• Russian Motorized Rifle troops on the attack
    47 replies, posted
THREAD MUSIC! [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rAHrHd2lcw[/media]
[QUOTE=XanKriegor;29631116]I like how they shot the fuck out of the bus and blew it up and that's supposed to be for a hostage situation.[/QUOTE] From the youtube comments: [quote] RUSSIAN SWAT MANUAL ON :Rescuing civilians from a bus that has been taken hostage by criminals(not terrorists by the way) step 1)Ram the* bus with a 13.6 ton BTR 80 while shooting at the bus with a .50 cal machine gun step 2)blow it up using an anti tank grenade on a stick never mind the guy that will disappear in the process. step 3)shoot everywhere. step 4)mission accomplished bodies i mean hostages rescued![/quote] :v: Also I wonder what the fuck was up with that stick if it made the bus explode like that.
[QUOTE=Rommel McD;29630827][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHmiqmfNLhE[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZThYjiUJ8w[/media][/QUOTE] Oh god, the guy with the explosive stick just disappears after the explosion. This is hilarious.
OP I think those are Mechanized not Motorised iirc.
[QUOTE=The mouse;29634930]OP I think those are Mechanized not Motorised iirc.[/QUOTE] Soviet/Russian parlance calls [i]all[/i] troops we call "mechanized infantry" in the West as "motorized rifle" troops both on BTRs and BMPs. [editline]5th May 2011[/editline] Though the term "mechanized" was used during and shortly after the Great Patriotic War before Marshal Zhukov's nuclear battlefield reforms. It was also used by some brigades of the two Unified Corps located in the USSR's western military districts in the 1980s.
[img]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/8/28/yourtankisno128644293207482733.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;29625629]American Mechanized Infantry: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_RMDiLCRRM[/media][/QUOTE] Those were some pretty shit-hot drills
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;29625629]American Mechanized Infantry: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_RMDiLCRRM[/media][/QUOTE] My brother drives a Bradley.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;29640631]Those were some pretty shit-hot drills[/QUOTE] Fire and maneuver at the lowest levels is better suited for a smaller professional force than mass conscripts, but not like if there's anything wrong with that or vice versa.
What would happen if a larger, conscripted force tried to apply (semi)advanced fire and maneuver in actual combat? Would they be more successful, or would there be less coordination between units as a result? I know that such application could affect operational tempo as you mentioned in your OP, but would it affect anything on the tactical level?
[QUOTE=Tac Error;29621586]I believe that's a recurring problem of American (and Western) ground forces ever since the end of the Cold War. With the Digital Revolution of the 1990s, our witnessing of Operation Desert Storm (low casualties, "magical" precision weapons, to name a few), the collapse of a potential peer adversary and ultimately the characteristics of Western culture (most notably even a low amount casualties is seen as unacceptable), we've come increasingly to rely on digital wizardry and technological might to replace blood with mixed results. Air power is viewed as a "clean" (meaning low casualties for us) and "surgical" (precision munitions, one hit one kill) weapon of war that is exempt from "fog" and "friction". Of course, that has proven to be wrong when we face forces that aren't led by Saddam Hussein. [editline]4th May 2011[/editline] I mean, if you speak to a few Facepunchers, many of them will say things very positively about air power, like if it is [i]the[/i] game-changer of this age. That itself is a reflection of the stuff I've said above.[/QUOTE] Bundeswehr relies on air power only? I thought it was their land forces that were the best :v:
[QUOTE=God's Pimp Hand;29642650]What would happen if a larger, conscripted force tried to apply (semi)advanced fire and maneuver in actual combat? Would they be more successful, or would there be less coordination between units as a result? I know that such application could affect operational tempo as you mentioned in your OP, but would it affect anything on the tactical level?[/QUOTE] Fire and maneuver is tricky, so if attempted by an unorganized force it has the potential to weaken their defensive posture dramatically and as you said less coordination between units, not to mention especially in a small unit scale it maneuvering at close(ish) quarters requires good personal skills (bounding, using terrain effectively etc). So what Tac Error said is pretty accurate IMO. That said, Taliban have been known to employ small scale fire and maneuver to decent effect (obviously they are coming off best in majority of firefights, but they are also woefully under equipped in comparison to coalition forces), especially when breaking off from the contact.
Tac Error you're cool :buddy:
[QUOTE=Tac Error;29641817]Fire and maneuver at the lowest levels is better suited for a smaller professional force than mass conscripts, but not like if there's anything wrong with that or vice versa.[/QUOTE] The only problem I have with the first video in the OP is the lack of urgency about anything they are doing, and the total disregard for their personal safety, but you can find these two things happening in any reserve/conscript unit I imagine. But yeah I agree, fire and maneuver at small unit level is probably a bit complex for units with what amounts to maybe a handful of hours training.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;29644202]The only problem I have with the first video in the OP is the lack of urgency about anything they are doing, and the total disregard for their personal safety, but you can find these two things happening in any reserve/conscript unit I imagine. But yeah I agree, fire and maneuver at small unit level is probably a bit complex for units with what amounts to maybe a handful of hours training.[/QUOTE] I believe both are on total opposite ends of the spectrum, but each can be used to an advantage. Would be pretty interesting to see them head to head.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;29644202]The only problem I have with the first video in the OP is the lack of urgency about anything they are doing, and the total disregard for their personal safety, but you can find these two things happening in any reserve/conscript unit I imagine.[/QUOTE] The video is most likely showing a "rigged" exercise, nothing special. Even today Russia has never had the luxury to pouring masses of funds into its military like in the Soviet times. And I'm sure that Soviet and Russian conscripts (unless you're talking about reservists who are going to fill out mobilization divisions) definitely get more training time than "a handful of hours", but obviously not to the extent that an average American infantryman gets. [editline]5th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=JaegerMonster;29644075]Fire and maneuver is tricky, so if attempted by an unorganized force it has the potential to weaken their defensive posture dramatically and as you said less coordination between units, not to mention especially in a small unit scale it maneuvering at close(ish) quarters requires good personal skills (bounding, using terrain effectively etc). So what Tac Error said is pretty accurate IMO.[/QUOTE] One thing: "Conscript" does not mean "unorganized". Soviet low-level tactics keeps things as simple and uncomplicated as possible for the guy at the sharp end, because experience from World War II indicates that the more uncomplicated you make his life, the better his chance of success. [editline]5th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=God's Pimp Hand;29642650]What would happen if a larger, conscripted force tried to apply (semi)advanced fire and maneuver in actual combat? Would they be more successful, or would there be less coordination between units as a result?[/QUOTE] There's very little fire and maneuver at the platoon level, as the whole platoon usually acts together as a single subunit. Also, for most of the Cold War, motor rifle platoons only had one radio for use by the platoon leader. Basically the platoon leader's main form of control would be voice and hand signals, which means that the squads have to be kept in relatively close proximity (of course not close enough that a single artillery shell would wipe them out, they have distancing norms for this actually). Near the end of the Cold War, squad radios began to be seen but I don't know what happened after the Soviet Union disintegrated. Perhaps the Russian military budget crunch of the 1990s still lives on. Now as a platoon leader with average Soviet soldiers under your command, trying to utilize Western-style fire and maneuver techniques would be [i]very[/i] difficult unless it's the second month of the war and the surviving core of your subunit has acquired combat experience. [quote]I know that such application could affect operational tempo as you mentioned in your OP, but would it affect anything on the tactical level?[/quote] The point is that if [i]every[/i] motorized rifle squad or platoon in, say a combined-arms army is going to use complex fire and maneuver tactics, the tempo on all levels is going to be screwed up, including at higher tactical levels like divisional and regimental. Tactical flexibility - not just fire and maneuver - begins at company and battalion level, but in most cases it actually begins at regimental level. As you already know, the Soviet Ground Forces was a very large organization. You had the majority of units and officers who were capable of carrying out "ordinary" missions with a motorized rifle or tank regiment acting as part of a division, but a few units manned by experienced troops and talented officers could be relied on to conduct "special" missions. The field manuals and officers' textbooks laid out all the tactics and techniques to follow, but some officers and soldiers were able to carry out the more complex stuff. Commanding a battalion-sized divisional forward detachment or operating as part of an army or front-level operational maneuver group (I'll talk about these another time) are tasks that require a higher level of flexibility, initiative and creativity than that of a regular motorized rifle or tank regiment. Many officers and soldiers weren't capable of doing so, but there were a few that could, and so in units manned by the better guys more complex techniques would be used at battalion and even company level. Here's a interesting fact, in the 1980s a concept known as the "bronegruppa" (Russian for armored group) was tested as part of a number of new tactics to better survive in a non-linear battlefield dominated by precision-guided weapons. Basically the concept calls for a motorized rifle platoon or company dismount and their BMPs fight on a separate axis to attack on the enemy's flank or rear. Here's a diagram. Notice the attack route for the "BMP Group". [img]http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/7452/bronegruppa.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Tac Error;29646548]The video is most likely showing a "rigged" exercise, nothing special. Even today Russia has never had the luxury to pouring masses of funds into its military like in the Soviet times. And I'm sure that Soviet and Russian conscripts (unless you're talking about reservists who are going to fill out mobilization divisions) definitely get more training time than "a handful of hours", but obviously not to the extent that an average American infantryman gets.[/QUOTE] I wasn't sure how the Russian conscription system works, I assumed they were basically in the same boat as Reservists as in Western Military.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;29648270]I wasn't sure how the Russian conscription system works, I assumed they were basically in the same boat as Reservists as in Western Military.[/QUOTE] The first 29 pages of this might be of interest to you: [url=http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll9&CISOPTR=672&REC=3][b]Link[/b][/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.