Russia - Military Strength vs Expenditure. How do they do it?
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
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
Paxing All Over The World
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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"
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,880
Received 2,824 Likes
on
1,204 Posts
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.
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.
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.
The one area they have gone large is in missiles, although again much of this are developments of legacy kit.
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.
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.
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?
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?
It's easier if they don't share. Median wealth per person.
11 United Kingdom * 131,522
91 Russia * 5,431
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...alth_per_adult
11 United Kingdom * 131,522
91 Russia * 5,431
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...alth_per_adult
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.
Last edited by Recc; 26th Jan 2022 at 11:56.
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.
There must be a reason why they only attack regionally piece by piece and not by big style major war.
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.
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?
till, as the saying goes: quantity has a quality all of its own
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.
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.
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.
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.
You could see in Syria how vulnerable tanks have become against RPG style missiles.
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.
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.