Modern war in the light of events in Ukraine
Observing unwittingly recent military conflicts, we made some conclusions. Of course, we do not claim the role of analysts from the General Staff, no. But what came to mind, they decided to bring to the readers.
Modern warfare
Everything is simple here. A 21st century war, examples of which are Libya and Iraq. The following handwriting is characteristic of these conflicts: carrier formations of US ships and their allies approach the shores of the target country, missiles and aviation first of all, the air defense system is destroyed, then, already having complete superiority in the sky, everything that can sensibly show resistance is destroyed. And only then, brave marines land on the already scorched earth, which complete the defeat of the enemy. With the use of long-range artillery and attack aircraft.
This, again, is a concept. In Libya, it was somewhat different, but did not change the essence. In Iraq, it was that way.
But this is not a war "country by country" or "block by block". It is rather a local operation or the work of an expeditionary force. And with obviously weaker adversary. The United States and its followers have not been attacked since 1945.
But this concept is good, if there is where to adjust the fleet with all the consequences. If not, then we have a completely different scenario.
Unimportant war
Here you can also take two examples, Afghanistan and Ukraine. Say that the examples are "curves"? And not really. Yes, there are no NATO forces in Ukraine. While not acting, but most likely will not.
And the similarity with Afghanistan is very noticeable. Unlike Iraq. In Iraq, everything was simple - NATO versus Iraq. And in Ukraine, Afghanistan and Libya, armed changes of ruling regimes were more likely to be observed. Coups, for short. Accordingly, there is a civil war between two parts of the population for their own interests.
And in this case, the doctrine of modern warfare does not work. Firstly, it’s problematic to understand where their own and where others are (about this below), and secondly, it’s actually unrealistic to organize sensible business management according to modern patterns and patterns. Mess hinders, if simply. And the question of the mess, we will also return.
Own and others
In our materials we have never addressed this issue. And really, how many acting forces are there in Ukraine?
1. APU. With them, everything is more or less clear.
2. "Right sector". It seems like an ally of the APU, but, as practice has shown, until a certain point.
3. "Terbaty". Private armies, on the content of the oligarchs. It seems to be also the allies of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but the fact that they have their own cockroaches in their heads is unequivocal.
4. PMCs. Smaller armed formations whose essence is to protect the entrusted objects from any encroachment. Operate on both sides. They don’t care about conflict until they are touched.
5. Army LDNR. As with the APU, everything is clear.
6. Cossacks. Separate power. It seems to be the allies of the army LDNR, but the theme is its own.
7. Self defense It seems like the militia or PMC, but at the local level. Protects the village / village / town from "raids" of strangers from any of the above points.
In Afghanistan, the situation is similar, there is also the compote: the Taliban, Al-Qaida, the IMU, the IDT, the Islamic Party, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Haqqani and a bit smaller.
To organize in such conditions fighting under the canons of modern war is almost impossible. If only because it really is not clear who tomorrow is your ally and who is the enemy. And vice versa. The only real approach is the total destruction of all. That is often not the task.
A negative point in addition is the constant "discharge" of operational information at lower levels. The normal phenomenon in such a scenario as a civil war.
Ukraine as a testing ground for military doctrines
The fighting in Ukraine showed that either the doctrines are an imperfect thing, or it confirms our previous conclusions that civil war is not the place for the application of doctrines. Any war implies a confrontation of two parties. The civilian side is much more. Accordingly, there are more problems solved during a conflict.
In general, in 2014, the superiority of the Armed Forces of Ukraine over the militia was not only significant, it was indisputable. And until now, the Armed Forces of Ukraine surpasses the LDNR armies not only in armored vehicles and artillery, but also in such inconspicuous things as communication systems, guidance systems and planning systems.
I can not believe that the generals of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, we note, who studied at Soviet schools and academies, forgot everything and just went crazy. And then they also infected American advisers with this virus. We do not believe.
If Ukraine wanted to seize the Donbass last year, it would have done so. With a high probability. And there would be enough of the existing forces with more than a vengeance. And the "north wind" would not help. But the slogan "win or die" - this is just not for the APU. This is for the militia. And such a slogan not bad violates the orchestrated plans of any doctrine.
Doctrine of the "barrack war"
This, of course, is not a doctrine. This is a statement of fact. Remember how ukrami aviation was used? Considering that the Ukrainian Armed Forces had a complete superiority in the sky, it was not really used at all.
We don’t know what kind of experts, but we understand that if you first worked out the Su-24 from a normal height, would have drove the Strel fans, then they would have flown in the Su-25 and plowed the area, and polished the Mi-24, then I'm sorry but ukropekhote and tanks it would remain only to enter the same Izvarino, husking seeds. But that would only be if everything was applied tactically correctly. And not in single quantities.
And spit in different directions NURSami Su-25 I watched under Izvarino. And as his five calculations MANPADS eventually shut up.
About MiG in Donetsk just silent. MiG - fighter. No, in a goal like Donetsk, of course, it will fall. The goal is good, big. But what is the result? As a result of the combat use of zero. And civilian casualties.
And how are the tanks used? By appointment? By no means. In 9 cases from 10 tanks are used as SPGs. That is, not for its intended purpose. Again, they are hammering out cannons according to the principle “Maybe somewhere they will fly.”
But when the 1-2 tank with normally trained crews was used, it immediately became clear that this was power. This concerned both sides of the conflict. A tank, if it has a good crew and infantry in support, is a force with which it is difficult to argue without aviation. There were many examples. My friends told me how their platoon was squeezed by the Poles on a tank and two armored personnel carriers. And for a very long time the militia could not retreat from Popasna, since there were no options. And the Poles worked without infantry.
Artillery is still the god of war. And in general, the whole war is somehow more reminiscent of World War II. And even the first. The same art, the same tanks, the same infantry. There is no aviation, some of the missiles ended, the second did not.
Papuans War
However, despite such a derogatory approach, some things in Ukraine clearly led many in Europe to think about aspects.
What's new in Europe?
And in Europe there is a clear review of their doctrines. It is no secret that since those Soviet times the Soviet tank armada were a scarecrow for the whole of Europe. Ready on the day "D" to make the march to the Channel. It was so.
And all of Europe was vigorously preparing to repel these very armadas. And there were successes on this front. European PTS at the very least, were equal to ours, and at the most - exceeded. This is an indisputable fact.
But armored troops in Europe did not receive such a development. And in doctrines, and in quantitative terms.
But on the example of Ukraine, our "partners" apparently understood that defense is cool. But the events in the Donbas showed, moreover, very clearly, that in the absence of a "blitzkrieg" and a transition to a positional war, the population and industry of the defending side began to be destroyed. Artillery and missiles. And the magnificent anti-tank weapons will not play their role.
These are our conjectures, of course, but it is likely that it is precisely with such conclusions that Germany’s re-deployment of about a hundred Leopards is connected?
And the fact that all manufacturers of tanks in the West (and not only) rushed to develop tanks of a new concept, clearly capable of withstanding the “Armata”.
And what about the introduction of the concept of BMPT (tank support combat vehicle)? Expensive, we note, in production, if we take for the sample the same Puma. "Puma" - a hard and expensive thing. And note that our "Terminator" is not a competitor. Because the “Puma” is still a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, but by no means a combat vehicle supporting tanks.
All this gives us the opportunity to draw, perhaps, a very strange conclusion. If there is a sufficiently developed air defense system capable of neutralizing the operation of aviation, or of equal air defense systems of the parties, any conflict will fall into the category of "classical war". Where much will decide tanks, BMP and SAU.
Modern warfare
Everything is simple here. A 21st century war, examples of which are Libya and Iraq. The following handwriting is characteristic of these conflicts: carrier formations of US ships and their allies approach the shores of the target country, missiles and aviation first of all, the air defense system is destroyed, then, already having complete superiority in the sky, everything that can sensibly show resistance is destroyed. And only then, brave marines land on the already scorched earth, which complete the defeat of the enemy. With the use of long-range artillery and attack aircraft.
This, again, is a concept. In Libya, it was somewhat different, but did not change the essence. In Iraq, it was that way.
But this is not a war "country by country" or "block by block". It is rather a local operation or the work of an expeditionary force. And with obviously weaker adversary. The United States and its followers have not been attacked since 1945.
But this concept is good, if there is where to adjust the fleet with all the consequences. If not, then we have a completely different scenario.
Unimportant war
Here you can also take two examples, Afghanistan and Ukraine. Say that the examples are "curves"? And not really. Yes, there are no NATO forces in Ukraine. While not acting, but most likely will not.
And the similarity with Afghanistan is very noticeable. Unlike Iraq. In Iraq, everything was simple - NATO versus Iraq. And in Ukraine, Afghanistan and Libya, armed changes of ruling regimes were more likely to be observed. Coups, for short. Accordingly, there is a civil war between two parts of the population for their own interests.
And in this case, the doctrine of modern warfare does not work. Firstly, it’s problematic to understand where their own and where others are (about this below), and secondly, it’s actually unrealistic to organize sensible business management according to modern patterns and patterns. Mess hinders, if simply. And the question of the mess, we will also return.
Own and others
In our materials we have never addressed this issue. And really, how many acting forces are there in Ukraine?
1. APU. With them, everything is more or less clear.
2. "Right sector". It seems like an ally of the APU, but, as practice has shown, until a certain point.
3. "Terbaty". Private armies, on the content of the oligarchs. It seems to be also the allies of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but the fact that they have their own cockroaches in their heads is unequivocal.
4. PMCs. Smaller armed formations whose essence is to protect the entrusted objects from any encroachment. Operate on both sides. They don’t care about conflict until they are touched.
5. Army LDNR. As with the APU, everything is clear.
6. Cossacks. Separate power. It seems to be the allies of the army LDNR, but the theme is its own.
7. Self defense It seems like the militia or PMC, but at the local level. Protects the village / village / town from "raids" of strangers from any of the above points.
In Afghanistan, the situation is similar, there is also the compote: the Taliban, Al-Qaida, the IMU, the IDT, the Islamic Party, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Haqqani and a bit smaller.
To organize in such conditions fighting under the canons of modern war is almost impossible. If only because it really is not clear who tomorrow is your ally and who is the enemy. And vice versa. The only real approach is the total destruction of all. That is often not the task.
A negative point in addition is the constant "discharge" of operational information at lower levels. The normal phenomenon in such a scenario as a civil war.
Ukraine as a testing ground for military doctrines
The fighting in Ukraine showed that either the doctrines are an imperfect thing, or it confirms our previous conclusions that civil war is not the place for the application of doctrines. Any war implies a confrontation of two parties. The civilian side is much more. Accordingly, there are more problems solved during a conflict.
In general, in 2014, the superiority of the Armed Forces of Ukraine over the militia was not only significant, it was indisputable. And until now, the Armed Forces of Ukraine surpasses the LDNR armies not only in armored vehicles and artillery, but also in such inconspicuous things as communication systems, guidance systems and planning systems.
I can not believe that the generals of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, we note, who studied at Soviet schools and academies, forgot everything and just went crazy. And then they also infected American advisers with this virus. We do not believe.
If Ukraine wanted to seize the Donbass last year, it would have done so. With a high probability. And there would be enough of the existing forces with more than a vengeance. And the "north wind" would not help. But the slogan "win or die" - this is just not for the APU. This is for the militia. And such a slogan not bad violates the orchestrated plans of any doctrine.
Doctrine of the "barrack war"
This, of course, is not a doctrine. This is a statement of fact. Remember how ukrami aviation was used? Considering that the Ukrainian Armed Forces had a complete superiority in the sky, it was not really used at all.
We don’t know what kind of experts, but we understand that if you first worked out the Su-24 from a normal height, would have drove the Strel fans, then they would have flown in the Su-25 and plowed the area, and polished the Mi-24, then I'm sorry but ukropekhote and tanks it would remain only to enter the same Izvarino, husking seeds. But that would only be if everything was applied tactically correctly. And not in single quantities.
And spit in different directions NURSami Su-25 I watched under Izvarino. And as his five calculations MANPADS eventually shut up.
About MiG in Donetsk just silent. MiG - fighter. No, in a goal like Donetsk, of course, it will fall. The goal is good, big. But what is the result? As a result of the combat use of zero. And civilian casualties.
And how are the tanks used? By appointment? By no means. In 9 cases from 10 tanks are used as SPGs. That is, not for its intended purpose. Again, they are hammering out cannons according to the principle “Maybe somewhere they will fly.”
But when the 1-2 tank with normally trained crews was used, it immediately became clear that this was power. This concerned both sides of the conflict. A tank, if it has a good crew and infantry in support, is a force with which it is difficult to argue without aviation. There were many examples. My friends told me how their platoon was squeezed by the Poles on a tank and two armored personnel carriers. And for a very long time the militia could not retreat from Popasna, since there were no options. And the Poles worked without infantry.
Artillery is still the god of war. And in general, the whole war is somehow more reminiscent of World War II. And even the first. The same art, the same tanks, the same infantry. There is no aviation, some of the missiles ended, the second did not.
Papuans War
However, despite such a derogatory approach, some things in Ukraine clearly led many in Europe to think about aspects.
What's new in Europe?
And in Europe there is a clear review of their doctrines. It is no secret that since those Soviet times the Soviet tank armada were a scarecrow for the whole of Europe. Ready on the day "D" to make the march to the Channel. It was so.
And all of Europe was vigorously preparing to repel these very armadas. And there were successes on this front. European PTS at the very least, were equal to ours, and at the most - exceeded. This is an indisputable fact.
But armored troops in Europe did not receive such a development. And in doctrines, and in quantitative terms.
But on the example of Ukraine, our "partners" apparently understood that defense is cool. But the events in the Donbas showed, moreover, very clearly, that in the absence of a "blitzkrieg" and a transition to a positional war, the population and industry of the defending side began to be destroyed. Artillery and missiles. And the magnificent anti-tank weapons will not play their role.
These are our conjectures, of course, but it is likely that it is precisely with such conclusions that Germany’s re-deployment of about a hundred Leopards is connected?
And the fact that all manufacturers of tanks in the West (and not only) rushed to develop tanks of a new concept, clearly capable of withstanding the “Armata”.
And what about the introduction of the concept of BMPT (tank support combat vehicle)? Expensive, we note, in production, if we take for the sample the same Puma. "Puma" - a hard and expensive thing. And note that our "Terminator" is not a competitor. Because the “Puma” is still a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, but by no means a combat vehicle supporting tanks.
All this gives us the opportunity to draw, perhaps, a very strange conclusion. If there is a sufficiently developed air defense system capable of neutralizing the operation of aviation, or of equal air defense systems of the parties, any conflict will fall into the category of "classical war". Where much will decide tanks, BMP and SAU.
Information