Anatomy of Failed War: Russia’s Military ‘Fundamentally Vulnerable,’ New Report Reveals

[Tigerace117]

Your denial of Russian casualties in Ukraine is comical and renders everything you say pointless and lame. Russia has suffered over a million casualties in their war and that is not debatable.

Yes, multiple recent studies and government estimates from June 2025 indicate that Russia has suffered over 1 million casualties in the war in Ukraine, including killed and wounded soldiers, with some analyses putting the death toll at approximately 250,000 and total casualties (killed and wounded) over 950,000 to 1 million. These figures are considered a historical milestone, representing a significant and staggering human toll for Russia and outnumbering fatalities in all Soviet and Russian wars combined since World War II.

Troop Casualties in Ukraine War Near 1.4 Million, According to CSIS Study​

Nearly one million Russian troops have been killed or wounded in the country’s war against Ukraine, according to a new study by CSIS. The study also said that close to 400,000 Ukrainian troops have also been killed or wounded since the war began. That would put the overall casualty figure, for Russian and Ukrainian troops combined, at almost 1.4 million, as the NYT reports.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/eveni...alties-us-have-slower-growth-truckin-and-more

It’s not debatable that Russia has field hospitals, yet you tried to deny that, to name just one example of why your claims have no credibility.

 

[Jredbaron96]

According to you the terrain in Chechnya isn’t even bad and the infrastructure is perfect, so clearly they weren’t doing much of anything other than standing around counting trees.

Do you think Afghanistan had better infrastructure than the USSR did?

The Soviets lost over a thousand armored vehicles deployed across Afghanistan. That’s not a small number, in case you hadn’t noticed.

Over the course of a nine year war. Come on man, who do you think you're fooling?

Afghanistan being a larger country doesn’t change how remote it or Chechnya is.

Chechnya is connected to the rest of Russia via a rail and road network.



The R217 is literally called the Caucasus Highway, not to mention the smaller regional highways. It's not nearly as remote as Afghanistan was to ISAF.

Ignoring things like the Russian habit of stockpiling vast stores of weaponry, which allows them to alleviate some of said logistical weakness, as well as the fact that soldiers receiving erratic pay—if they were paid at all— has disastrous effects on morale and means massing them has very real, very hard limitations.
It really doesn’t matter how many soldiers you mass if they don’t want to be there.

Now you're bringing morale into the mix, something you can't quantify in any meaningful measure beyond arbitrary metric.

Given your utter refusal to acknowledge things as basic as the oppressive nature of the U.S. in Latin America— as I already pointed out, there was no genocidal campaign against the Mayans going on before the U.S. crushed Guatemala’s democracy— your talk of “skill” doesn’t really have any meaning

It's because it's irrelevant and because you don't actually know how to assess the skill-at-arms of a fighting force.

 

[radioman]

It's what happens when you have an entire military run by sycophants who suck up to an egotistical leader and are reluctant to communicate actuality but instead trained to pretend things are top notch and ready when they are really not.

I'll just bet that if Putin had changed his "Department of Defence" to the "Department of War", Russia would have won easily.

 

[Tigerace117]

Do you think Afghanistan had better infrastructure than the USSR did?



Over the course of a nine year war. Come on man, who do you think you're fooling?



Chechnya is connected to the rest of Russia via a rail and road network.

View attachment 67587499

The R217 is literally called the Caucasus Highway, not to mention the smaller regional highways. It's not nearly as remote as Afghanistan was to ISAF.



Now you're bringing morale into the mix, something you can't quantify in any meaningful measure beyond arbitrary metric.



It's because it's irrelevant and because you don't actually know how to assess the skill-at-arms of a fighting force.

Do you think the USSR’s infrastructure was somehow all uniformly the same level? Because, for example, there were almost certainly places in, for example, the Central Asian SSRs right across the Caspian whose infrastructure was easily as bad as anything in Afghanistan.

Yeah, over those nine years they sent in a lot more vehicles than the ones who were destroyed.

Oh look, a nice fancy line. The Germans also saw lots of nice fancy lines on their maps too. Guess what was often the case when they actually showed up?

Chechnya is only part of the Caucasus, and you were the one going on about how small it is.

Uh, yeah, because all of those problems—like Russia not being able to reliably pay their guys—directly affected morale.

It’s not irrelevant in the slightest given you wanted to know why China hasn’t set up its own version of NATO in South America, and have essentially been burying your head in the sand every time you are given an answer you don’t want to face.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Do you think the USSR’s infrastructure was somehow all uniformly the same level? Because, for example, there were almost certainly places in, for example, the Central Asian SSRs right across the Caspian whose infrastructure was easily as bad as anything in Afghanistan.

Do you have any evidence this was the case for Chechnya, or that this is even true?

Yeah, over those nine years they sent in a lot more vehicles than the ones who were destroyed.

Is that supposed to counter what I said?

Oh look, a nice fancy line. The Germans also saw lots of nice fancy lines on their maps too. Guess what was often the case when they actually showed up?

While the Chechens did attempt to sabotage routes of advance employed by the Russians, as they were trying to carve out their own independent state they did not engage in the kind of whole-sale scorched earth policy similar to what the Soviets did during WW2 that you're mentioning.

Chechnya is only part of the Caucasus, and you were the one going on about how small it is.

Yes it is small, and it's connected to the rest of Russia by several means of transportation, so pretending like it's as remote as Afghanistan is inaccurate.

Uh, yeah, because all of those problems—like Russia not being able to reliably pay their guys—directly affected morale.

Which doesn't do anything to support your arguments where you tried to claim that logistically Chechnya was as daunting as Afghanistan. It seems more like you're trying to switch gears.

It’s not irrelevant in the slightest given you wanted to know why China hasn’t set up its own version of NATO in South America,

It is irrelevant because it's Cold War history and bears little relation to the geopolitical situation today.

 

[Tigerace117]

Do you have any evidence this was the case for Chechnya, or that this is even true?



Is that supposed to counter what I said?



While the Chechens did attempt to sabotage routes of advance employed by the Russians, as they were trying to carve out their own independent state they did not engage in the kind of whole-sale scorched earth policy similar to what the Soviets did during WW2 that you're mentioning.



Yes it is small, and it's connected to the rest of Russia by several means of transportation, so pretending like it's as remote as Afghanistan is inaccurate.



Which doesn't do anything to support your arguments where you tried to claim that logistically Chechnya was as daunting as Afghanistan. It seems more like you're trying to switch gears.



It is irrelevant because it's Cold War history and bears little relation to the geopolitical situation today.

Yes, there’s plenty of evidence that Chechnya is a remote and largely overlooked region. You’ve already established you simply ignore any facts you don’t like, though.

Thanks for demonstrating my point again.

I was actually referring to the fact many Soviet roads and infrastructure routes were not anywhere near as large or advanced as they appeared on the maps, which the Germans stumbled into.

Afghanistan bordered the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Does that mean it wasn’t remote back then, and only became “remote” when they left?

It absolutely does, because, again, the U.S. didn’t have those problems due to the fact its economy allowed it to throughly maintain its military.

Tell that to the Venezuelans the US just blew up.

Or the Mexicans who keep hearing threats about the U.S. attacking them.

 

[braindrain]

You tend to bash everyone except Russia.

But that's been your sop whenever commenting on Putin's war.

No that’s only been his SOP since he got kicked out of basic training.
He used to be rather pro US military.

But he simply hasn’t gotten over being butt hurt because the US military showed him who he really is.

 

[Tigerace117]

No that’s only been his SOP since he got kicked out of basic training.
He used to be rather pro US military.

But he simply hasn’t gotten over being butt hurt because the US military showed him who he really is.

L88 got kicked out of basic training? When did that happen?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Yes, there’s plenty of evidence that Chechnya is a remote and largely overlooked region

Where is this evidence proving that it was more logistically challenging moving Russian forces into Chechnya then it was supplying ISAF in Afghanistan?

Thanks for demonstrating my point again.

What point?

I was actually referring to the fact many Soviet roads and infrastructure routes were not anywhere near as large or advanced as they appeared on the maps, which the Germans stumbled into.

That was 1941. The Chechen War took place 50 years later. Who told you the Soviets never build any more roads or railroads after WW2?

Afghanistan bordered the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Does that mean it wasn’t remote back then, and only became “remote” when they left?

No I'd say Afghanistan was remote owing to the fact that it had less than 1,600 miles of paved road and no railways, with essentially only two major points of egress from the USSR, one of which the Soviets had to build after the war started.

It absolutely does, because, again, the U.S. didn’t have those problems due to the fact its economy allowed it to throughly maintain its military.

No it doesn't. This is an amateurish view of logistics. The US having lots of money to spend purchasing transportation equipment and logistical hardware doesn't erase the work that goes into maintaining a logistical network (the actual manpower, hours of planning, research, and labor) that goes into maintaining a supply chain the scale ISAF needed to support it's presence in Afghanistan. This isn't a video game where you just buy buildings that generate supplies for your troops.

 

[Fledermaus]

No that’s only been his SOP since he got kicked out of basic training.
He used to be rather pro US military.

But he simply hasn’t gotten over being butt hurt because the US military showed him who he really is.

And he will play stupid about it.

 

[braindrain]

And he will play stupid about it.

Well it is him so yeah that goes without saying.

 

[Peacenik]

I'll just bet that if Putin had changed his "Department of Defence" to the "Department of War", Russia would have won easily.

Maybe Trump should change the Executive Branch to the Department of Insults.

 

[Tigerace117]

Where is this evidence proving that it was more logistically challenging moving Russian forces into Chechnya then it was supplying ISAF in Afghanistan?



What point?



That was 1941. The Chechen War took place 50 years later. Who told you the Soviets never build any more roads or railroads after WW2?



No I'd say Afghanistan was remote owing to the fact that it had less than 1,600 miles of paved road and no railways, with essentially only two major points of egress from the USSR, one of which the Soviets had to build after the war started.



No it doesn't. This is an amateurish view of logistics. The US having lots of money to spend purchasing transportation equipment and logistical hardware doesn't erase the work that goes into maintaining a logistical network (the actual manpower, hours of planning, research, and labor) that goes into maintaining a supply chain the scale ISAF needed to support it's presence in Afghanistan. This isn't a video game where you just buy buildings that generate supplies for your troops.

As already pointed out, it’s fascinating how regions suddenly become remote or not remote depending on whether your argument finds it convenient.

That every time you get caught saying something particularly nonsensical you resort to pretending you have no clue what the point was.

And yet it can’t change the fact that just because a line exists on a map that doesn’t make it automatically a high quality line in real life.

Chechnya is so remote its entire history section under Soviet rule amounts to, like, two paragraphs

Chechnya | History, Location, Religion, & Facts | Britannica

Chechnya, republic in southwestern Russia, situated on the northern flank of the Greater Caucasus range. It is bordered by Russia proper on the north, Dagestan republic on the east and southeast, the country of Georgia on the southwest, and Ingushetiya republic on the west.

www.britannica.com

And the U.S. had the resources to reliably pay the workers involved in maintenance and those involved in planning, develop new techniques, and generally wage war halfway across the globe.

The Russians very much did not.

Your attempt to avoid facing up to current U.S. behavior is noted, though.

 

[Jredbaron96]

As already pointed out, it’s fascinating how regions suddenly become remote or not remote depending on whether your argument finds it convenient.

This has nothing to do with it; the issue is you are trying to argue that Chechnya is as remote to Russia as Afghanistan was to ISAF.

Most of your arguments start out similar- you present a counterfactual that is, at least partially or directionaly, correct, but then through osmosis and expansion you use it as a basis to attack any rebuttal. Yes, Chechnya is more remote than say Moscow or St. Petersburg, and I'd say is less developed than either. But you have taken that and run with to the point you're now trying to say that Chechnya is as remote and underdeveloped as Afghanistan was. Which is absurd at face value, and you've been reduced to citing WW2 as proof that Russian roadways aren't actually in good condition after it was pointed out the region is connected to the rest of Russia via multiple motorways and railroads.

Does this look like Afghanistan in 2001?

And yet it can’t change the fact that just because a line exists on a map that doesn’t make it automatically a high quality line in real life.

You haven't demonstrated at all that the roads and rails in Chechnya were in no better shape than Afghanistan.

Chechnya is so remote its entire history section under Soviet rule amounts to, like, two paragraphs

Chechnya | History, Location, Religion, & Facts | Britannica

Chechnya, republic in southwestern Russia, situated on the northern flank of the Greater Caucasus range. It is bordered by Russia proper on the north, Dagestan republic on the east and southeast, the country of Georgia on the southwest, and Ingushetiya republic on the west.

www.britannica.com

Your argument that Chechnya is as remote as Afghanistan is that an online encyclopedia only has two entries for its contemporary history? This isn't evidence at all.

And the U.S. had the resources to reliably pay the workers involved in maintenance and those involved in planning, develop new techniques, and generally wage war halfway across the globe.

And? That's not where the hard work of logistics comes into play. Again, it's not a video game where you just spend money and "wallah! We have logistics!"

The Russians very much did not.

You keep saying this, yet the Russians were able to support multiple mechanized thrusts into Chechnya and later sustain 80,000 troops in theater. Clearly, the money issue isn't as big of a deal as you think it was.

Your attempt to avoid facing up to current U.S. behavior is noted, though.

Because it's functionally irrelevant.

 

[Tigerace117]

This has nothing to do with it; the issue is you are trying to argue that Chechnya is as remote to Russia as Afghanistan was to ISAF.

Most of your arguments start out similar- you present a counterfactual that is, at least partially or directionaly, correct, but then through osmosis and expansion you use it as a basis to attack any rebuttal. Yes, Chechnya is more remote than say Moscow or St. Petersburg, and I'd say is less developed than either. But you have taken that and run with to the point you're now trying to say that Chechnya is as remote and underdeveloped as Afghanistan was. Which is absurd at face value, and you've been reduced to citing WW2 as proof that Russian roadways aren't actually in good condition after it was pointed out the region is connected to the rest of Russia via multiple motorways and railroads.

Does this look like Afghanistan in 2001?



View attachment 67587619

View attachment 67587620




You haven't demonstrated at all that the roads and rails in Chechnya were in no better shape than Afghanistan.



Your argument that Chechnya is as remote as Afghanistan is that an online encyclopedia only has two entries for its contemporary history? This isn't evidence at all.



And? That's not where the hard work of logistics comes into play. Again, it's not a video game where you just spend money and "wallah! We have logistics!"



You keep saying this, yet the Russians were able to support multiple mechanized thrusts into Chechnya and later sustain 80,000 troops in theater. Clearly, the money issue isn't as big of a deal as you think it was.



Because it's functionally irrelevant.

Gee, I guess Afghanistan isn’t remote, then, because I can find nice pictures of it not looking all war- torn too.

My point, as I already stated, is that just because you can point to a map and say “they have a road here!”—or highway, as the case may be—doesn’t actually mean the actual road on the ground is in pristine, military suitable conditions.

Especially given, as I also just showed, Chechnya was quiet, not in a region of vital importance, and nothing much appears to have happened there from 1960 until 1991.

You keep trying to talk about Chechnya as if it’s Kansas, and as I already showed, the terrain isn’t even remotely close.

Encyclopedia Britannica isn’t exactly an obscure source dude. Just look at their articles on late Soviet and post independence Ukraine for an easy comparison.

The Soviets deployed more than that in Afghanistan. They had a hundred and fifteen thousand there in 1987. Does that mean Afghanistan isn’t remote? After all, it shared a border with the Soviet Union.

It absolutely is relevant when you are asking what China hasn’t created its own NATO in Latin America.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Gee, I guess Afghanistan isn’t remote, then, because I can find nice pictures of it not looking all war- torn too.

This city has visible mountains surrounding it.

My point, as I already stated, is that just because you can point to a map and say “they have a road here!”—or highway, as the case may be—doesn’t actually mean the actual road on the ground is in pristine, military suitable conditions.

If it wasn't in suitable use for military purposes, how do you propose the Russians used them to invade Chechnya in the first place? Did you even think that through before you typed it?

Especially given, as I also just showed, Chechnya was quiet, not in a region of vital importance, and nothing much appears to have happened there from 1960 until 1991.

Nowhere in that citation does it say there was no infrastructure built in Chechnya prior to the conflict. I had already pointed out that there was railway construction done less then years prior to the conflict, and now you're trying to pretend there was just nothing built in chechnya before the war? This is likes claiming that if wikipedia doesn't mention George Washington ever taken a piss it means he didn't have a urinary tract.

You keep trying to talk about Chechnya as if it’s Kansas, and as I already showed, the terrain isn’t even remotely close.

Actually, the north of Chechnya is fairly flat, which you would know if you have actually done your research into this. Even south of the Terek it still take some time for hit the mountains. Coincidentally, this is where most of the population lives.

Encyclopedia Britannica isn’t exactly an obscure source dude. Just look at their articles on late Soviet and post independence Ukraine for an easy comparison.

The fact that the article doesn't or break down whatever engineering infrastructure projects took place prior to the chechenya conflict doesn't mean it didn't happen. This is a moronic argument.

The Soviets deployed more than that in Afghanistan. They had a hundred and fifteen thousand there in 1987. Does that mean Afghanistan isn’t remote? After all, it shared a border with the Soviet Union.

Afghanistan is thirty five times the size of chechnya. Yet the russians only ended deploying about thirty percent more troops in Afghanistan than Chechnya. Dutung which they had to build a whole new bridge, because their existing infrastructure wasn't enough to support their troop movement. All you're doing is reinforcing my point about troop density.

It absolutely is relevant when you are asking what China hasn’t created its own NATO in Latin America.

No it isn't.

 

[Tigerace117]

This city has visible mountains surrounding it.



If it wasn't in suitable use for military purposes, how do you propose the Russians used them to invade Chechnya in the first place? Did you even think that through before you typed it?



Nowhere in that citation does it say there was no infrastructure built in Chechnya prior to the conflict. I had already pointed out that there was railway construction done less then years prior to the conflict, and now you're trying to pretend there was just nothing built in chechnya before the war? This is likes claiming that if wikipedia doesn't mention George Washington ever taken a piss it means he didn't have a urinary tract.



Actually, the north of Chechnya is fairly flat, which you would know if you have actually done your research into this. Even south of the Terek it still take some time for hit the mountains. Coincidentally, this is where most of the population lives.

View attachment 67587650



The fact that the article doesn't or break down whatever engineering infrastructure projects took place prior to the chechenya conflict doesn't mean it didn't happen. This is a moronic argument.



Afghanistan is thirty five times the size of chechnya. Yet the russians only ended deploying about thirty percent more troops in Afghanistan than Chechnya. Dutung which they had to build a whole new bridge, because their existing infrastructure wasn't enough to support their troop movement. All you're doing is reinforcing my point about troop density.





No it isn't.

Yeah, there were visible mountains in the picture of Chechnya I posted as well. Your point is…what?

The Russians clearly didn’t think it would be a long conflict, as you just said.

Going “Chechnya wasn’t total wilderness!” Is meaningless. Afghanistan wasn’t total wilderness either.

Grozny itself is south of the Terek, dude.

Tell that to the Venezuelans the U.S. just killed because…err….reasons?

Btw, all that complaining you keep doing about me “hating America” is even less relevant seeing as the president keeps talking about how much he wants to bomb the city I live in.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Yeah, there were visible mountains in the picture of Chechnya I posted as well. Your point is…what?

You havent demonstrated at all that Chehcnyan infrastructure was as bad as Afghanistan and are at the point where you are trying to insinuate that the roads the Russians drove tank divisions down into Chechnya weren't suitable for military use. What do you think they did, hover?

Going “Chechnya wasn’t total wilderness!” Is meaningless. Afghanistan wasn’t total wilderness either.

I never even said that. I pointed out that Chechnya isnt as remote as Afghanistan and pretending otherwise is foolish.

Grozny itself is south of the Terek, dude.

"Even south of the Terek it still take some time for hit the mountains. Coincidentally, this is where most of the population lives."



BTW, what do you think all those lines leading into Grozny are? Roads, maybe?

 

[Tigerace117]

You havent demonstrated at all that Chehcnyan infrastructure was as bad as Afghanistan and are at the point where you are trying to insinuate that the roads the Russians drove tank divisions down into Chechnya weren't suitable for military use. What do you think they did, hover?



I never even said that. I pointed out that Chechnya isnt as remote as Afghanistan and pretending otherwise is foolish.



"Even south of the Terek it still take some time for hit the mountains. Coincidentally, this is where most of the population lives."

View attachment 67587671

BTW, what do you think all those lines leading into Grozny are? Roads, maybe?

Multiple armored units were deployed with the 40th Army, so that objective is meaningless.

You still haven’t answered how Afghanistan was remote when the Soviet Union invaded, while Chechnya wasn’t, despite both sharing a border.

So yes, going “but it’s flat north of the Terek” means little.

How many roads do you think can handle thousands of armored vehicles, exactly?

Oh, and since the president keeps fantasizing he’s Colonel Kilgore and my city is that random fishing village, why should I give a shit about America, again?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Multiple armored units were deployed with the 40th Army, so that objective is meaningless.

The 40th Army actually mostly motor rifle and Airborne troops. Some of the tank formations they had were later converted to motor rifle formation as well.

You still haven’t answered how Afghanistan was remote when the Soviet Union invaded, while Chechnya wasn’t, despite both sharing a border.

There was only one actual land route into Afghanistan from the USSR, a tunnel the Soviets had built decadea earlier. This was insufficient, so they had to build a bridge as well. And above all this, Afghanistan still only har about 1600 miles of paved road, with another ~35,000 of usable dirt road, in a country of 250K square miles. Hence why the Soviets had to dispatch multiple brigades and regiments of construction and engineering troops to expand the infrastructure.

By comparison Chechnya was already interconnected with rail and roadways that allowed the Russians to advance on Grozny from three different directions. What engineering troops the Russians did bring it were to repair existing infrastructure and battle damage.

So yes, going “but it’s flat north of the Terek” means little.

Its also pretty flat south of the Terek, including much of the area around Grozny. You dont hit serious mountainous areas until you go ever further south of Grozny.

How many roads do you think can handle thousands of armored vehicles, exactly?

Evidently the roads in Chechnya can: the Russians dispatched multiple corps worth of troops on them.

 

[Tigerace117]

The 40th Army actually mostly motor rifle and Airborne troops. Some of the tank formations they had were later converted to motor rifle formation as well.



There was only one actual land route into Afghanistan from the USSR, a tunnel the Soviets had built decadea earlier. This was insufficient, so they had to build a bridge as well. And above all this, Afghanistan still only har about 1600 miles of paved road, with another ~35,000 of usable dirt road, in a country of 250K square miles. Hence why the Soviets had to dispatch multiple brigades and regiments of construction and engineering troops to expand the infrastructure.

By comparison Chechnya was already interconnected with rail and roadways that allowed the Russians to advance on Grozny from three different directions. What engineering troops the Russians did bring it were to repair existing infrastructure and battle damage.



Its also pretty flat south of the Terek, including much of the area around Grozny. You dont hit serious mountainous areas until you go ever further south of Grozny.

View attachment 67587679




Evidently the roads in Chechnya can: the Russians dispatched multiple corps worth of troops on them.

Many motor rifle divisions, despite the official doctrine, included integrated tank formations, so that doesn’t mean a whole lot. They had no shortage of armor to call on. BMPs aren’t exactly small vehicles either.

Just look at the famous Tamanskaya Division for an example.

You were literally just talking about all the railroad troops the Russians apparently had to deploy to invade Chechnya.

I guess I’ll repeat it: since the president keeps fantasizing he’s Colonel Kilgore and my city is that random fishing village, why should I give a shit about America, again?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Many motor rifle divisions, despite the official doctrine, included integrated tank formations, so that doesn’t mean a whole lot.

What do you mean "despite the official doctrine"?

Motor rifle divisions having tanks was the norm. Soviet tank and motor rifle divisions were rectangular divisions on a 3:1 ratio; so a motor rifle division had three regiments of motor rifle troops and then one regiments of tanks; vise versa for the tank divisions. The same pattern was repeated at the regimentsl level, just with subordinate battalions.

In Afghanistan though most tank formations were broken down into smaller tactical elements because of their limited utility in theater.

They had no shortage of armor to call on. BMPs aren’t exactly small vehicles either.

?

BMPs are small vehicles. In fact their kinda notorious for being cramped, especially BMP-1s.

And in reality the 40th Army was light on armored vehicles. Before Afghanistan it was considered part of the internal military districts and thus was short on modern equipment, which was reserved for divisions in Europe and near China. As the war dragged on the Soviets gradually transitioned to fewer armored units and more light infantry, but this was a gradual change as it was entirely against the Soviet norm.

You were literally just talking about all the railroad troops the Russians apparently had to deploy to invade Chechnya.

To repair damage inflicted on existing rail infrastructure by Chechen saboteurs, not to create whole new civil infrastructure from scratch. Because Chechnya was connected with the rest of Russia by rail, the Chechens tried to destroy them to inhibit the flow of Russian troops into Chechnya.

I guess I’ll repeat it: since the president keeps fantasizing he’s Colonel Kilgore and my city is that random fishing village, why should I give a shit about America, again?

Moving to Canada from the USA

Interested in moving to Canada from the US? Check out guide to the Canadian immigration process from the United States to Canada.

www.canadim.com

 

[Tigerace117]

What do you mean "despite the official doctrine"?

Motor rifle divisions having tanks was the norm. Soviet tank and motor rifle divisions were rectangular divisions on a 3:1 ratio; so a motor rifle division had three regiments of motor rifle troops and then one regiments of tanks; vise versa for the tank divisions. The same pattern was repeated at the regimentsl level, just with subordinate battalions.

In Afghanistan though most tank formations were broken down into smaller tactical elements because of their limited utility in theater.



?

BMPs are small vehicles. In fact their kinda notorious for being cramped, especially BMP-1s.

And in reality the 40th Army was light on armored vehicles. Before Afghanistan it was considered part of the internal military districts and thus was short on modern equipment, which was reserved for divisions in Europe and near China. As the war dragged on the Soviets gradually transitioned to fewer armored units and more light infantry, but this was a gradual change as it was entirely against the Soviet norm.



To repair damage inflicted on existing rail infrastructure by Chechen saboteurs, not to create whole new civil infrastructure from scratch. Because Chechnya was connected with the rest of Russia by rail, the Chechens tried to destroy them to inhibit the flow of Russian troops into Chechnya.

Moving to Canada from the USA

Interested in moving to Canada from the US? Check out guide to the Canadian immigration process from the United States to Canada.

www.canadim.com

The original “official” thing was motor rifle units were supposed to go where tank units couldn’t.

“The main force of the post-war Soviet ground forces was split into Tank Divisions and Motor Rifle Divisions. Whereas Tank Divisions were designed for rapid breakthrough and exploitation, Motor Rifle divisions were designed for areas unsuitable for tanks, and attacking heavily fortified positions. Because of their high mobility, the motor rifle divisions could keep pace with the tank divisions.”

Motor Rifle Troops (Soviet Union) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

? A BMP-1 can carry eight dudes plus crew. The BMP-2 carries seven. That’s not all that far off from the ten or eleven other APCs I’ve seen mentioned carry. I’ve been in an M113, it’s not exactly roomy.

Yeah, it was short on modern stuff because it wasn’t in area expected to see any sort of significant combat.

Given the president keeps talking about annexing Canada, is that supposed to he helpful?

 

[Jredbaron96]

“The main force of the post-war Soviet ground forces was split into Tank Divisions and Motor Rifle Divisions. Whereas Tank Divisions were designed for rapid breakthrough and exploitation, Motor Rifle divisions were designed for areas unsuitable for tanks, and attacking heavily fortified positions. Because of their high mobility, the motor rifle divisions could keep pace with the tank divisions.”

I have to assume the language in the document this quote is picked from is referring to operational level maneuvers, because it includes the tank regiment of the MRD in the very next page describing the MRDs ORBAT, and even mentions the Soviet practice of organizing combined arms battalion elements.

? A BMP-1 can carry eight dudes plus crew. The BMP-2 carries seven. That’s not all that far off from the ten or eleven other APCs I’ve seen mentioned carry. I’ve been in an M113, it’s not exactly roomy.

I've been in a BMP-1. I was in shorts and a t shirt and it was still cramped, I couldnt imagine being in it with my battle rattle. The BMP1 is less than 7 feet tall.



I havent been inside an M113, but I've been inside a Bradley and the difference was stark.

Given the president keeps talking about annexing Canada, is that supposed to he helpful?

How to Move to Ireland from USA | Emigrate to Ireland | IAS

In this guide, we will set out everything you need to know about moving to Ireland from US, including the different routes and visas.

us.iasservices.org.uk