Marines - wingless infantry in blue berets
When last week the landing troops were led by Vladimir Shamanov, and at the inauguration ceremony of the new commander, Army General Nikolai Makarov, chief of the Russian General Staff, said that the reduction and transfer of airborne troops from the divisional to the brigade base would be reinforced, many, and not only the military , delighted. At last, the airborne forces, the elite of the army, were left alone and appointed the commander of a real combat general. Only here there is nothing to rejoice.
Let's try to figure out: what is the Airborne Forces? “Airborne Forces (Airborne Forces), a highly mobile branch of the armed forces designed to cover the enemy through the air and conduct combat operations in its rear” (Ministry of Defense website - E. T.). Airborne forces as a separate branch of the army existed only in the USSR - in other countries, paratroopers are part of the ground forces or the Air Force. The landing troops are the strike force of the aggressor army, which in its structure was the Soviet army. Following tactical nuclear strikes, “blue berets” land in the enemy rear, seize bridgeheads, and enormous masses rush to join them, breaking the enemy’s resistance tanks. That is, in fact, the essence of the Soviet strategy. Now there are no tank armies, they did not bother to develop a strategy for the entire post-Soviet time, as they could not determine a potential enemy. And if there is no adversary, there is no strategy. But the Airborne Forces, although in abbreviated form, continue to exist. And, as General Makarov explained to us, they will be strengthened ...
Imagine a picture: hundreds of heavy transport airplanes are flying over a certain country, of which paratroopers and combat vehicles fall on the heads of the enemy. If the enemy does not even have a rifle weapons - then everything is fine. And if he still has machine guns and machine guns, and, God forbid, some air defense? Then the end of the landing. This means that airborne forces can only be used where there is no enemy and cannot be, for example, in the Siberian taiga or in Antarctica. During World War II, there was only one large-scale landing force - the landing of the Germans on Crete in 1941, but even there, in conditions of extremely weak resistance, the paratroopers suffered such losses that Hitler forbade such operations. The Americans threw the amphibious units in Normandy in 1944 out of despair - it was necessary to somehow divert the Wehrmacht, while infantry and equipment landed on the coast. The actions of "ordinary Ryan" were unsuccessful, the losses are huge. More large-scale landing, which provided for the Soviet military doctrine, was not. Another thing is tactical helicopter assault forces in the interests of the ground forces: they were the basis of the strategy and tactics of the Americans in Vietnam and Iraq, the Soviet troops in Afghanistan and proved to be highly effective. But in this case, the paratroopers must obey the ground forces, and not be a separate branch of the military! A lot of parachutists - landing in small groups to perform special operations tasks. But our Airborne Forces exist separately, special forces - separately.
Although the Airborne Forces in modern conditions is absolute nonsense, this nonsense is subject to if not a strategy (which is not present), then technical tasks for the defense industry.
The main problem of the Airborne Forces, said Shamanov, when he took office, is the obsolescence of equipment and weapons: the BMD-1 and BMD-2 airborne assault vehicles were adopted over 30 and 20 years ago. True, the paratroopers already receive the newest BMD-4: “The machine is an air transportable combat tracked amphibious vehicle that can be parachuted and parachuted with personnel inside or without it” (the official technical specification is E. T.).
They ordered the defense industry to make a “flying” BMD-4 - she did. Yes, no one ever threw combat vehicles with crews in combat conditions, this is nonsense! Landing in such a way that the crew avoids serious injuries is extremely difficult; they have long been abandoned by such ideas all over the world. No, the Soviet (and now it is not clear what) have their own pride, and a weakly armored, unnecessary, in general, machine is born ...
Amphibious forces assume the presence of a huge number of military equipment, primarily helicopters - in the Soviet assault landing brigade 80-s of them were 120. And we solemnly declare that the Russian army (not the Airborne Forces, but the entire army!) Will receive 2015 helicopters of all types before the 100. Those that are now in service will be written off. Military transport aircraft also need a lot, but Russia does not produce them at all. That is, the paratroopers after six years will walk or ride a “flying” BMD-4. In other words, to be ordinary infantry - as they were in Chechnya, and before that - in Afghanistan. And even earlier - near Moscow and Stalingrad.
Marines are truly special soldiers: brave, hardy, well trained. Therefore, they and plugged all the holes in the wars. And why? Yes, because the motorized rifle units and connections are not capable. It may be objected: what about the victory in the second Chechen war? Yes, nothing. There, the enemy was defeated not because of the strength of the renewed army, but because of his own extreme weakness. In the first Chechen war, the army was opposed by a well-armed militia with heavy equipment, good communications and a single command, and how it ended was known. In the second Chechen opponent of the army there were scattered gangs without a single center and serious weapons, moreover they fought with each other. How many months of bloody battles it took to defeat them, we all remember well. And again, mostly paratroopers and marines fought; But where is the basis of the army - motorized riflemen? It turns out that the “reform” of the Airborne Forces in the current version will result in their conversion into ordinary infantry. %%
Thus, all the talk about the preservation and strengthening of airborne troops - no more than PR. Does this understand the military-political leadership of the country? Surely understand. But to declare the disbandment of the airborne troops, to turn them into shock units of the ground forces, means to provoke the furious wrath of the pseudo-patriots, not only the Communists, but everyone who is still convinced that the Soviet army was "invincible and legendary." Therefore, the Airborne Forces provided an opportunity to die a natural death, periodically throwing up some equipment and allowing the eyes of admiring public to break bricks with their hands and heads.
About the possibility of war, the leadership of the country is clearly not thinking. It is good, of course, that not freezed hawks stand in power in Moscow, but the situation in the world in recent years has been changing only for the worse. The army and attack units, the backbone of which the current paratroopers could make up, will probably still be needed. It just may happen that they will not be at the right time.
Information