
    Where are we going to fight? Announce the start of a war with Russia to American contractors and see how many of them run. The mercenary wants money and live happily ever after, the war of annihilation is not for them.
  29. -1
    14 October 2021 18: 46
    >> In particular, R. Hooker's thesis about the offensive nature of the Russian army raises questions. Our doctrine only provides for defensive measures,
    The author confuses doctrine with the theory of combined arms combat.
    Doctrine can be offensive, and the preferred tactics of warfare can be defensive, or vice versa. Depending on the funds that you have in the army, the resources you and the enemy have, and the logistic model.
    Therefore, of course, with all the defensive doctrine of the Russian Federation, it would be foolish to sit and wait while the US military-industrial complex rivets a billion tanks and moves towards us.
    We'd better roll them out quickly.
    It seems that the author does not understand what Comrade. Hooker.

    By the way, and Comrade himself. Hooker is ignorant of the armament of Russian helicopter units. Well, thank God.
  30. 0
    2 November 2021 13: 21
    Yes, in general, they will not be able to fight without aviation and communications. Under the dome of our air defense will be our aircraft, our reconnaissance, our electronic warfare. Anything that will threaten this will be swept away very quickly.
  31. +1
    3 November 2021 04: 34
    A hypothetical war between the Russian Federation and the United States will quickly turn into a phase of exchange of strikes with tactical nuclear charges. And wars a la WWII between us are not possible due to the presence of nuclear weapons in both countries.
  32. 0
    7 November 2021 22: 00
    “Motorized riflemen basically continue to use the old Soviet BMP-2, although there are newer BMP-3 in the units. This is fast, mobile and well-armed equipment, but in terms of the level of protection it is inferior to modern foreign counterparts ”- probably the only thing in which he is right
  33. 0
    18 November 2021 20: 50
    How to fight? NO WAY.
  34. 0
    12 December 2021 14: 47
    Better to think about how to repulse the impact of 10 warheads ... rushing at a speed of Mach 12-320 in 2.5-5 minutes ... and in general ... is this possible in today's America.
  35. 0
    6 January 2022 15: 37
    Our doctrine only provides for defensive measures,

    And nothing that the enemy's defense must be broken through with counterattacks. And this is just for the offensive forces. So, on the whole, everything is correct.
    But the soldier, of course, will not write negatives about his army. And then they will peck their own.
    And he wrote only about the ground theater. Apparently in the rest he considers the victory for his own by default.
    Commanders should prepare for battle in conditions of disruption of communications and control, under heavy artillery fire and little or no air support. In such circumstances, the skills of commanders at all levels are of particular importance, as well as their willingness to act decisively and aggressively. This will allow the US Army to use its qualitative advantages over the enemy and turn the tide of battles in its favor.


    Well, here he is 100500% an optimist. moreover, he naively thinks that the Americans will fight on foreign territory, like former warriors in WWII. The current army will run from a massive attack 90% of the time. Unless seasoned specialists will dare to advance further. They do not know how to fight without overwhelming air support.
  36. 0
    11 January 2022 00: 36
    Quote: Proxima
    "In particular, R. Hooker's thesis about the offensive nature of the Russian army raises questions." - from the text - the author needs to understand for himself that, the offensive nature of the Russian army and military aggression are not the same... Moreover, this is confirmed by Hooker, who says that the Russians, even if they defend themselves, do not care try to attack the enemy, to impose their initiative. I do not see anything seditious at this point in the statements of the American military request

    That's all right. This is confirmed by all the instructions and the very principle of fighting, even from the tsarist army. No war is won by defensive actions alone, so there is always a transition from defense to offensive.
  37. 0
    24 January 2022 02: 01
    it's good that they think so. If anything (they stick their nose at us) - we will put "surprises" on their graves.
  38. 0
    28 January 2022 14: 37
    He has the right to his opinion. Another thing is "analysis" based on rumors and speculation. Yes, and where are the construction battalions, railway troops, Strategic Missile Forces, submarines, aircraft?
    A set of common words and patterns.
  39. 0
    31 January 2022 23: 14
    There, in the west, narrow specialists rule.
    That's all.
    The Russian Federation does not even need to send the Army.
    Ditched their housing and communal services, the Internet and all the West was gone.
    And I polished EMP, it was gone FOREVER.
  40. 0
    April 11 2022 12: 58
    Quote: Proxima
    "In particular, R. Hooker's thesis about the offensive nature of the Russian army raises questions." - from the text - the author needs to understand for himself that, the offensive nature of the Russian army and military aggression are not the same... Moreover, this is confirmed by Hooker, who says that the Russians, even if they defend themselves, do not care try to attack the enemy, to impose their initiative. I do not see anything seditious at this point in the statements of the American military request

    This is spelled out in all charters and tactics of warfare, starting with the squad. Wars are never won by purely defensive battles. Therefore, going on the offensive is a self-evident stage of the battle, implied by default as soon as the situation calls for it.

"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; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"