Article

2003-12-24 Caucasus

Russia to send professional troops to Chechnya starting next year

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2003-12-24 12:27:08 AM|| || Front Page|| [15 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Back in The Day, we feared these guys as a monster of an enemy. They were going to come storming through Fulda, thousands of tanks that the 11th ACR couldn't possibly handle, Americans would be caught once again with their d*cks in their hands, as they were in 1942 and 1950. Didn't know they couldn't afford to do maintenance on their tracks, much less their wheeled vehicles. Now they're auctioning off space flights to newlyweds for hard currency. I guess an all volunteer unit is a good thing, but WTF has been going on up to this point? Have we already seen the collapse of their society, or is it still coming down the tunnel? What a disaster. Big thanks to marx, lenin, stalin, et. al., for this one.

Posted by 4thInfVet 2003-12-24 1:26:00 AM|| 2003-12-24 1:26:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Russia has a long, strong and proud military tradition, many of which survived Stalin and his Stalinettes. Artillery, as an example, always a strong point of the Russian military and an arm which was poorly implemented in the first Chechen war (1995-96), was mainly responsible for Russia's early successes against the Chechens when the Chechens began moving on Dagestan in 1999.

There is a saying amoungst military historians that the farther away one is from the Russian, the greater the tendency to underestimate him.

When the Russian Army stopped being the Red Army, it had to change, and change it did, going from roughly 175 divisional flags and 16 military districts in 1991 to roughly 8 military districts and less than 30 divisions, most primarily in cadre strength only. Much of the doctrine from the era of the Red Army has changed as well. Russians have been slowly transforming their armor forces by brigading them, and by experimenting with corps style organizations and with light organizations.

Russians are not short in ballz or bravado, but they are short in the two critical areas no army can survive without: logistics and the presence of a strong NCO corps. The shortage of both reflects the weaknesses of the Russian/Soviet military system even before the Bolsheviki, and correction of these shortage are a necessary element to the survival of the Russian Federation. Change is slow and painful.

I just wouldn't count the Russians out either as our allies against the ragheads or as a military presence.

Posted by badanov 2003-12-24 1:56:34 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2003-12-24 1:56:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Russians are not short in ballz or bravado

Never said they were, but their political structure/command has a lamentable history of leaving the Russian fighting man short (even worse than American politicians) in the lurch. I just wonder if it's possible for a 'professional military force' to exist in modern Russian without being corrupt from the start. The pay better be much higher than has been historically the case.

Russian artillery has always been the Steel Fist of their army. We were always told that we would know when Ivan was massing his arty in e. germany, so we'd have the advantage (?!?!) by knowing what was coming (a chance to kiss our asses goodbye, iow). Personally, I'm tremendously grateful we never fought the Red Army. Nothing to be gained, too much to be lost.

Posted by 4thInfVet 2003-12-24 2:31:56 AM|| 2003-12-24 2:31:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I'm tremendously grateful we never fought the Red Army

So I guess those nukes came in handy after all. I'm glad the Russians understood the concept of mutually-assured destruction, unlike the present day jihadis.

Posted by Rafael 2003-12-24 8:34:58 AM|| 2003-12-24 8:34:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Ground-pounder-type RB'ers: I've been out 28 years now; how realistic was Clancy's brutal/bloody scenario of visiting Warsaw Pact vs. NATO in Red Storm Rising?

Posted by Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-24 9:11:51 AM|| 2003-12-24 9:11:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Maybe badanov can shed some light on this for us but I really don't understand why the (once-feared) Russian army has had so little success in reining in the Chechen terrorists.
Putin has declared "total war" on them more than once.
Why is it that the Russians seem almost helpless in fighting their part of the GWOIT [Global War on Islamist Terrorism]?
And will it help to for the US to "help" the Russians militarily with this?
The IslamoNazis are dug in pretty deep in the Pankisi Gorge, aren't they?

Posted by Jennie Taliaferro 2003-12-24 11:45:19 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2003-12-24 11:45:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 I read a book on Chechnya that shed some light on the current troubles. Basically the Russians were way to cocky when they first went in. They sent a lot of tanks, but they were manned by draftees and had no infantry support. The Chechyans had a lot of ex-Red Army Afghanistan vetrans along with a lot of Afghanistan Afghanistan veterans who really knew how to fight. It was a blood bath.

Later attempts made no effort at being nice and pretty much leveled Grozny when Putin sent them back in. This cost them any remaining hearts & minds they otherwise might have had and put things back into a guerrilla/terrorist war which requires a bit more finesse than the Russian draftees could manage.

I could be wrong, my info comes from one book and I don't know how accurate/bias it was. Anyway the stories of tankers having their heads cut off by Chechyan swords during the big early battle was pretty grim and showed how dazed and confused the draftees were at the time.

Posted by ruprecht 2003-12-24 1:04:12 PM|| 2003-12-24 1:04:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Russia has a tough road in Chechnya. They have made some serious mistakes. I hope their learning curve accellerates. They, like us, need to attack the real thing that keeps the war going, and that is money. And that leads back to Saudi Arabia. If we are going to accellerate progress in the WoT, it will require that we take out the Saudi Jihad purse. Covertly or overtly.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-12-24 1:44:21 PM|| 2003-12-24 1:44:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Jennie, from everything I have read in the 1994-96 Chechen War, all the planning and execution was strictly top down. The Russians used a mix of interior troops and regular army troops in the early stages of the war, none trained for counter-insurgency, no light infantry, all armored troops. The new years eve 1994 battle in Grozny saw middle grade officers refusing orders to enter Grozny as they considered the operation poorly planned and ill advised. The result: 90 armored vehicles destroyed in ONE NIGHT.

Early on in the current war the Russian Army made some spectacular successes when they could engage the Chechens in areas where the Russian Army has absolute superiority, maily artillery and in interdiction air strikes. Of course, this eventually led to the razing of Grozny, which was a phyrric victory for the Russians at best. At the top, the Russian made Chechnya a focus of their efforts so much so they had a general staff level front organization strictly for the Transcacusus, and the results were generally good albeit there are still some problems.

I have no doubt were the Soviets still in power Grozny would be intact, senior Soviet commanders would be decorating one another for their success in crushing the resistance, and the streets of Chechen hamlets and towns would be stained red, the leaders rounded up and executed or deported to Sibersk.

Even with the political situation improving, glaring long-neglected deficiencies in the Russian army strategic doctrine are starting to show though. The lack of a strong NCO corps, present in every successful modern army, ( and a problem for the Russians dating back hundreds of years ), is something that could take years, even decades to remedy; time the Russians may not have. A strong NCO corps helps a fighting force in tactical situations where small light units (such as rifle squads) can retain their cohesiveness in combat. Leaving tactical deployments and gunnery to NCOs frees up officers for critical tasks such as supplying the troops and gathering/analyzing intel data. And fighting guerillas is almost always small unit tactics, which include ambushes, mining and the like.

With their former reliance on mass of numbers gone forever, this army will transform or it will die.

I hope this answers your question.

Posted by badanov 2003-12-24 2:17:47 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2003-12-24 2:17:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Now they're auctioning off space flights to newlyweds

Yeah, but think of what you just wrote... space flight. Who else does it? Haven't seen too many Japaneese manned space flights. I'd just assume not to have to mess with the Russ.

Posted by Shipman 2003-12-24 2:37:10 PM|| 2003-12-24 2:37:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 And BTW.... is it me or is word-wrap turned off? Must be something here.... haven't noted any comments... monitors not wide enough for the posts... am excellent reason to upgrade. I'm off to shop. I've broken the magic seal that opens the Christmas Club and woe to anyone who gets infront of me.

Posted by Shipman 2003-12-24 2:41:01 PM|| 2003-12-24 2:41:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Shipman, same problem for me here. Posts are off the page, comments are OK. Fred must have hit the eggnog early:).

Posted by Steve 2003-12-24 3:05:35 PM|| 2003-12-24 3:05:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Shipman---same problem for me here. I'm off to Best Buy to purchase a wide plasma screen with my Christmas bonus, heh heh.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-12-24 3:46:16 PM|| 2003-12-24 3:46:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 I think that the transition to a seperated professional and conscript force structure will work well for the Russians. Russia has quite a large border; conscripts would be an effective option for security at outposts. Transitioning to professions in palces where engagements are likely allows you to get the most out of troops that are well trained.

I am not a student of army tactics, but I am struck by the fact that we rolled up the Iraqis who were using Russian tactics. Do the Russians have an alternative to the Warthog or JDAM's? The neo-Blitzkrieg warfare seems to call for armor and infantry advances to contact enemy units for destruction by superior airpower. Note- if you use non-professionals for the infantry/armor assault without GPS and good communications, I speculate that the friendly fire butcher's bill would be ugly.

I wonder whether a Gaza type fence for a Hadrian's Wall effect would slow down the incursion rate.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-12-24 3:59:51 PM|| 2003-12-24 3:59:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Guys, I dashed off an interrogative to Fred about it but, yeah, might have fallen into the eggnog. If you can go 1Kx768 the lines fit, but then they've got just toodamnedmanycharactersinarow to read in Arial, and my eyes are getting too old.

It may also be sabotage by dark outsiders, an evil alQ plot to spawn pollution by coaxing people throw out their 15" 800x600 CRT's.

Posted by Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-24 4:53:30 PM|| 2003-12-24 4:53:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Well, what the Hell, it worked! Came back as soon as I posted #15. The moral of this is, the way to accomplish something is merely getting the right guy to complain (:-)> = balding man with beard

Posted by Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-24 4:57:11 PM|| 2003-12-24 4:57:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 This never would have happened with a serif font. Garramond... yep Garramond.

Posted by Shipman 2003-12-24 5:15:13 PM|| 2003-12-24 5:15:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 I really don't understand why the (once-feared) Russian army has had so little success in reining in the Chechen terrorists.
Putin has declared "total war" on them more than once.

Jennie thats one hell of a good question, and I haven't see anyone try to answer it, but its Afghanistan all over again. Its instructive that the American experience in Afghanistan is totally different to the Russian experience. This leads me to think that in tribal islamic societies people will choose their tribe and religion (and I'm not sure of their relative importance) over a corrupt and brutal government. I think there is a lot of nonsense talked about hearts-and-minds, but I do think people will side with the group that that seems to offer the best prospects for protecting person and property. The Russians just end up doing too much random/arbitrary violence.

Posted by phil_b 2003-12-24 5:37:27 PM|| 2003-12-24 5:37:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 More thoughts on this and tieing in my response to jennie's question above! I can get the US PBS Nightly News and yesterday there was discussion on how more people 'hate' the Americans than before 9/11. Much wringing of hands and talk about how this is a 'BIG' problem.

Well, I have news for you, It aint a big problem and the brits understand this much better. Its a brit cultural characteristic to like pissing people off (it goes along with the whining and sneering). They enjoy it, especially pissing off people they don't like. The brits understand much better that whatever you do, you are going to upset someone. And the more you try and do, the more people you will upset. A lot more people are going to be pissed off before this over. So I suggest that Americans practice liking the feeling.

Given a choice between being liked and being respected which would you choose? America is getting a lot of respect for its resolve to actually do something about the problems in the world. Check out the quarters where Americans don't get respect. Lets use Michael Moore as a proxy for all those who sneer and degrade the USA. Do you want these peoples respect? Do you want to be liked by them?

Posted by phil_b 2003-12-24 6:29:02 PM|| 2003-12-24 6:29:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Good post phil_b. We would like people to like us, but if they do not like us, then they should respect us. If they won't respect us, then they should fear us. Works for me. Old adage, but good.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-12-24 6:56:22 PM|| 2003-12-24 6:56:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 It aint a big problem and the brits understand this much better. Its a brit cultural characteristic to like pissing people off (it goes along with the whining and sneering). They >enjoy it, especially pissing off people they don't like. The brits understand much better that whatever you do, you are going to upset someone. And the more you try and do, the more people you will upset. A lot more people are going to be pissed off before this over.
God I do love Brits.

Posted by Shipman 2003-12-24 7:03:29 PM|| 2003-12-24 7:03:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 I am not a student of army tactics, but I am struck by the fact that we rolled up the Iraqis who were using Russian tactics.

The Iraqi Army under Saddam may have had officers trained in Soviet doctrine but the result was they sure didn't learn anything. Take, for example, the tactic of digging in Russian tanks. The Russian Army doctrine on use of tanks is that it is a mobile shock force. So why dig in tanks? To stop an enemy advance, or to delay it long enough to launch a counterattack. The Iraqis just dug tanks in, no AAA covering fire, no CAP, just dug them in and hope the dumb old Americans didn't notice. That is not Russian doctrine or tactics.

Do the Russians have an alternative to the Warthog or JDAM's?

The Russians stole an American design for the interdiction aircraft, the SU-25. As of this posting it is as an effective ground interdiction platform as the A-10. Russians also have cluster munitions available for their MRLs, tube artillery as well as aerial bombs. However, Russian avionics are at least two generations behind and their doctrine governing the use of aircraft for interdiction is still very much stuck in the 1940s: They expect to lose masses of aircraft and crews and still win a war. Well, no more. Russian Army must rethink its doctrine with a shrinking demographic base.

The neo-Blitzkrieg warfare seems to call for armor and infantry advances to contact enemy units for destruction by superior airpower.

Actually this has been American doctrine for modern warfare dating back to Normandy in 1944. Bring ground troops into contact. If you can't squeeze mobile forces through gaps in an enemy's defenses, just have the troops pins down the enemy and bring in the air force. Modern mobile warfare as it has evolved for the USA in that small forces can control great distances through the use of constant recon via ground and aerial means against a technically and tactically inferior (if not numerically superior) opponent; thus the only issue being one of logistics. As long as you can supply your forces, and the enemy can't, you can control great amounts of territory. This is why for seemingly days in GWII we saw pictures for military units on the move. They didnt seek out anything but soft general targets in a force's rear areas, knowing as they undoubedly did, the sight of a US armor force would be enough to make panic and rout set in.

Posted by badanov 2003-12-24 7:20:56 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2003-12-24 7:20:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 the use of aircraft for interdiction

From what I read about the subject, and this may have changed over the years, is that Russian pilots were totally dependant on ground controllers. In other words, someone on the ground with a big radar would give them orders and direct the pilots' actions. Here's an excerpt from Anthony Robinson's SOVIET AIR POWER , 1985
"Doubts also remain about the level of tactical and flying skills of Soviet pilots, although there is evidence that in recent years the Soviet Air Force has improved the realism of its combat training. Furthermore, there are signs that at last a measure of individual initiative on the part of the fighter pilot is being encouraged. However, in this respect the Soviet forces face the dilemma that any undue emphasis on initiative at the junior levels will undermine the traditions of discipline and strict subordination which commanders see as one of the great strengths of the Soviet military system."

Posted by Rafael 2003-12-24 8:07:11 PM|| 2003-12-24 8:07:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 oops, that should be "dependent", not "dependant". Although I guess you could say that Russian pilots were in a sense dependants as well.

Posted by Rafael 2003-12-24 8:19:28 PM|| 2003-12-24 8:19:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 From what I read about the subject, and this may have changed over the years, is that Russian pilots were totally dependant on ground controllers. In other words, someone on the ground with a big radar would give them orders and direct the pilots' actions

I have heard the same thing but only about Russian PVO pilots (Air Defense) being little better than air taxi drivers armed to the teeth with anti-air means, but even during WWII, Red Air Force tactical combat pilots when ordered on what were termed 'free hunts' had incredible latutude as to direction, distance and target of their choosing; this during the reign of Uncle Joe(tm). I agree, control of Soviet pilots is very centralized and in the manner this discussion is taking place ( ground strikes against ground targets) missions are tighly controlled by Frontal Aviation and thus integreted into their battle plan. The Russians view the aircraft as another fancy means of artillery and that explains their tendency to have an air army ( roughly 500 combat aircraft, about half dedicated ground strike platforms) attached to each military district, nee front.

Russian combat pilots, as with all combat pilots in the better air forces in the world, have their missions cut out for them by command and in a modern war it would be unlikely a 'free hunt' would be ordered by a Russian air commander given how expensive even the more simple Russian aircraft are, but were such a mission take place, it would be pretty clear what the term means: Pilot's choice.

Posted by badanov 2003-12-24 9:13:42 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2003-12-24 9:13:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Badanov, Wouldn't the dig in strategy have come from Sadaam's belief that the French, Germans and Russians would stop the offensive. In GWI I have heard that we hit fewer tanks, Scud Launchers etc. than we originally thought. I think Sadaam expected a repeat. The incident where the Republican Guard tried to reposition or attack during the sandstorm had a poor result.

Rafael, are you saying that the Russians have relatively capable aircraft manned by pilots that can dogfight but not conduct ground support? Do you think its the link capability along the training structure that sets US and Nato air assets apart?

Posted by Super Hose 2003-12-24 9:14:23 PM|| 2003-12-24 9:14:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Well by no means am I an expert on the Russian military. All my info comes from the book I mentioned, which itself specifically talks about Soviet forces. Nonetheless, it provides an interesting insight, and here are some more excerpts that I found, supporting what Badanov said:
"The tactical air forces of Frontal Aviation (Frontovaya aviatsiya) have always formed the backbone of the Soviet air force and their operations have been rigidly subordinated to those of the land army...Thus although the air force is an independent service, its major preoccupation is the support of ground operations." "Soviet air power in its widest sense is concerned with both strategic and tactical missions...At the tactical level, air support of the ground forces is the major mission. A Soviet ground offensive would be accompanied by air and anti-air operations. The air operation would be directed in the initial stages of the conflict at the enemy nuclear forces and at his air force."
"The effectiveness of the Soviet Air Force's ground attack missions is not solely dependent of the characteristics of the weapons that they will use, but will also depend on the weapons delivery skills of the aircrew. Soviet training philosophy differs from that of most Western air forces in that their pilots receive short periods of intensive training rather than this being continual process. A recent trend has been to improve the realism of Soviet air-to-ground training...Air-to-surface missile firings have also been exercised intensively by Frontal Aviation, with an average of 2000 such practices each year...In general, ground attack missions will be tailored to the characteristics of the available Soviet aircraft..."

Posted by Rafael 2003-12-24 10:27:57 PM|| 2003-12-24 10:27:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Glen-Not-R

Clancy was pretty close to the mark. Getting inside thje Soviet I-D-A cycle would have eventually unhinged things on their side, as would classified systems we had at the time (The F117 were active well before they wre revealed). If the initial push were held, they would have collapsed from follow-on echelons being completey scambled.

The real question comes on how effectively the Germans and Brits woudl hold in the north - its decent tank terrain. Terrain where US forces were stationed were excellent for defense. And, at least in the cavalry regiments, the transition to Abrams Bradley and Apache in the mid 80's made deep strike (like in GW 1 and 2) a well practiced set of operations at the regimental level in the US Army. 1GTA, 3rd SHock Army, and other "Army" (western corps) commands would have been rudely surprised by hard hits and fades on them - completely dis-coordinating the front and follow echelons, as well as the supplies neccesary to establish and maintain an advance. Add to this the interdiction by stealth aircraft and striek craft after Iron Hand blew out PVO Strany, and you have a disaster in the making for the Soviet Union.

But it would ahve been a very very close thing. ANd prior to about 1983, it probably woudl have gone the other way just as easily due to lack of training and equipment in the US forces, as well as the German and British.

Posted by OldSpook 2003-12-24 11:54:25 PM|| 2003-12-24 11:54:25 PM|| Front Page Top

23:54 OldSpook
23:37 Glenn (not Reynolds)
22:27 Rafael
22:02 Ptah
21:29 Super Hose
21:14 Super Hose
21:13 badanov
20:58 Super Hose
20:55 Super Hose
20:46 Super Hose
20:19 Rafael
20:07 Rafael
19:59 Glenn (not Reynolds)
19:43 Lars
19:26 Barbara Skolaut
19:20 badanov
19:18 mojo
19:09 Shipman
19:03 Shipman
18:56 Alaska Paul
18:51 Charles
18:50 mojo
18:31 Ptah
18:29 phil_b