Posted on October 23, 2008 - by Venik
Jane’s is Jumping to Conclusions
Reuters ran a story on the recent study by Jane’s Strategic Advisory Services. I have a Jane’s subscription, but I couldn’t find the report on their site and so I will rely on the few passages quoted by Reuters.
“A central problem is that of a Russian political and military leadership commitment to a Cold War scenario. Focus remains on a large army able to deploy overwhelming firepower … There is little demonstrable interest in a smaller, better trained and flexible force… Improvements in command, training levels and the employment of flexible, modern weapons systems are required before the Russian military can face any opponents larger or better equipped than the Georgian military.”
It is true that there is such a commitment. Is it a problem, though? Just a month ago, as Jane’s was compiling its report, the subject of a new Cold War between Russia and the West was dominating world media. Russia’s primary security concern is not with Georgia, but with NATO. Is it really so surprising, therefore, that in its military doctrine Russia places a greater emphasis not on securing its border with Georgia, but on repelling a possible NATO aggression? I think Jane’s analysts need to learn to prioritize.
A smaller, flexible force (like the one Georgia had) sounds great in theory. In practice, however, this approach never worked and, when push came to shove, having enough boots on the ground was always the primary concern for military commanders. A quick response force is needed and Russia is working to create such a force. But, as they say, quantity has a quality of its own and the only thing that beats an armored division is another armored division. This was true in 1941 and it’s still true today.
Improvements in command, training and weapons are a constant requirement and rearmament is a continuous process. I am surprised Jane’s analysts did not know this. Look at any army in the world and you will find the need for training, better command and more effective weapons. This is not the point. In the final analysis, what matters is that in Georgia Russia deployed a force that proved more than adequate against a numerically-superior enemy armed with more modern weapons.
The most widely-used armour was the T-72 main battle tank designed in the 1970s, while there was also a large number of even older T-62s and T-64s. “None of the new T-90s appear to have been present,” JSAS said.
I am not sure if Jane’s is right about T-62s: the few we’ve seen on the photos and in video footage belonged to the Ossetians and Abkhazians. This may come as a surprise to Jane’s analysts, but the T-64 is actually more advanced than the T-72. Numbers can be deceiving, I know. In fact, T-64 – and not the widely-exported T-72 – formed the core of the Soviet armored divisions and served as the basis for future upgrades, such as the T-80.
Russian T-62 in South Ossetia
Very few Russian tank units are equipped with the latest T-90, just as very few USAF units have the latest F-22. This advanced hardware is deployed where it is likely to encounter similarly-advanced opposition: T-90s are deployed in western Russia and F-22s are deployed in Alaska. Deploying T-90s near Georgia would have been just as strange as sending F-22s, say, to Afghanistan. And so, if Jane’s did not notice any T-90s in Georgia, that’s probably a good thing: at least now we know Russian tank generals are not insane.
Georgian T-72BV
Russia deployed a force of about 10,000 soldiers in the first days after the conflict started “suggesting a continued reliance upon mass manoeuvre and fire power with minimal indications of modern weapons,” the report said.
At this point someone should remind Jane’s analysts to read their own reports from June-July period of this year, in which they were describing Georgia’s war preparations. At that time Georgian armed forces numbered 25,000-30,000 personnel. Georgia forward-deployed a massive force around South Ossetia and Abkhazia. All of Georgia’s latest and greatest military hardware was positioned near the two breakaway provinces in preparation for the attack. Sounds to me that Russia’s use of “mass manoeuvre and fire power” was just what the doctor ordered. It certainly worked for them. Perhaps the Russians had a better understanding of the Georgian army than the Jane’s analysts did.
Evidence suggests Russia used “dumb bombs” to attack Georgian targets and that they failed to inflict significant damage. “Russia does not possess a sufficient arsenal of modern precision weapons,” the report said.
And yet, most of Georgia’s stationary and mobile air defenses were destroyed by Russian aircraft. It is true, however, that use of precision-guided air-to-ground munitions by Russia was very limited in the four-day war. The reason for this is not in the absence of a sufficient arsenal, as Jane’s believes, but in the absence of a sufficient number of aircraft capable of carrying such weapons. The operation in Georgia was conducted by the 58th Army almost exclusively using its local resources. The purpose of the 58th Army, stationed in Mozdok and Vladikavkaz, is primarily to deal with fighters in Chechnya and neighboring regions. There is very little use for laser-guided bombs or satellite-guided cruise missiles.
It said a Russian Tu-22 long-range bomber that was shot down over Georgia appeared to have been used for intelligence gathering because of a shortage of unmanned aerial vehicles.
The aircraft shot down over Georgia was not a long-range bomber, but a dedicated reconaissance Tu-22M3R. This aircraft offers reconnaissance capabilities not matched by any UAV currently in service in Russia or elsewhere. Jane’s analysts should have consulted an elevation map of the region to better understand the challenges of flying recon missions from Russia over Georgia using small, divisional-level UAVs. Having said that, Russia does have a pressing need for long-range, high-endurance UAVs and UCAVs and such systems are currently in development by Sukhoi (Zond-series UAVs) and Yakovlev (Yak-130-based UCAV).
Popularity: 7% [?]
Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts
Related posts:
- Photos: Russians in Georgia
- War in Georgia: Reviewing EU Findings
- Photos: Georgian Losses in the War
Visit My Website
October 23, 2008
Permalink
Venik
Your talents are wasted. The DIA (GRU?
needs You forthwidth.
Then again the DIA definitely would not want to read or recognize your stuff. What you write seems too accurate, well-balanced and is based on knowledge.
These are dangerous qualities – definitly politicly incorrect.
One needs to understand that the latest Georgian provocation was all about raising international tension to promote McCain’s electoral prospects. In this political environment truth counts little – even for intelligence agencies.
As I am intimate with tanks I’ll comment on that tomorrow.
Regards
Pete
Reply
Venik Reply:
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
The West: This is 21-st century and you are still using WWII-style tactics. Your units are not flexible and your weapons are outdated. You need a smaller, better trained and flexible force, so you can successfully fight impoverished Third World nations with minimal expense.
Russia: It took us just three days to kick the crap out of this “smaller, better trained and flexible force”. They had more troops, more modern equipment, ample time to prepare for the war and you trained them. BTW, you have 12 divisions in Iraq. Did you run out of small, flexible forces?
The West: You still suck!
Reply
Visit My Website
October 25, 2008
Permalink
Hi Venik
The Georgian War does not provide a good source for making generalisations about the extremely diverse armed forces of the West.
And nobody was surpriesed that Russia won. Russia has had centuries of experience as a cohesive army while Georgia has had a few years of US/Israeli mercenary training.
Georgia is not of the West. It is a tiny Caucausian country with basically no seperate military tradition of its own.
It was a figment of America’s NATO stategy which has created the facade that Georgia is part of the West. As I said before this image making was part of the Republican McCain strategy.
I’d say Georgia’s Army is like the Lebanese Army. Lots of money for new uniforms and weapons but little willingness to fight because politics rules.
Much of the reason for Russia’s victory would have been electronic intelligence (including sigint and imagery) warning Russia of the Georgian buildup. Likewise humint – many Georgians, even in the army would have Russian sympathies and/or be amenable to bribery.
Pete
Reply
Venik Reply:
October 25th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Nobody was surprised that Russia won. The surprise was that Russia responded with overwhelming force as quickly as it did. This was Kremlin acting very much out of character and catching everyone off-guard. I guess it pays to break the habit once in a while.
Reply
Visit My Website
October 25, 2008
Permalink
Great work Venik as ever. The JDW is so shallow and reminiscent of the worst cold-war anti-Russian propaganda intended to prop up Western armies moral out of desperation. Pure pettiness.
1) “There is little demonstrable interest in a smaller, better trained and flexible force”
- Is JDW implying that Russia should copy NATO concept, “of smaller, better trained force” – in other words “it’s not the size that matters, it’s the technique”. Maybe the JD analyst suffers from inferiority complex and should visit some sexual therapist?
2) “Improvements … are required before the Russian(s) can face any opponents larger or better equipped”.
- Now the analyst jumps into his own mouth. He wishes that Russian forces are small, but suggests they should match “large” opponent. Wishful thinking. If NATO forces are small, well trained – what larger forces are Russian military to confront in his view? The Alien invasion? No. He is surely implying the US Army which is by no means “small” neither well trained. Small force can be well trained by definition, but for a large one it is a sizable problem, addressed constantly as you well point out. Applies to Russia as well as to any other country including the US.
3) “Russia does not possess a sufficient arsenal of modern precision weapons”
- He surely means, as opposed to US and NATO who have plenty? Precisely killing civilians all over Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq – calling them collateral damage?
JDW author is a petty excuse for a mil. analyst. Now that the emperor has no clothes and it is clearly impotent, the media prostitutes will just keep on drumming their petty anti-Russian agitprop.
Reply
Visit My Website
November 26, 2008
Permalink
Venik, you are an expert at quantum-physics, geo-strategy, military tactics, computing, programming, engineering, military hardware, education systems, economy, aerospace industry…and so on and so on…
I want to be like you when i grow up! I also want to be Russian when i grow up, Russians are supermans!
PS – Just a question…why do ALL russian hyper-nationalists live OUTSIDE Russia and never set foot in Russia? Isnt Russia the SUPER-WONDER-LAND full of SUPERMAN´s (aka Russians)??? I dont understand…
Reply
Visit My Website
November 26, 2008
Permalink
Are you disagreeing with something I wrote, or did my blog catch your eye on a bad day?
Yes, I do have degrees in physics and aerospace engineering. While I am not an expert in quantum theory, I probably understand it better than the average Joe. My knowledge of programming and computers in general comes from years of working with supercomputers used for finite element analysis and fluid dynamics modeling. As to my interest in military history – it’s just a hobby.
Actually, most Russian nationalists live in Russia. But the ones who live outside of Russia usually speak better English and draw more attention.
Reply