Russia - Military Strength vs Expenditure. How do they do it?

[meleagertoo]

According to accessible sources Russia's military expenditure is much the same as the UK's yet their military might is many, many times as great. Ten times more troops at least, far more if you count reserves. A Navy perhaps three times the size in terms of major units and infinitely larger if coastal vessels abd conventional subs are counted, an Air Force many times the size too. Plus an absolute plethora of offensive and defensive weapon systems we can only dream of posessing.

Clearly mere size is not necessarily a deciding factor but sheer numbers are a big advantage.

How is it that they manage to have acheived such a vast superiority in numbers and strength with such an all but identical budget?
Or is the question how we manage to achieve such poor numbers with so much spent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Russia and UK are rated 4th and 5th in world rankings on Wiki but 2nd and 8th in terms of capability.
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php

What's gone wrong? The differences are far, far too big to be accounted for by relative values of currency, economic status or even legacy equipment, surely?

[4everAD]

I wonder if they have to pay £100 to have a light bulb changed due to some obscene contract? Having been in the military for 32 years I have witnessed the wanton grabbing of tax payers money by large corporates.

[Bob Viking]

I bet we do better financially in the UK than our Russian counterparts on the wage front.

The hundreds of thousands of military veterans drawing a pension all need to be paid for as well.

So, if you’re retired and you are wondering what you can do to help our poor, beleaguered military just hand your pension back. Take one for the team.

BV

[pasta]

I bet we do better financially in the UK than our Russian counterparts on the wage front.

The hundreds of thousands of military veterans drawing a pension all need to be paid for as well.

So, if you’re retired and you are wondering what you can do to help our poor, beleaguered military just hand your pension back. Take one for the team.

BV
That's going to extend into almost all spending. If you follow expenditure down the chain, it almost always ends up being spent on someone's wages, and for defence a higher proportion of that spending is likely to remain in country.

[etudiant]

According to accessible sources Russia's military expenditure is much the same as the UK's yet their military might is many, many times as great. Ten times more troops at least, far more if you count reserves. A Navy perhaps three times the size in terms of major units and infinitely larger if coastal vessels abd conventional subs are counted, an Air Force many times the size too. Plus an absolute plethora of offensive and defensive weapon systems we can only dream of posessing.

Clearly mere size is not necessarily a deciding factor but sheer numbers are a big advantage.

How is it that they manage to have acheived such a vast superiority in numbers and strength with such an all but identical budget?
Or is the question how we manage to achieve such poor numbers with so much spent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Russia and UK are rated 4th and 5th in world rankings on Wiki but 2nd and 8th in terms of capability.
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php

What's gone wrong? The differences are far, far too big to be accounted for by relative values of currency, economic status or even legacy equipment, surely?

Surely the pay differentials between a volunteer force and a draft force make a big difference. A draftee force does not bring the same size pension and benefits costs that a professional military does either.
Also contributing imho is the massively costly military specifications and purchasing bureaucracy, with its industrial counterparts.
Still, it most fundamentally reflects massive management failure.
To illustrate, SpaceX was initially funded privately by Musk's profits from his role at PayPal, $200MM at most, about 1% of what the US government has spent on the still to be launched Artemis launcher.
The NASA and US industry engineers are not that much less capable than those at SpaceX, but clearly the latter's management processes function a lot better.

The most useful question would be: How did Russia, famous for its sclerotic bureaucracies, manage to get so much better management, as shown by the results?

[Bob Viking]

I think it’s probably similar to how countries like China and Qatar manage to build massive projects in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost that we can achieve in the West.

It’s so much easier to have lots of stuff and thousands of soldiers when you don’t have to care about work conditions and things such as human rights and unions.

BV

[MPN11]

The most useful question would be: How did Russia, famous for its sclerotic bureaucracies, manage to get so much better management, as shown by the results?Options … The Gulag … or a Peerage?

I see little evidence of ‘penalty clauses’ on individuals in the West. Over there, they may be sclerotic but seemingly they do deliver, on time and on budget (or else!).

[Not_a_boffin]

A Navy perhaps three times the size in terms of major units and infinitely larger if coastal vessels abd conventional subs are counted, an Air Force many times the size too.

What's gone wrong? The differences are far, far too big to be accounted for by relative values of currency, economic status or even legacy equipment, surely?

Paper strength is one thing. How many of those major units are actually seaworthy at any one time. Or capable of deploying fully trained and stored?

There's also a transparency issue. Do we actually know how much they spend? Or are we using their official figures and taking them as gospel? Are those figures audited? Something which actually incurs a fair amount of expense just in doing so (or more accurately, conducting endless VFM studies/ABC options), as denizens of ABW and the TLBs will attest.

[MPN11]

And there, Mr Boffin, you take me back to my days in MoD (War Plans and Policy). When the WP folded, we discovered what false assumptions we had been working on, I won’t go in to detail, but for argument’s sake the Sov AF was found to have about 25%-30% of the capability we had been anticipating.

How good are RU assets now? Numbers, yes. Technology, yes. Conscript manned and serviced … ah, there’s a question we cannot answer.

[NutLoose]

Well for one, Russia is still using the same basic assault rifle that was designed during WW2, we are now looking at another having gone through 3 or 4 different weapons and amunition sizes since then.

[pasta]

Taking their space program as a barometer of prowess on high-tech state-led projects - it's an area where success is hard to fake and the Russians have no reason to hide their achievements - things aren't looking particularly flash.

[dervish]

Well for one, Russia is still using the same basic assault rifle that was designed during WW2, we are now looking at another having gone through 3 or 4 different weapons and amunition sizes since then.

And we still haven't caught up!

[soarbum]

Well for one, Russia is still using the same basic assault rifle that was designed during WW2, we are now looking at another having gone through 3 or 4 different weapons and amunition sizes since then.

They may all look the same and share the same design principles but they have upgraded. The AK-47 was in use from 1949 to 1974 chambering 7.62x39mm. From 1974 to 1991, they used the AK-74 chambering a smaller 5.45x39mm round. Since 1991, they have been using a modernised version designated the AK-74M (same ammo).

[Mil-26Man]

Try living on a Russian armed forces pension (if such a thing exists), and you'll have your answer.

How many of those major units are actually seaworthy at any one time. Or capable of deploying fully trained and stored? Applies equally to us. We have two aircraft carriers with no jets currently capable of deploying, due to having to regenerate following the showboating exercise to the Pacific last year that achieved what?

[Beamr]

North Korea has even bigger army. And they rely on soviet era stuff too.
According to statistics Russia has estimated 13000 MBT's of which only est 750 are from the 90's (the T90), the rest are soviet era old stocks (mostly combination of T80 and T72's). Same applies to just about everything. They are spending a lot of money on military and the size is huge, but they are no miracle workers.

Looking at all those social media videos of trains moving troops it catches eye how much eg 1960's legacy ZIL trucks and other soviet era hardware there are.

[Ken Scott]

Regarding salary equivalence, in the early 90s I spent a week in Moscow having flown in a team to go and count tanks etc. While they were working we had the week to explore the city, along with a couple of Russian military escorts. One was a young Air Force captain of similar age to myself, also married with a young child. He described his home - a 2 bed flat in the city which he shared with his parents.

When he asked me where I lived, I told him in a 4 bed house. ‘With all of your family?’ he asked, rather incredulously. ‘Just my wife and son’, I said. I’m not sure if he was convinced I was telling the truth, that kind of opulent lifestyle was typically reserved for members of the politburo then.

[pasta]

Applies equally to us. We have two aircraft carriers with no jets currently capable of deploying, due to having to regenerate following the showboating exercise to the Pacific last year that achieved what?
How long did it take the Russians to get their carrier back on deployment after its 2016 outing?

[Not_a_boffin]

Applies equally to us. We have two aircraft carriers with no jets currently capable of deploying, due to having to regenerate following the showboating exercise to the Pacific last year that achieved what?

I suspect that if CJO asked for a carrier embarkation, OC Lighting Force would have a similar number of cabs available in short order. Given the current delivery profile, that would have some knock-on effects - not least on conversion training, but if you're suggesting that we can't get jets on PWLS if needed, I think you're mistaken.

[Saintsman]

If you look at the price we pay for military equipment, then it’s not hard to see why. You can buy a simple bolt, but it can cost 10 times more than the same item used at home., because it’s made to military specifications.

I once saw a Mig 21 up close. I would describe it as ‘agricultural’ but it did the job.

You don’t need to spend lots of money if you don’t expect it to come back…

Plus, you don’t need to spend the sort of money an F35 costs, when you can get 10 aircraft that can do a the job. Sure it won’t be as good, but when you don’t care about lives, losing say 8 of your fleet compared to one of ours, means that they are likely to come out on top.

Plus I very much doubt that the Russians are handicapped by H&S or PC policies.

[MPN11]

North Korea has even bigger army. And they rely on soviet era stuff too.
According to statistics Russia has estimated 13000 MBT's of which only est 750 are from the 90's (the T90), the rest are soviet era old stocks (mostly combination of T80 and T72's). Same applies to just about everything. They are spending a lot of money on military and the size is huge, but they are no miracle workers.

Looking at all those social media videos of trains moving troops it catches eye how much eg 1960's legacy ZIL trucks and other soviet era hardware there are.I have no doubt a lot of RU kit is old. It was/is also robust, easy to maintain and likely perfectly serviceable. Just like the AK47/AK74, they all work. And they have vast numbers of them. And the unskilled conscripts to operate them.

Now talk about a target-rich environment of RU materiel and personnel in a conflict. Assuming only conventional munitions, how long before the West simply runs out of ammunition? One smart munition per tank?

Realistically, I see the only resolution through diplomacy. And Vlad holds nearly all the cards, if Europe still wants its Gas supplies. Same with China, if you want consumer electronics etc. The West doesn’t have the leverage with the Communist States any more … we have sold out long ago.

[ShyTorque]

I bet we do better financially in the UK than our Russian counterparts on the wage front.

The hundreds of thousands of military veterans drawing a pension all need to be paid for as well.

So, if you’re retired and you are wondering what you can do to help our poor, beleaguered military just hand your pension back. Take one for the team.

BV

Only if you insist on your salary being reduced to that of a Russian conscript.

[Bob Viking]

But I’d be needed to win the war. I’m not going to do that for free. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

I can just imagine the Ruskies quaking in their boots at the sight of me and my Hawk. I’ll destroy them with my (simulated) AMRAAMs.

BV

[Beamr]

I have no doubt a lot of RU kit is old. It was/is also robust, easy to maintain and likely perfectly serviceable. Just like the AK47/AK74, they all work. And they have vast numbers of them. And the unskilled conscripts to operate them.


You'd be surprised how big portion of the "good old stuff" was u/s at any given moment... And I doubt that all of that gear being hauled to border are from active use. Probably many of them have been in storage for unkown periods of time. And they are old and age is a factor of its own. SU period HW is all +30 years old minimum, so if it is unused its a bad thing although being used is equally as bad.

And they weren't that good to begin with. In 1991 fulcrum was supposed to be top notch, but it was nearly twice as expensive as viper or hornet but only half as good.

Russia has a big army and lots of resources which means that it shouldn't be underestimated. But it should not be overestimated either.

[alfred_the_great]

Having seen Russian ships - including walking around them - a lot of it is smoke and mirrors. Missile launchers painted shut, radars seized up etc etc

[MPN11]

I concur full with you both. However, we shall see ... my crystal ball is foggy these days.

:confused:

[NutLoose]

I would also imagine they get back to basics and their armour or trucks are not dependant on computers to control the suspension, drive, engine emissions etc etc etc, they will be field repairable with the basics of equipment neither requiring a laptop nor a supply chain stretching halfway across the world to ship the thrungbucket solenoid computer interface module to let the handbrake off.

[Beamr]

But they'll need a dedicated oil pipe and a mobile refinery to keep em truckin' :E

[Richard Dangle]

20 secs with Google

Most of the above points are covered. Knock youselves out

https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2020/russias-military-spending-frequently-asked-questions

[MPN11]

So, in random order …

1. Maskirovka, deploying numerous 3rd line armour/vehicles from storage to the Border, bereft of ammunition and trained crew, to pose a threat. While burning US/NATO cash/resources in response. Achieves animosity for no benefit.

2. Overt preparation for Invasion. Not subtle, but a clear expression of perceived capability. Risk of Western response, but unlikely to generate all-out warfare. Vlad got away with Crimea, try again?

3. Diplomatic leverage. The everlasting Russian fear of non-aligned or non-subservient states/NATO on its Borders. Political manoeuvre by Vlad the Great to seal his legacy with the people? Is this an internal or external ploy by Vlad?

I am not placing any bets on the outcome, but with the insanity of Belarus lurking to the north I could visualise Vlad giving it a low-level attempt. Reports are suggesting covert RU forces are already in Ukraine. Look at the map from Vlad’s POV.

[ShyTorque]

Mrs. Putin, just before setting off to her promised new holiday apartment in the Ukraine:
"Did you remember to turn the gas off?"
Putin: "Yes dear - ALL of it!"

[NutLoose]

Better stop knocking down Bruggen’s HAS. and ask fit Gut and Rhein D back

[popeye107]

I guess the Russians can do so much more because they don’t have 6 or more layers per fighting person.
High Wycombe is a disgusting mash of self fulfilling bottom feeders in job creation overdrive. Suits you!

[Una Due Tfc]

Just imagine how much more of a threat they would have been or would be today if not for Stalin's purges. The best military leaders, many of their best scientists and millions of potential future engineers, leaders, scientists etc all wiped out. Interesting to ponder.

[AIMINGHIGH123]

I have no doubt a lot of RU kit is old. It was/is also robust, easy to maintain and likely perfectly serviceable. Just like the AK47/AK74, they all work. And they have vast numbers of them. And the unskilled conscripts to operate them.

Now talk about a target-rich environment of RU materiel and personnel in a conflict. Assuming only conventional munitions, how long before the West simply runs out of ammunition? One smart munition per tank?

Realistically, I see the only resolution through diplomacy. And Vlad holds nearly all the cards, if Europe still wants its Gas supplies. Same with China, if you want consumer electronics etc. The West doesn’t have the leverage with the Communist States any more … we have sold out long ago.

As has been said AK47 are so durable. In Vietnam war the Vietcong would just throw the weapons when Americans attacked and run for cover, underground etc. Once everything calmed down they would return to the area pick a rifle back up and carry on.

[meleagertoo]

They may all look the same and share the same design principles but they have upgraded. The AK-47 was in use from 1949 to 1974 chambering 7.62x39mm. From 1974 to 1991, they used the AK-74 chambering a smaller 5.45x39mm round. Since 1991, they have been using a modernised version designated the AK-74M (same ammo).
Inended to match captured NATO stock isn't it, unless I'm mistaken?. Not daft, that, is it?

[NutLoose]

They may all look the same and share the same design principles but they have upgraded. The AK-47 was in use from 1949 to 1974 chambering 7.62x39mm. From 1974 to 1991, they used the AK-74 chambering a smaller 5.45x39mm round. Since 1991, they have been using a modernised version designated the AK-74M (same ammo).

It’s called development, improvement of a superb simple design through operational experience, where as we jumped from the .303 Lee Enfield to the 7.62 SLR to the 5.56 SA80 after the stillborn Bullpup, and now are looking at a variant of the 5.56 M4 for part of our forces. It’s a shame we never developed the SLR on as it was a superb weapon with an effective range. Something the SA80 proved to lack thus having to introduce a 7.62 L129A1 to recoup that loss.
One Weapon that did evolve was the .303 Bren that was rechambered as a 7.62 LMG.

[NutLoose]

They may all look the same and share the same design principles but they have upgraded. The AK-47 was in use from 1949 to 1974 chambering 7.62x39mm. From 1974 to 1991, they used the AK-74 chambering a smaller 5.45x39mm round. Since 1991, they have been using a modernised version designated the AK-74M (same ammo).

It’s called development, improvement of a superb simple design through operational experience.

Where as we jumped from the .303 Lee Enfield to the 7.62 SLR to the 5.56 SA80 after the stillborn Bullpup, and now are looking at a variant of the 5.56 M4 for part of our forces. It’s a shame we never developed the SLR on as it was a superb weapon with an effective range. Something the SA80 proved to lack thus having to introduce a 7.62 L129A1 to recoup that loss.

One Weapon that did evolve was the .303 Bren that was rechambered as a 7.62 LMG.

One weapon in our arsenal apart from the .50 cal that can trace its lineage back to 1934 and the German MG34 through the MG42 is the 7.62 GPMG

[meleagertoo]

Bejasus!
Don't we have some lessons to learn - before it's too late!

[Lonewolf_50]

Look at the map from Vlad’s POV. Yes.


Mrs. Putin, just before setting off to her promised new holiday apartment in the Ukraine:
"Did you remember to turn the gas off?"
Putin: "Yes dear - ALL of it!"
*chuckle*

[minigundiplomat]

Having worked in Russia on and off, you can’t discount the vodka factor, which can be a plus or a minus.

[soarbum]

It’s called development, improvement of a superb simple design through operational experience.

Where as we jumped from the .303 Lee Enfield to the 7.62 SLR to the 5.56 SA80 after the stillborn Bullpup, and now are looking at a variant of the 5.56 M4 for part of our forces. It’s a shame we never developed the SLR on as it was a superb weapon with an effective range. Something the SA80 proved to lack thus having to introduce a 7.62 L129A1 to recoup that loss.

One Weapon that did evolve was the .303 Bren that was rechambered as a 7.62 LMG.

One weapon in our arsenal apart from the .50 cal that can trace its lineage back to 1934 and the German MG34 through the MG42 is the 7.62 GPMG

Fair points! You're making me nostalgic now. I actually trained on the .303 as a recruit before switching to the FN (same as SLR but Belgian ones with full auto capability) which I loved. Our Brens still had .303 barrels. While the FN MAG (GPMG) is externally similar to the MG42 in that it is belt fed and has a bipod and a quick change barrel, internally they are very different. The MG42 used delayed blowback (roller-locking) while the MAG uses gas and piston as anyone who has ever cleaned one is unlikely to forget in a hurry.

[PAXboy]

The fingerprints of the suppliers of military hardware are all over the costs of the last 50 years. Always the opportunity to buy bigger and newer and all things to all senior ranks. Further, we have followed the USA on going for the new toys which are so often made in America. Surprise all round.
Meanwhile, the politicians are still fighting the Cold War and making unwise threats to Vlad. They do not seem to realise that Vlad is going to win this - one way or the other.

[fltlt]

The fingerprints of the suppliers of military hardware are all over the costs of the last 50 years. Always the opportunity to buy bigger and newer and all things to all senior ranks. Further, we have followed the USA on going for the new toys which are so often made in America. Surprise all round.
Meanwhile, the politicians are still fighting the Cold War and making unwise threats to Vlad. They do not seem to realise that Vlad is going to win this - one way or the other.

There are no layers of suppliers adding cost in the Soviet system, everything is “paid for” by the Government, wages/materials, everything.
Believe it or not, they really have no idea what the “cost” of any equipment, or piece thereof is.
If one goes to purchase “x” part, they will most often ask what the price is for what they feel is the equivalent US part, and that’s their price for that transaction. Of course there is always the “secondary market” but that’s another ball game all by itself. They are slowly beginning to price end product with a view to compete in the commercial sector, but are having a hard time finding a wide acceptance of their products, hence the partnering deals with recognized western companies, that really don’t seem to go anywhere.
And if one compares systems, manufacture/overhaul/maintenance, we are worlds apart in terms of facilities/equipment, they have bare bones, we have Cadillac.
Their outlook, since the end of WW II, hasn't changed, quantity over quality, you may have 12 of, but if we have 20, then….
That approach can be challenged, but the mindset remains.
Different strokes, different folks.
Doing business over there is a whole other animal.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Inended to match captured NATO stock isn't it, unless I'm mistaken?. Not daft, that, is it?
Nope, not in this case. Iirc some stuff was (fuel couplings), but their ammo is totally different. 7.62x39mm (AK ammo) is a different length to NATO ammo (7.62x51mm) and is fundamentally incompatible. The AK was conceived much more as a sub-machine gun rather than the "battle rifle" typically associated with 7.62 NATO (FAL etc)

NATO ammo is (for m80) a 10g bullet doing 850m/s ish while Soviet is an 8g bullet doing 715m/s ish, to give a rough comparison in "oompf"

[NutLoose]

There is a Russian movie called “AK-47 Kalashnikov” that was on Sky box office and is quite good, it follows his story from childhood, and his interest in guns through to his development of the AK.

https://youtu.be/V1LhswawPTs

[Jimlad1]

Don't forget that proportionately a lot of Russian cash goes into defence - yet they are extremely poor. I read that something like 10% of their population lives below the Russian definition of poverty line (approx $100 per month). Its a third world country with a first world military to all intents and purposes.

[dead_pan]

As others have noted much of Russia's kit is Soviet-era legacy stuff, especially aviation. Nothing much new here, with the exception of a handful of Su57s. Those May Day flypasts have barely changed in composition for the past 30 years.

The one area they have gone large is in missiles, although again much of this are developments of legacy kit.

[Asturias56]

One point about development rather than new design

In the communist system and its hold over into the modern FSU it was hard to befall foul of your boss (s) or the organs by delivering - none delivery was a serious risk tho' Thus far safer to incrementally improve a working product than to branch out into something lovely and new . Hero if it works but risking "economic saboteur" if it fails. The Design collectives of course are no different to Boeing, BA or Dassault - lots of shiny new designs - but the power rest in the factories who are separate entities - where again, incremental beats new every day.

Its always interested me that the modern Japanese Navy takes the same approach - a steady rollout of new vessels but slightly modified after 2-4 built.

[falcon900]

There are many different ways to skin a cat.......
Using military resources to actually fight a "hot" war to secure your objectives is a tried and tested method, with very mixed results historically, albeit quantity usually prevailed over quality.....
Using military assets as a threat to pressurise others to further your objectives is another more subtle approach. It requires merely the perception that you have sufficient forces at your disposal to make any exchange more painful than your opponent is willing to bear, and this seems to me what we are seeing at present.
Putin wants to put pressure on the expansion of NATO, and to cut a long story short is now having negotiations and discussions of a nature he would otherwise not have been. He has also exposed the reality that Ukraine's allies are willing to support it, but only so far. A bit more than tea and sympathy, but forget the cavalry riding over the hill to the rescue. However decrepit Russias tanks etc might be, they would inflict far more cost on our military than we would be willing to invest to save Ukraine (is any of this sounding familiar?) . So for the investment of some diesel to move the kit to the border, a win for Vladimir.
Such territorial ambitions as he may have towards Ukraine are better served by covert means, which are likely to prove particularly effective in the Russian supporting regions of the country, and offer him the protection of deniability.
Oh, and while we are threatening economic sanctions, what about Gas?

[golder]

It's easier if they don't share. Median wealth per person.
11 United Kingdom * (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_United_Kingdom) 131,522
91 Russia * (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia) 5,431

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

[Recc]

Such territorial ambitions as he may have towards Ukraine are better served by covert means, which are likely to prove particularly effective in the Russian supporting regions of the country, and offer him the protection of deniability.

That opinion seems hard to justify in light of the events of the last 8 years. Covert methods did work well in Crimea, but that was due to very localised factors. In eastern Ukraine they were largely a failure, which is why the first overt Russian invasion took place in 2014 (the fact that it was denied does not make it 'deniable'). The political termination of that campaign was as favourable to Russia as it could have been under the circumstances but it has become apparent over the intervening years that the political will to end the conflict is not as strong in Ukraine as Moscow assumed (or hoped). It is hard to see what the achievable political outcome for Moscow is, but I would be extremely surprised if there was not an intention (or a willingness) to use a large-scale conventional military operation. Nothing else really makes any sense.

[henra]

As others have noted much of Russia's kit is Soviet-era legacy stuff, especially aviation. Nothing much new here, with the exception of a handful of Su57s. Those May Day flypasts have barely changed in composition for the past 30 years.

This.
They were clever enough not to scrap all their Kit after the fall of the Iron curtain.
In Germany we had ~2500 Leopard 2 Tanks back in the day. Quite modern in the 1990's and more modern than most of what is currently to be seen on those trains with which they carry stuff towards the Ukraine. What did we do with those 2500 modern Tanks? Scrap 2000 of them. What would it cost us to set up a new Tank Army which would be able to Counter them? Billions. What do they do? Wipe the dust off. Is the kit they have top Notch? For 90% of the Stuff: no. Still, as the saying goes: quantity has a quality all of its own. The same applies to Aircraft. They have some 200 - 300 Aircraft which are Avionics wise in a modern state (by Western standards). But altogether they can still get quite a bit of Aluminum into the Air and which is not useless even by today's standards despite it's far from top notch.
If you look at the numbers of Kit they procured New since 2000, you will see it is not that much more than what you would see in UK, or Germany or France corrected by the Value of currency/wage level.
You have to compare Russian Equipment Roster to what RAF would look like if you kept Tornado, Jag and Buccanneer and justed added EF and JSF instead of replacing the old stuff.
That's basically what they are doing since beginning of the 2000's.

[Less Hair]

There must be a reason why they only attack regionally piece by piece and not by big style major war.

[Not_a_boffin]

There must be a reason why they only attack regionally piece by piece and not by big style major war.

Salami slicing. Little bit here, little bit there, all without scaring the horses.

Not a million miles from the Pastor Niemoller poem

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Look at the european nations now - most desperately rationalising why an invasion of Ukraine is not an existential threat to themselves (or by extension, NATO). A major war makes it more difficult to put the SEP (Someone Else's Problem) glasses on.

[Less Hair]

Invading they will face the mother of all sanctions, including the loss of much of their hard currency income from selling raw materials, and then possibly Sweden and Finnland joining NATO. Sounds like a bad deal to me?

[dead_pan]

till, as the saying goes: quantity has a quality all of its own

Ish, but I'd contend quantity doesn't necessarily confer capability. Just look what Russia has available in key capabilities you'd expect for a modern air force e.g. tanking, AEW. Not much of note there. As for nice-to-haves such as CSAR, recall their half-arsed attempt to rescue the crew of the Su24 which was dealt with with ease by those Turkish F16s a few years back, the helicopter in question being taken out by an anti-tank missile as soon as it landed.

I think Ukraine may be a way tougher nut for Russia to crack now, esp with their growing capability with Turkish-built drones, which proved themselves so effective in Nagorno-Karabakh (armour, trucks, artillery, sheesh the operators even got so bored they started picking off individual troops in foxholes). Just have a fleet of these patrolling up and down the border, ready to plink anything which crosses the line.

[Not_a_boffin]

Invading they will face the mother of all sanctions, including the loss of much of their hard currency income from selling raw materials, and then possibly Sweden and Finnland joining NATO. Sounds like a bad deal to me?

Rodina stronk is all the Gay Icon of the Kremlin in interested in.

He also knows that the raw materials Russia exports will still be needed and he thinks that at some point the painful price rises sanctions will impose on world markets will become too painful.

Sweden and Finland would have to be invited to join NATO, with the unanimous agreement of all member states. Which is why he works so hard on decoupling the likes of Turkey and trying to get the Germans and the French to sit on the fence.

[henra]

Ish, but I'd contend quantity doesn't necessarily confer capability. Just look what Russia has available in key capabilities you'd expect for a modern air force e.g. tanking, AEW. Not much of note there. As for nice-to-haves such as CSAR, recall their half-arsed attempt to rescue the crew of the Su24 which was dealt with with ease by those Turkish F16s a few years back, the helicopter in question being taken out by an anti-tank missile as soon as it landed.

I do agree quantity does not by itself multiply overall capability. And yes, the overall conventional capability of the Russian Forces is quite definitely way below what the sheer numbers would suggest.
The high number of Tanks would not mean that much against a sophisticated opponent. Drones, modern Anti Tank missiles and Helicopters and Fighter aircraft can wipe out tanks by the dozens/hundreds very quickly, especially on flat, open terrain. The good thing of flat terrain though is that the hundreds or thousands of your burning wrecks won't block your way for the remaining ones.

I think Ukraine may be a way tougher nut for Russia to crack now, esp with their growing capability with Turkish-built drones, which proved themselves so effective in Nagorno-Karabakh (armour, trucks, artillery, sheesh the operators even got so bored they started picking off individual troops in foxholes). Just have a fleet of these patrolling up and down the border, ready to plink anything which crosses the line.
I agree. This will not be a walk in the Park for the Russian Forces.

[Less Hair]

You could see in Syria how vulnerable tanks have become against RPG style missiles.

[Obba]

At the time of Desert Shield - wasn't the Iraqi Military listed as the worlds 4th largest army in qty of units...?
And most of that was Russian made ?

So brings to mind the quality of the goods or lack of training (I suspect the latter), that Stormin Norman took Iraq in 100days.

[Lonewolf_50]

At the time of Desert Shield - wasn't the Iraqi Military listed as the worlds 4th largest army in qty of units...?
And most of that was Russian made ?

So brings to mind the quality of the goods or lack of training (I suspect the latter), that Stormin Norman took Iraq in 100days.
As this is a military aviation forum, I'd not thought that I'd need to point out that Norm had air superiority, and even air supremacy, once the ground units got rolling.
He also had a significant advantage in space based "eyes in the sky" -- combined arms warfare being what it is, I'd not attribute that success to equipment differences or numbers.

[paco]

Reading a book called Lions Dinosaurs and Donkeys - Waste and Blundering in the Military by Lewis Page would be instructive on this..... especially with regard to the Apache

[Bob Viking]

Bearing in mind the author, could we assume that the aforementioned book highlights how great the RN is and how bad all the other services are? Does it also conclude by saying that the RAF should be subsumed into the FAA?

BV

[Not_a_boffin]

Reading a book called Lions Dinosaurs and Donkeys - Waste and Blundering in the Military by Lewis Page would be instructive on this..... especially with regard to the Apache

Lewis Page is to defence matters what Meghan Whatsherface is to literature.

[Not_a_boffin]

Bearing in mind the author, could we assume that the aforementioned book highlights how great the RN is and how bad all the other services are? Does it also conclude by saying that the RAF should be subsumed into the FAA?

BV

To be fair, its more likely to say that the RN would have been great if only they'd put him in charge to implement his vast knowledge and understanding gained on the tupperware fleet.......

[NutLoose]

I think Ukraine may be a way tougher nut for Russia to crack now, esp with their growing capability with Turkish-built drones, which proved themselves so effective in Nagorno-Karabakh (armour, trucks, artillery, sheesh the operators even got so bored they started picking off individual troops in foxholes). Just have a fleet of these patrolling up and down the border, ready to plink anything which crosses the line.

They might be better employed taking out rail, tunnels and bridges to hamper the resupply routes?

[paco]

Whoever wrote the book does not change the facts. Not only the Apache saga but the SLR replacement as well.

[aerobat77]

A really good thread with many useful answers !

one poInt is like already mentioned that russia spents a bigger percentage of its military budget to actual weapon systems than nato countries do . In the western world much is used for salaries , pensions , social programs etc . The costs for keeping nato standarts of the infrastructure like air bases , naval bases etc is also not comparable to russian air or naval bases.

when it comes to actual weapon systems they 'fool' us a bit with sheer numbers but it does not say much about the combat capabilities . Old and rusty tanks or planes in storage look on the paper impressive but do not say much about true combat strenght.

Even never systems appear to shine only on the paper . Lets take the fancy s-400 air defense system . In theory superior to patriot , in practise in syria or armenia turkish drones and missiles were able to perform their mission nevertheless .

Russia never showed off military strenght big scale since ww2 , in fact they even struggled to force out few thousand rebels out of aleppo in syria , the same in chehen war .

I,m not saying its nothing what they have because it would be naive to assume it - but lets not overerstimate it .

When there was a comparision to the uk - I guess russia from a military point of view would just stall in a try for an all out invasion of the uk and trying to rise the russian flag on buckingham palace . ( assuming only russia vs uk )

[rigpiggy]

Nope, not in this case. Iirc some stuff was (fuel couplings), but their ammo is totally different. 7.62x39mm (AK ammo) is a different length to NATO ammo (7.62x51mm) and is fundamentally incompatible. The AK was conceived much more as a sub-machine gun rather than the "battle rifle" typically associated with 7.62 NATO (FAL etc)

NATO ammo is (for m80) a 10g bullet doing 850m/s ish while Soviet is an 8g bullet doing 715m/s ish, to give a rough comparison in "oompf"

Putting a 762 Russian in a 7.62 NATO or the other way around wouldn't fire, may cause a jam... And the 5.45/5.56 the same. However many combloc mortars were made to use NATO spec ammo in a pinch. 81/82mm with loss in range and accuracy but still shoots.
I
​​​

[Bing]

The costs for keeping NATO standards of the infrastructure like air bases , naval bases etc is also not comparable to Russian air or naval bases.

You mean they can manage to not have hot water and lighting for less than we do?

[Less Hair]

Western prisoners live at a higher standard than their conscripts do.

[Asturias56]

"They might be better employed taking out rail, tunnels and bridges to hamper the resupply routes?"

Absolutely Nut - especially as I understand that one of the timing constraints on Putin is when does the landscape turn to mud - there aren't enough roads etc to deploy all that kit when that happens - right now the ground is frozen solid and that is a critical metric for the time window

[henra]

Absolutely Nut - especially as I understand that one of the timing constraints on Putin is when does the landscape turn to mud - there aren't enough roads etc to deploy all that kit when that happens - right now the ground is frozen solid and that is a critical metric for the time window
??? But what happens if their Kit is in and the Ground starts to turn to mud and someone starts turkey shooting at the heavy Kit? I'm not sure that sounds like a robust plan!?

[NutLoose]

??? But what happens if their Kit is in and the Ground starts to turn to mud and someone starts turkey shooting at the heavy Kit? I'm not sure that sounds like a robust plan!?

A tank without fuel is a pillbox, a tank without ammo is a vunerable pillbox.. take out enough of the supply routes and things will turn to a crawl, you then have the opportunity to pick them off.
Rail, as with hard roads and bridges will still be operational regardless of the ground turning to mud, your supply line will then be funnelled through those.

[melmothtw]

All this talk of 'waiting for the ground to freeze so Putin can use his tanks'. It's 2022 not 1942 - Ukraine is a modern European country with modern European roads, and it doesn't really matter how muddy or not the fields are.

[Beamr]

It's not 1942 of course but having a convoy of tanks reluctant of leaving a paved road is like shooting fish on a barrell for the counterpart (air and ground forces). If the situation is that there is no opposition, better to move them on trains and trucks. It'll be a lot faster too.
however, as it is no 1942 there is much more than just tanks to worry about.

[melmothtw]

Is Ukraine's soil different from that of Belarus or the areas of Russia that border it? Does Ukraine's Army not drive tanks on its own fields for the 11 months of the year they're not completely frozen over?

For sure it will get a little muddy, but not to the extent that it might paralyse any movement as it did in 1941/1942, when the main roads that are today all paved were all dirt.

[NutLoose]

So was the road out of Kuwait where they all congregated together and how did that work out for them?

[Beamr]

I don't think that the Ukrainian soil and whether it is frozen or not has much impact on strategic planning. There is no massive mbt battle in sight but tanks breaking weak spots in defences and mechanized infantry coming in in BMP's and BTR's taking advantage of the opportunity to isolate enemy formations. They also protect the MBT's from enemy infantry with NLAW's and such. Take out the BTR's, the MBT's lose cover and turn very vulnerable for ambush. Or just use the artillery to take the MBT's out from a distance.
It is no surprise that the ukrainians have requested and delivered with Javelins, NLAWs, big bore artillery shells and such. The estonians offered artillery as well but since those originated in DDR the germans hate the idea (and offer helmets instead...).

So its not just the MBT's, its about everything else that comes with them that needs to be stopped. And most of the other stuff is very tolerant to bad terrain, especially everything that flies. And eventually the soft soil season is very short so it doesn't make much difference, in the summer it's yet again good to go, even with 1942 standards.

In any case it would take enormous brass balls to line them as a convoy and go solely by the roads. It would be a turkey shoot for the defenders. The soviets tried that in 1939 and didn't work out even then. They were slaughtered in divisions.

[NutLoose]

But I’d be needed to win the war. I’m not going to do that for free. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

I can just imagine the Ruskies quaking in their boots at the sight of me and my Hawk. I’ll destroy them with my (simulated) AMRAAMs.

BV

Couldn’t you send your student up on a solo and retire to the bar ;)

[dead_pan]

Of course the Russians could use their tried and tested tactic, perfected in Chechnya and Syria, of killing anyone who looks vaguely threatening along with anybody who happens to be standing in their vicinity, AKA the "No people, no problem" doctrine (or "What RoE?")

[Tartiflette Fan]

I?

. Same with China, if you want consumer electronics etc. The West doesn’t have the leverage with the Communist States any more … we have sold out long ago.

There is an awful lot of Chinese electronics that are not necessary. If the West doesn't buy it, the Chinese can't eat it.

[Tartiflette Fan]

Inended to match captured NATO stock isn't it, unless I'm mistaken?. Not daft, that, is it?

Isn't the NATO round 5.56 mm ?

[Vitek]

Even never systems appear to shine only on the paper . Lets take the fancy s-400 air defense system . In theory superior to patriot , in practise in syria or armenia turkish drones and missiles were able to perform their mission nevertheless .

Russia never showed off military strenght big scale since ww2 , in fact they even struggled to force out few thousand rebels out of aleppo in syria , the same in chehen war .


Totally disagree here.
First of all comparing Russian Forces today to what they were in the 90's and early 2000's is a comparison on it's own. Restructuring and rearming started I believe in 2009. Even comparing salaries pentions and benefits then and now show night and day. In the 90's pathrtic salaries (forget about pensions) weren't paid for months. Yes, salaries aren't close to UK level, but not far by purchasing power comparison.

As for Syria, this operation actually shows in my opinion a major success. In 4 years the bad guys (except for sleeper cells) have been eliminated in Syria. This is something the US hasn't managed to do in Iraq and Afghanistan using greater numbers, much more financing and much heavier involvement.
Don't forget that Russian Forces only provided intel gathering, air support, logistics and special forces on the ground. In addition to this the allies are Syrians, who no offence, aren't most disciplined warriors out there.

As for your Armenian comparison, Russian Forces weren't involved in the conflict of Armenia vs. Azerbaijan+Turkey in Karabakh so no clue why you used this scenario at all. Armenian president Sargisyan pissed off Russia to the point that when the conflict started he was on his own. Under the ODKB treaty of mutual assistance Russia denied his request for assistance because the fighting took place in Karabakh, which even Armenia recognised as Azerbaijani territory. Azeris and Turks were careful not to cross or shoot across the border into Armenia. The conflict pretty much ended when Azerbaijan accidentally took out a Russian Mi-24 that was escorting a Russian convoy, promptly apologized, paid out hefty compensation. Putin said "enough", and that same day a ceasefire was signed.

Armenia doesn't have any S-400's, only S-300's which they didn't even use in the conflict. And even using Soviet-era Air defense systems they took out 15 or something Bayraktars. If they had Pantsirs (preferably latest version with post-Syrian upgrades) and used not as stand-alone units but as they are supposed to be - in complex with long range systems and proper detection radars, they could have denied Azerbaijan air superiority.
The Pantsir has proven itself pretty capable in taking out UAV's.

[fab777]

As for Syria, this operation actually shows in my opinion a major success. In 4 years the bad guys (except for sleeper cells) have been eliminated in Syria. This is something the US hasn't managed to do in Iraq and Afghanistan using greater numbers, much more financing and much heavier involvement.
Don't forget that Russian Forces only provided intel gathering, air support, logistics and special forces on the ground. In addition to this the allies are Syrians, who no offence, aren't most disciplined warriors out there..

Don't forget: systematic and deliberate bombing of hospitals and civilian infrastructure. That was classy, and Ukrainians know what to expect... I should not mention that video of Russians beating a Syrian guy to death, and trying to sever his limbs with a shovel before hanging his corpse upside down and burning it, they were "employed by a private company"... Good guys.

[henra]

Totally disagree here.
As for Syria, this operation actually shows in my opinion a major success. In 4 years the bad guys (except for sleeper cells) have been eliminated in Syria. This is something the US hasn't managed to do in Iraq and Afghanistan using greater numbers, much more financing and much heavier involvement.

Hmm, dunno. That success was rather due to the Syrian Army plus no RoE by the Russian militias. Obviously by killing everyone who looks remotely like an enemy you can 'win' a war where the allied regular Syrian Troops were much better equipped already than the opposition. IS has been mostly eliminated by the US and the Kurds. The Russian Forces rather manged to decimate the other Syrian opposition forces. I wouldn't really consider this as a shining example.
Hmmm, OK, maybe Syria is a good outlook when it comes to the question what Ukranian Hospitals will be facing.

[Vitek]

Don't forget: systematic and deliberate bombing of hospitals and civilian infrastructure. That was classy, and Ukrainians know what to expect... I should not mention that video of Russians beating a Syrian guy to death, and trying to sever his limbs with a shovel before hanging his corpse upside down and burning it, they were "employed by a private company"... Good guys.

Show me a map of a city in Syria and without any intel I will show you where the bad guys are.

Hint: hospitals are usually the headquarters, schools are often the garrisons or warehouses.

Sorry and sad as may be, but these assholes used civilian infrastructure in this way. Hanging around a bunch of bearded assholes with guns in a warzone is a stupid idea. Get out of the city or at least get away from where these guys are hanging out. Otherwise don't be surprised when something comes flying in.

[Vitek]

Hmm, dunno. That success was rather due to the Syrian Army plus no RoE by the Russian militias. Obviously by killing everyone who looks remotely like an enemy you can 'win' a war where the allied regular Syrian Troops were much better equipped already than the opposition. IS has been mostly eliminated by the US and the Kurds. The Russian Forces rather manged to decimate the other Syrian opposition forces. I wouldn't really consider this as a shining example.
Hmmm, OK, maybe Syria is a good outlook when it comes to the question what Ukranian Hospitals will be facing.

No offence to the Syrians, have been there half a dozen times at least in the last 5 years and have Syrian friends. They are nice people but when it comes to fighting it's just not their thing. They are great when it comes to loading your weapons, cooking your food, helping you however they can, but when it comes to fighting they empty their clip "in the general direction of the enemy" and say "mafi" (nothing) and slowly withdraw. Can't say that about them all, but that's the general picture.

As for the US, well the US is the main reason ISIS even started to exist from the start. As for their "help" in Syria, lets just say there would be much less casualties, ruin to the economy if they just stayed out. I hope it is just due to US incompetence (and not actual intention), but most of that assistance one way or another it got into the hands of ISIS.

[Beamr]

Totally disagree here.
First of all comparing Russian Forces today to what they were in the 90's and early 2000's is a comparison on it's own. Restructuring and rearming started I believe in 2009. Even comparing salaries pentions and benefits then and now show night and day. In the 90's pathrtic salaries (forget about pensions) weren't paid for months. Yes, salaries aren't close to UK level, but not far by purchasing power comparison.

Russian forces in late 90's vs today are different beasts no doubt. But what has the Russian Forces actually achieved in the past 30 years to support any actual performance claims in the light of majority of the goods being soviet era? Managed to shoot down a civilian airliner? Being shot down by Turkish F16? CSAR then shot down for no cover? The newest gadget may be good on paper, but what has happened to eg Armata, or why bother re-building the cold-war era Tu160's. The Su57 program hasn't been such a success it is claimed to be as it has been postponed wtih more than ten years from original dates and it is still not feasible for mass production.

[Less Hair]

They certainly advanced in information warfare while their hardware looks dated and structurally not modern. They spent a lot on the military but while doing so burned through the inherited budget from the golden years of western trade deals. It doesn't make sense to keep some totally oversized WW3 invasion army unless you want to use it.
Wait.

[aerobat77]

As for Syria, this operation actually shows in my opinion a major success.

I think syria - especially fights of aleppo - tells a lot like previously said . It tells russia had to try hard for a victory forcing some few thousands rebels out of a city where the rebels had no airforce, no airdefence systems and no sophisticated weapons at all

Now imagine a run for the entire ukraine ...

When we look at civilian sectors we see that current russian technology in aviation , electronics and other advanced products is highly inferior to western products and there is no reason to believe its different in military technology when we compare latest russian to latest us systems .

Its not about blaming or underestimating russian military, the problem is russia would like to represent itself as a world class hightech military superpower which it simply is not .

[fab777]

Technology good enough for shooting down a passing by airliner, between the hands of trigger-happy military. Thus, we airline pilots should be concerned when flying over the area.

[admikar]

Technology good enough for shooting down a passing by airliner, between the hands of trigger-happy military. Thus, we airline pilots should be concerned when flying over the area.
Meh, it's not like it didn't happen to the other side too. Granted, somewhat away and earlier.

[rattman]

Meh, it's not like it didn't happen to the other side too. Granted, somewhat away and earlier.

Russians have shot down 3 airliners and one of thier own AWACS. They are way ahead

[Beamr]

Russians have shot down 3 airliners and one of thier own AWACS. They are way ahead
I've counted five plus other attempted shoot downs.

OH-ALL finnish AERO JU-52, shot down by soviet DB-3's in 1940 en route from Tallinn to Helsinki and a soviet sub then "saved" the French diplomatic mail it was carrying. Seven PAX and two crew died.

Aeroflot 902, shot down in 1962 with a missile near soviet training area. All hands lost.

Korean 902, a B707 shot down by Soviet SU-15's in 1978. 107 survived.

korean 007, B747 shot down by soviey SU-15's in 1983. No survivors.

Malaysian flight 17, a B777 downed with a russian BUK in 2014. All perished.

And the russians did try to hit even more, eg the Finnair flight 915 that was shot at by Soviets in 1987. The word is that it was not an isolated incident. It seemed to be common practice for the russians to use overflying civilian aircrafts as practice targets with occasional mishaps (eg the aeroflo 902 mentioned above). Rather astonishing really.

[Vitek]

I think syria - especially fights of aleppo - tells a lot like previously said . It tells russia had to try hard for a victory forcing some few thousands rebels out of a city where the rebels had no airforce, no airdefence systems and no sophisticated weapons at all

Now imagine a run for the entire ukraine ...

When we look at civilian sectors we see that current russian technology in aviation , electronics and other advanced products is highly inferior to western products and there is no reason to believe its different in military technology when we compare latest russian to latest us systems .

Its not about blaming or underestimating russian military, the problem is russia would like to represent itself as a world class hightech military superpower which it simply is not .

I don't see where Russia had to "try hard" in Aleppo. There was a lot of special ops involved with air support. Had there been a possibility to level the city, it would have been much easier.

Using your argument, we can come to the conclusion that the US military is inferior to just about anyone because they fled from Afghanistan after 20 years of having superior technology and boots on the ground (something Russia doesn't have in Syria other than special forces here and there) fighting against the same bearded guys with AK's, IED's and pick-up trucks.

[henra]

Using your argument, we can come to the conclusion that the US military is inferior to just about anyone because they fled from Afghanistan after 20 years of having superior technology and boots on the ground (something Russia doesn't have in Syria other than special forces here and there) fighting against the same bearded guys with AK's, IED's and pick-up trucks.
I would be careful to derive the military capability in an all-out war from the results in an attempted stabilisation mission in a remote country. Thes Soviet Army fled Afghanistan back in the day but I would never ever have concluded from that, that they might be incapabale of leading an all-out war. Just that they were tired of losing soldiers to ambushes in a strategically largely irrelevant sh*t hole Country.

[punkalouver]

An interesting article from Fox News.. In the end, one only finds out how well the military machine works during actual combat. It appears that the Bear is not as manacing as one might expect. Lets hope that the Chinese are a paper tiger........

Ukraine war: Russia's corruption is 'no doubt' affecting its military's combat performance | Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukraine-war-corruption-russian-military-affecting-performance?presentid=webnews&ocid=msedgntp)

"Historic corruption in Russia (https://www.foxnews.com/category/world/world-regions/russia) may have hit its military (https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/military) and eroded its ability to maintain its war efforts (https://www.foxnews.com/category/world/conflicts) in Ukraine (https://www.foxnews.com/category/world/conflicts/ukraine).

Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, and the war has not unfolded the way Russian President Vladimir Putin would have wanted. The British Ministry of Defense and U.S. officials regularly note that the Russian military has made slow progress (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine-invasion-russia-increasingly-frustrated-lack-of-momentum-us-defense-official), taking several days to even address day-one targets (https://www.foxnews.com/world/russia-hasnt-taken-any-of-its-major-objectives-in-first-24-hours-uk-defense-minister-says).

But more troubling for Russian troops would be the shortcomings in supplies and equipment: Pictures on social media indicate that troops carried rations that expired in 2015 and the equipment appears dated, with radio communication transmitting over open channels and lacking long-range capabilities. Tanks and vehicles abandoned during combat show evidence of poor maintenance and care.

The Russian Federation budgets for roughly $60 billion to $70 billion (https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/military-expenditure#:~:text=Military%20Expenditure%20in%20Russia%20a veraged,updated%20on%20March%20of%202022.) per year to fund its military, which helps finance salaries and training costs, maintain gear and facilities and develop or buy new weapons, gear and vehicles. If the military is not translating that into its war effort, it raises questions about whether Russia’s corruption has undermined its combat ability.

Rebekah Koffler (https://www.foxnews.com/person/k/rebekah-koffler), a former Defense Intelligence Agency officer, said that Russia has a habit of holding onto outdated equipment, but corruption is "absolutely" affecting everything, including the military, with both private businessmen and the mafia taking cuts.

"Corruption is so rampant," Koffler told Fox News Digital. "There’s not the same scrupulousness in Russia – it’s former Soviet Union, and it’s not even in the culture to check the expiration because no one would trust it anyways."

The setup in Russia between the oligarchs (https://www.foxnews.com/us/russian-oligrach-putin-chef-fbi) – billionaires who control whole sections of Russian industry – and the mafia (https://www.foxnews.com/us/notorious-russian-mobster-says-he-just-wants-to-go-home) is fairly unique compared to the West. Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Thomas Spoehr told Fox News Digital that while there is no specific organized crime ring in the military, it’s "certain" organized crime operates in the Russian military to some degree.

"We talk about how the U.S. military is a reflection of U.S. society, and we had this issue with gangs in the military not terribly long ago," Spoehr explained. "By that same notion, it would be astonishing if there wasn’t organized crime in the Russian military because Russian society is rife with organized crime. It’s almost like another economy the way Russia operates."

He said the Russian military prioritizes its navy over its army, which may contribute to the poor rations and guns seen on social media. But he added that while the Russian military ostensibly acquires new weapons and equipment through its bureau of acquisitions, there is no doubt "a certain amount of corruption." "There is graft, malfeasance, all those kinds of things," Spoehr said. "So people are skimming off the top, maybe in some cases accepting shoddy goods, sometimes enriching themselves by directing contracts to their favorite oligarch – all that stuff happens."

But Spoehr stressed that strategic issues and logistical shortcomings are likely more responsible for Russia’s shocking performance in Ukraine than could any possible corruption.

Dan Hoffman (https://www.foxnews.com/person/h/daniel-hoffman), a Fox News contributor and former CIA station chief in Moscow, argues that we can’t know to what degree corruption has impacted the Russian military – only that the troops are "challenged" and cannot say what the cause is.

He argued it is just as likely that the planned revitalization of supplies and forces following the Georgia invasion in 2008 never took hold as it should have, or it could be that the military hadn’t tried to stage a full invasion since World War II and wasn’t prepared for the realities of such an operation. "

[dagenham]

I would be more worried about what they do after all this is over. I bet you they sort these problems out. Lessons I expect will be learned just as we did after flaklands, gw1 and2 , Kosovo etc etc etc

[Beamr]

I thought they would've learned in 1939 not to take division size convoys to battle field on a single road but I was wrong. They were destroyed then in Finland, they are destroyed now in Ukraine.

[fab777]

Did anyone hear of Vitek? Or did he/she got arrested while demonstrating against the war?

[Lonewolf_50]

It appears to me that the prize Putin is seeking in the south is Mariupol. City with heavy industry and shipyard/ship repair infrastructure.
If that is taken, the subsequent completion of a land bridge, if you will, from Mother Russia to Crimea might be accomplished which would probably achieve some of Putin's goals.
Taking Kiev and installing a more pliant government there would be a "great if we can manage it" goal, but may not be a "have to have" goal.
Or maybe he's decided "all or nothing" and I miss my guess.

In either case, if you can't keep the wheels and tracks rolling, you can't achieve your objectives.
What was it Rommel said about war: "Amateurs talk about strategy and tactics, professionals talk about logistics" (Or words to that effect)
Maintenance and upkeep, and spare parts, fit into logistics.
“The battle is fought and decided by the quartermasters, long before the shooting begins.” (https://www.inspiringquotes.us/quotes/OsUx_K8ucfsB1)

[etudiant]

It appears to me that the prize Putin is seeking in the south is Mariupol. City with heavy industry and shipyard/ship repair infrastructure.
If that is taken, the subsequent completion of a land bridge, if you will, from Mother Russia to Crimea might be accomplished which would probably achieve some of Putin's goals.
Taking Kiev and installing a more pliant government there would be a "great if we can manage it" goal, but may not be a "have to have" goal.
Or maybe he's decided "all or nothing" and I miss my guess.

In either case, if you can't keep the wheels and tracks rolling, you can't achieve your objectives.
What was it Rommel said about war: "Amateurs talk about strategy and tactics, professionals talk about logistics" (Or words to that effect)
Maintenance and upkeep, and spare parts, fit into logistics.
“The battle is fought and decided by the quartermasters, long before the shooting begins.” (https://www.inspiringquotes.us/quotes/OsUx_K8ucfsB1)

Don't know about the logistics, but think that Russia's army relies heavily on rail transport, which is difficult if the switch yards are under hostile control
What is puzzling though is that the assault was widely predicted, so everyone knew it was imminent, except apparently the Russian troops and their logistics units.

[Asturias56]

it seems that most people in Russia were fed the same lines as people in the West - they really don't understand why Putin has launched an unprovoked attack on people they know and quite like.

[Herod]

The way I understand the invasion is that Putin didn't tell anyone, either political or military, what his aim was. The military planning was based on a short conflict, either to the front-lines of the new "republics" or to the boundary of the Donbass. That would have been feasible in 48-72 hours, and food, fuel, ammunition etc sufficient for that was on the border. That seems to be one reason everything has been slowed. Add to those problems the situation where a lot of the younger (conscripted?) troops though they were on exercise, not at war, and you are ripe for desertion, mutiny, internal sabotage.

[dead_pan]

With regard to the thread title, I think we have now have a definitive answer: "They don't".

Putin has fallen for the classic dictator's mistake of investing in shiny, crowd-pleasing assets, not the boring stuff like truck tyres, edible rations for the troops etc etc.

[Asturias56]

IIRC a substantial number of conscripts are coming to the end of their stint - not a great recipe for getting people to risk their lives ............

[beardy]

There is an interesting viewpoint that Russian military procurement was channeled through the hands of 'friends' each of whom took an 'introductory' commission. The end product being well publicised and glitzy, but underfunded and of poor quality.

[punkalouver]

With regard to the thread title, I think we have now have a definitive answer: "They don't".

Putin has fallen for the classic dictator's mistake of investing in shiny, crowd-pleasing assets, not the boring stuff like truck tyres, edible rations for the troops etc etc.


Looks like they made a mistake of relying on cheap tires. Too perfect........

"A massive column of Russian armour believed to be intended for an assault on Kyiv remains inexplicably stopped outside the city. The best guess of military analysts is that poorly maintained Russian trucks have been breaking down en masse (https://nationalpost.com/news/world/top-four-reasons-the-snaking-russian-military-convoy-hasnt-moved-for-days) , all while cheaply made Chinese tires suffer repeated blowouts."

Maybe we should start airlifting nails to them for the roadways.

[NutLoose]

Maybe we should start airlifting nails to them for the roadways.

Use ebay and they deliver ;)

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/334349096537?_trkparms=amclksrc%3DITM%26aid%3D1110006%26algo %3DHOMESPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D237146%26meid%3Ded810a4c6 26a457196d121ce80fcfd86%26pid%3D101195%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D12%2 6sd%3D313894554964%26itm%3D334349096537%26pmt%3D1%26noa%3D0% 26pg%3D2047675%26algv%3DSimplAMLv9PairwiseWebMskuAspectsV202 110NoVariantSeed%26brand%3DUnbranded&_trksid=p2047675.c101195.m1851&amdata=cksum%3A334349096537ed810a4c626a457196d121ce80fcfd86% 7Cenc%3AAQAGAAACINjQgqJHpJVb2t7sOTH2pEB2O7%252FbOPoc4MoL9BWc wYaAJBpBLwibl%252FS2J2Wjeyij27BktfR3ttkKTTcx4odI1aPMwvsQhH3X Gik%252BENbSTEVhEuGvgveiv0rE9qDU2cu5u4KGpp9lmjEpVay7cnTA2LGn AGL5CqX12X50IKdH%252FHhjoqWGId5W9INaRfNv8VYYp6ab8B%252BEIMee QYPW0qg5P3Ko7NoM3zzLx92062Ytcjh3RAdDIPopmoyXPdT0a4oJeuwKoYAm tjz7xULalBRMKkjV5sOrseA4j05oHEMWZtwg8xVGTAlCyM%252BEjyDvGGDh MX20cjblGaEGhO98pOK2MtP4ET0g59At5Xzlp8tDfm%252BjGro8HNCROd6D MF4wUM9dudalphF%252FPaIRS%252BoysqBeWt4S42feUVKSFe%252FPOPvA etjDpjQOCRT3IArKw%252B3jjXnhHECsLBjvXl6%252FMccuuTO36fbfSs3A N4GB%252Bj0G%252BHNiYO3Ms9prWZwpgxZc3p7OquUeCfIcy9MPTMnkVWJb FMm1joKKRkM7zGaDC6k77VrzWb3mr22%252B%252FlQ7NYXHbVkmY2Ar4T%2 52F7UJNslt0Wms0T3KRnNNySqe4wH4fz3wqsZfBsGilN474dAJuWAWKbTL48 eSDzWo39%252F7W0cneKiSDqAX2w0Lwk5Lyq%252BLogIjh0tW0cCipjRXeS 6GnYwNfTJ1CatQC1luA1H06uVHe7x3fa7%252Fomigk%253D%7Campid%3AP L_CLK%7Cclp%3A2047675

[skridlov]

During the Italian campaign in WW2 a tank officer spoke to some surrendered artillery officers from a unit that had been devastating Allied armour with their unsurpassed 88mm guns. One German officer remarked "we ran out of ammunition before you ran out of tanks". However crappy the Russian hardware, they have a lot of it. Likewise cannon-fodder.

[The Helpful Stacker]

During the Italian campaign in WW2 a tank officer spoke to some surrendered artillery officers from a unit that had been devastating Allied armour with their unsurpassed 88mm guns. One German officer remarked "we ran out of ammunition before you ran out of tanks". However crappy the Russian hardware, they have a lot of it. Likewise cannon-fodder.

They may have a lot of it, but they don't seem to have anywhere near enough fuel bowsers to keep it moving.

If the Germans hadn't run out of 88mm ammunition???

As a former Wing Mong (TSW) it's good to see that the importance of Logistics is finally being recognised by the wider media.

[Beamr]

This thread has fulfilled its purpose: now we all know the russians aren't miracle workers. Pay nuts etc, applies to HW too.
There was speculation regarding if Putin declares Martial law, he could muster 2 million men. I'd reckon the issues would just multiply, that army would be soviet legacy by equipment AND training. Now we've seen the young conscripts and contract soldiers. Then, at worst, we'd see people who received their training in the early 90's using equipment dug out from the darkest warehouses forgotten long ago. Imagine those being fed to NATO as the great panty poisoner goes all in...

[SLXOwft]

“The battle is fought and decided by the quartermasters, long before the shooting begins.” (https://www.inspiringquotes.us/quotes/OsUx_K8ucfsB1)

Putin might have benefited from thinking about these quotes from Marshal Zhukov, after making the relevant substitutions.

It is a fact that under equal conditions, large-scale battles and whole wars are wonlost by troops which have a strong little will for victory, no clear goals before them, highlow moral standards, and little devotion to the banner under which they go into battle.

'NazisPutin did not expect Soviet Ukrainian resistance to be so strong. The deeper they moved into this country'sUkrainian territory, the more fierce it became. When HitlerPutin's armies approached Moscow Kyiv, every man and woman here thought it imperative to resist the enemy. And that resistance grew by the day. The enemyarmy was sustaining heavy losses, one after another. In fact, Hitler Putin's best troops perished here. NazisHe believed the Red Ukrainian Army was not capable of defending MoscowKyiv, but their schemes failed.'


Unfortunately, I think he may be believing in this one:
'The longer the battle lasts the more force we'll have to use!'

[punkalouver]

Hey, with all this new defense spending coming up, I think I know where we should get our fighters from. Why pay ridiculous amounts on F-35's when you can get these jam-proof aircraft which are still flying:

"while Kyiv has modernized its armed forces, its Soviet-era planes have not been upgraded, and use the same communications systems as the Russian army -- meaning Moscow cannot cripple the Ukrainians without hurting their own effort."