# Lesson to be learned from the Ukraine conflict for NATO and Canada?



## Colin Parkinson (8 Sep 2014)

Looking at the pictures from the conflict I see a lot of destroyed armour, including MBT's. Most seem to be taken out by artillery strikes, Grad systems seem to be the main culprit. I suspect NATO would be in a for a rude shock from Russian artillery and it's effects. That artillery would also be well protected by a competent AD and Air Force. My take away is that we are weak on the counter battery systems and I am not sure that tactically we are prepared for such a threat, just coming from a heavy COIN theatre. Any thoughts?


----------



## Lightguns (8 Sep 2014)

I concur WRT our capabilities, adding in a total lack of AD.  BUT, I am not sure that the Russian army is very capable beyond the two airborne divisions, half dozen Chechen Motor Brigades and Crimean Naval Infantry units that keep popping up in the various theatres.  It seems to me that everyone on Russia's borders is fighting the same 40,000 guys at different times.  They are massing local superiority but can they do the same on a wider more complex front?  Can they do a larger war with the West and keep Chenhena, Dagestan, Ukraine, Georgia and the China quiet?  There is also the troop concentration to ensure the Japanese do not take their islands back.  Over extended they are and they are hiding it with bluster!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Sep 2014)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I concur WRT our capabilities, adding in a total lack of AD.  BUT, I am not sure that the Russian army is very capable beyond the two airborne divisions, half dozen Chechen Motor Brigades and Crimean Naval Infantry units that keep popping up in the various theatres.  It seems to me that everyone on Russia's borders is fighting the same 40,000 guys at different times.  They are massing local superiority but can they do the same on a wider more complex front?  Can they do a larger war with the West and keep Chenhena, Dagestan, Ukraine, Georgia and the China quiet?  There is also the troop concentration to ensure the Japanese do not take their islands back.  Over extended they are and they are hiding it with bluster!



Not so certain about this, it only took a few years for the Nazis to turn the Wehrmacht into a well oiled fighting machine, why should the Russian military be any different?  At any rate they are improving and at a very rapid rate.

Back in October, 2008 the Russian government, under the direction of Defense Minister Anatoliy SerDyukov, began undertaking a series of reforms.  This followed shortly after the end of the Russo-Georgian war.

Key elements of the reforms announced in October 2008 included:

Taken from:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Russian_Federation


reducing the armed forces to a strength of one million by 2012;

The Russian Army cut around a 120,000 soldiers out of their military as a result of these reforms and also focused on hiring more professional soldiers.  They now have a force of roughly 220,000 Officers, 425,000 Professional Soldiers and 300,000 Conscripts.


reducing the number of officers;

Most of the reductions came from the officer corps who used to make up about 33% of the Russian Military, they now make up 15%.  They were too top heavy so they reduced accordingly.


centralising officer training from 65 military schools into 10 'systemic' military training centres;

Preserved institutions but reduced the managerial overhead of these schools, again, it was all about cutting out the bureaucratic waste.


creating a professional NCO corps;

The Russian Army saw an urgent requirement for a professional NCO corps which would serve as a foundation for training and discipline within the military.  NCO`s would take over some posts normally held by officers and would be given greater responsibility.  This change will take 10 to 15 years to fully implement.


reducing the size of the central command;

C&C was a big problem for the Russian Military in the Georgia campaign and the system didn't work that well.  The Russian Military used to be divided into six military districts, they have now reduced this to four which also serve as Joint Commands.  

Going hand in hand with this is the desolving of the Division system in the Russian Army in favour of Brigades, which has greatly reduced the administrative overhead of the Russian Military.  The original four-link command and control system (military district - army - division - regiment) has been replaced by a three-link system (military district - operational command - brigade).


introducing more civilian logistics and auxiliary staff;
elimination of cadre-strength formations;

reorganising the reserves; reorganising the army into a brigade system;
reorganising air forces into an air base system instead of regiments.

Prior to 2008, only about 13% of Russian Units were deemed combat ready, it was decided that the Division structure would be collapsed and a new structure would be designed based on a brigade system.  All the new brigades created would be designated as "permanent-readiness"

Arms and branches 2008 2012 Reduction 
Ground Forces 1,890 172 -90 % 
Air Force 340 180 -48 % 
Navy 240 123 -49 % 
Strategic Rocket Forces 12 8 -33 % 
Space Forces 7 6 -15 % 
Airborne Troops 6 5 -17 % 

Significant streamlining has been achieved by the Russian Military and they have greatly reduced the administrative and bureaucratic overhead of their forces and made themselves far more capable as a result.

Going hand in hand with the above is a Russian program called 'Ratnik' which is essentially the modernization of the Russian military and their version of the 'Future Soldier System'.  



> 'Ratnik' gear will make Russian troops fully-fledged soldiers of the future
> 
> The Russian Army will soon start the mass purchases of the next generation soldier gear "Ratnik". The gear comprises more than 40 components, including firearms, body armour, and optical, communication and navigation devices, as well as life support and power supply systems, and even knee and elbow pads. The gear will make Russian troops the fully-fledged soldiers of the future, capable of carrying out the personally given orders. It also boosts the effectiveness of the units operating in local conflict areas, for example, against terrorists.
> 
> ...


Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_03_19/Ratnik-gear-will-make-Russian-troops-fully-fledged-soldiers-of-the-future-1851/

Western leaders were caught with their pants down when the Russians annexed the Crimea.  Having been used to seeing this:







They were shocked to see this:






What we have is a resurgent Russian military that is far more capable than it was even five years ago and they are becoming increasingly sophisticated and professional.  Considering that they don't even fall under a Division model anymore, our Doctrine is badly outdated and most of our armies are in no shape for a fight with them.  

If anyone thinks NATO can match them pound for pound, you only need to take one look at this article:  





> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11057330/German-fighter-jets-unable-to-fly-and-mechanics-forced-to-borrow-spare-parts-claims-magazine.html


 to realize we aren't as prepared as we think we are.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Sep 2014)

Personally, I was intrigued when I saw the photos/news of the modern Soviet soldier. Are these Russians, they look like us was my thinking.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Sep 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Personally, I was intrigued when I saw the photos/news of the modern Soviet soldier. Are these Russians, they look like us was my thinking.


I think that shows that to a certain extent, research on "better individual soldier goodies" tends to lead to similar conclusions no matter where it's done or who does it.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (8 Sep 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Personally, I was intrigued when I saw the photos/news of the modern Soviet soldier. Are these Russians, they look like us was my thinking.



See page 42 of this magazine http://issuu.com/123art567/docs/arms2_2014_block_cover for an interesting look at the Little Green Men.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Sep 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> If anyone thinks NATO can match them pound for pound, you only need to take one look at this article:   to realize we aren't as prepared as we think we are.



What do you mean with our top of the air defence and anti-armour systems (sans tanks).


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Sep 2014)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> What do you mean with our top of the air defence and anti-armour systems (sans tanks).



What I mean is that we grossly over-estimate our own strength in a peer vs. peer battle with the Russians.  Many of the member NATO states, including Canada, have military's which are grossly underfunded and lack key systems in Air Defence, Anti-Armour and Self-Propelled Artillery.  We also have weapon systems that cannot be easily reproduced in mass quantities.  With the exception of the United States, Great Britain, France and a few other NATO members, no other country in NATO maintains a particularly high level of readiness and the key weakness is that the American military machine is still far away and mobilizing it would take time.  

There is also the fact that Russia still has access to a massive military-industrial base which really hasn't gone anywhere since the end of the Cold War, rather, it has remained dormant.  Part of the reason for the war in the Ukraine is the reliance of the Russians on Ukraine's industrial base.  If Ukraine were to cut ties to Moscow, the Russians would lose access to that base which is critical for them if they are to re-arm their military properly.  It's one of the reasons they are more than willing to use force to re-take the Eastern part of Ukraine.

Yes we have a far larger economic base, yes we have a far larger population but would those advantages be in play right away?


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Sep 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Looking at the pictures from the conflict I see a lot of destroyed armour, including MBT's. Most seem to be taken out by artillery strikes, Grad systems seem to be the main culprit. I suspect NATO would be in a for a rude shock from Russian artillery and it's effects. That artillery would also be well protected by a competent AD and Air Force. My take away is that we are weak on the counter battery systems and I am not sure that tactically we are prepared for such a threat, just coming from a heavy COIN theatre. Any thoughts?



I don't want to derail what has resulted in a really good discussion, and I know nothing about the anti-tank capabilities of the Grad system except that they have some submunition variants, but the pictures of destroyed MBTs and APCs that I have found show a distinct lack of collateral effects.  There are no craters in the road at the point of impact or in the adjacent areas.  People are walking or driving around the destroyed vehicles, which to me would seem to indicate a lack of UXO in the area. Many of the effects of artillery strikes, especially unguided rocket strikes, seem to be lacking in those images. 

The lack of cratering would also seem to argue against mines and IEDs.

To my inexperienced eye those vehicles look as if they have been taken out by more precisely targeted weapons - such as LAWs, RPGs and ATGMs.

Or am I all wet - as is frequently the case?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Sep 2014)

I get the impression that the rockets don't crater as much as the artillery rounds do, possibly due to fuzing or due to the shell having a heavier case resisting the impact forces and allowing it to dig in more, it could be a combination of the two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbMp4VYqAOE


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Sep 2014)

Thanks Colin.


----------



## Lightguns (9 Sep 2014)

Ack, the terminal velocity is lower and the fuse is impact, no much chance to create a sizeable crater.


----------

