Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Skill at arms and military competence

  1. #11
    Global Moderator
    Finite and Precious

    Jredbaron96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With you.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    13,153
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Skill at arms and military competence

    Quote Originally Posted by Rexedgar View Post
    There is a common theory that had the French reacted to the German incursion into the Rhineland, fully three years before WW2 kicked off, they would have backed down and at least postponed the war.
    Quite possibly, unfortunately in 1936 Hitler had given the French very little reason to really oppose him outright.
    “We were all of us cogs in a great machine which sometimes rolled forward, nobody knew where, sometimes backwards, nobody knew why.”

    ― Ernst Toller

  2. #12
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    118,558

    Re: Skill at arms and military competence

    Quote Originally Posted by Rexedgar View Post
    Wasn’t “Barbarossa” commenced over the objections of senior staff of the German military?

    “I know more than the generals” sort of thing?
    OMG, no...lol. The generals had zero objections to invading Russia. It was the invasion of France and Belgium they objected to.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    I dont assume that "presidency" will be unmade at all.
    Because those followers do exist in disturbing numbers and may not submit to Darwinism fast enough.
    He's attempting to hand out $$ for God's sake.

  3. #13
    Sage

    Rexedgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,901

    Re: Skill at arms and military competence

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    OMG, no...lol. The generals had zero objections to invading Russia. It was the invasion of France and Belgium they objected to.
    Constitutional and civil law and history? Triple threat?

    Should have spent more time in English, imo!
    Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them. Then you are an asshole. ” - George Carlin
    ”I know, everybody funny, now you funny too.” -George Thorogood

  4. #14
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    118,558

    Re: Skill at arms and military competence

    Quote Originally Posted by Rexedgar View Post
    Constitutional and civil law and history? Triple threat?

    Should have spent more time in English, imo!
    You sure do hate being wrong all the time...lol

    Spelling words is useless if you can't combine them to absorb information. It appears you spent too much time in English class...lol
    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    I dont assume that "presidency" will be unmade at all.
    Because those followers do exist in disturbing numbers and may not submit to Darwinism fast enough.
    He's attempting to hand out $$ for God's sake.

  5. #15
    Sage
    Oozlefinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,293

    Re: Skill at arms and military competence

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Valley View Post
    Ironically, logistics remains a huge shortcoming of the Russian military 70 years after Operation Barbarossa.
    It all boils down to doctrine really. And even to this day, the Russians are mostly using a variant of the "Warsaw Pact" model.

    Which predominantly states that the army operates almost exclusively on it's own on the ground, with most supplies brought in on the ground. And being very careful to never outrun it's terrestrial logistics train. Generally to operate in jumps, then to pause as it adapts to the longer supply line, then to jump forward again. Normally in 200-500 mile leaps.

    They have never trusted air supply or relying upon local captured supplies in combat, having seen that fail many times, in both WWII and afterwards. So it is not so much of a "shortcoming", as part of their overall strategy. Better to operate slower but with secure logistics support, than to move fast and outrun it.

    Of course, they have also for this reason never invested heavily in air supply. But their ground supply capabilities are impressive.
    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. - John Stuart Mill

  6. #16
    Global Moderator
    Finite and Precious

    Jredbaron96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With you.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    13,153
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Skill at arms and military competence

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Valley View Post
    Ironically, logistics remains a huge shortcoming of the Russian military 70 years after Operation Barbarossa.
    Oozlefinch sort of gets it, but for a better explanation:

    The Soviets assumed that in the event of a shooting war with NATO their front line divisions would be rendered combat ineffective within a few days, and therefore attempting to push supplies down all the way down to the tactical echelons was ultimately a waste of resources. This was based on reports from the Aarab-Israeli Wars, in particular the Yom Kippur War that showed how fast front line units would suffer attrition and deplete their stockpiles of ammunition and fuel. So Soviet divisions, while beefed up with weaponry and hardware were short on actual logistical support. A Motor Rifle Regiment for example of 2,500 men had less than a hundred men to handle it's logistics, and a Motor Rifle Division of hundreds of armored vehicles had just a few hundred men assigned to handle their supplies.

    The Soviets instead concentrated their logistical elements at the corps and army levels, that would just be pushed out as the second wave of divisions moved forward. It was assumed by that point that forward most Soviet divisions simply wouldn't exist at that point, and what was left would just be absorbed by the follow up echelons. So the Soviets were geared towards ensuring everyone had what they needed for Zero Hour, less so for subsequent days until the next echelon struck. It's not a bad mindset, and there's a decent chunk of evidence to suggest its an economical idea even if NATO felt differently.
    “We were all of us cogs in a great machine which sometimes rolled forward, nobody knew where, sometimes backwards, nobody knew why.”

    ― Ernst Toller

  7. #17
    ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
    Rogue Valley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:41 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,575

    Re: Skill at arms and military competence

    Russia has limited air logistic capability. The Kremlin of today mostly depends on its 'naval auxiliary fleet' which consists of old cargo/container/ro-ro ships (~12) purchased from Turkey to supply its military forces in Syria (the Syrian Express). The Kazan-60 is a refurbished refrigerated vessel. This supply chain entails loading the ships at Novorossiysk, plying the Black Sea and perhaps picking up additional pallets at Constanta or Varna, crawling through the Dardanelles, and then proceeding to dock at Alexandria before turning off AIS and making a dash for Tartus. This supply chain works (at a snails pace) for supplying its forces in Syria, but it wouldn't work so well against an adversary with air/naval offensive capabilities. This is why Moscow confines itself to bullying the near-abroad - Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, etc.


    Trump gambled and lost and the price is 100,000-240,000 lives.

  8. #18
    Global Moderator
    Finite and Precious

    Jredbaron96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With you.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    13,153
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Skill at arms and military competence

    A common argument I've seen thrown around here is that an army that fights a lot of wars or has been involved in long conflicts must inevitably be skilled.

    In reality this isn't really true; the Syrians and Egyptians never really improved despite their repeated conflicts with Israel, Iraq showed only strategic level, not tactical, improvement after eight years of war with Iran, and in this case we see that the Syrian Arab Army hasn't really shown much improvement since the start of the Syrian Civil War.

    “We were all of us cogs in a great machine which sometimes rolled forward, nobody knew where, sometimes backwards, nobody knew why.”

    ― Ernst Toller

  9. #19
    Sage
    Oozlefinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,293

    Re: Skill at arms and military competence

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Valley View Post
    Russia has limited air logistic capability.
    That is because they never had to. Their entire doctrine is in fighting enemies they border on the ground, so having a large air mobility capability was never a major concern.

    They still have a rather large airlift capability however, of well over 400 aircraft (not counting what they could take from the nation flag carrier Aeroflot (an additional 250 aircraft).

    The US is actually rather unique in this, because being an "island nation" with commitments with both the UN and NATO, they have had to create a huge airlift capability to replace her shrunken sealift capability. What the US once sent by boat, they now plan on sending with aircraft. Only the largest of equipment (tanks, large number of vehicles, etc) go by ship. Most other equipment is airlifted now.

    But Russia is the #2 nation in the world when it comes to military airlift capacity, so it is hardly "limited". That really only applies when comparing it to that of the US. But their land logistics capability is probably the top in the world. That is something the US has not really had to worry about for decades.
    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. - John Stuart Mill

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •